Global Perspectives on Developing Professional Learning Communities

Nicholas Sun-Keung Pang, Ting Wang, Nicholas Sun-Keung Pang, Ting Wang

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2018
• Print ISBN: 9780815383307
• eBook ISBN: 9781351206174
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

This book discusses distinctive features of the professional learning community concept, practices and processes across six different education systems in the Asia-Pacific region, namely Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, and the United States. It provides a platform for an exchange of different perspectives and offers alternative possibilities of theorizing professional learning communities across different socio-cultural contexts. Contributors provide valuable insights for policy makers, education researchers and educators in the Asia-Pacific region and elsewhere to deal with critical questions about the improvement of teaching and learning and school improvement in a globalizing world.

This book was originally published as a special issue of the Asia Pacific Journal of Education.

School leadership and professional learning community: case study of two senior high schools in Northeast China

Ting Wang

ABSTRACT

This article presents findings of a qualitative study on school leadership and professional learning community in two high achieving senior high schools in Northeast China. The findings show that teachers participated in school-based communities of professional learning, such as Teaching and Research Groups, Lesson Preparation Groups, and Grade Groups. While the term professional learning community (PLC) was not commonplace, the actual practices of PLC characterized by collective enquiry and collaborative learning became the norm in the two schools. School leaders demonstrated strong instructional leadership and visionary stewardship for school continuous improvement. They played a critical role in developing and communicating a shared vision, shaping a culture of trust, supporting and monitoring collegial learning. Teacher leadership was evident in collaborative teams and expertise leadership was acknowledged. Emotional bonds and shared responsibility in these teams strengthened professionalism. Concerted efforts were made to create aligned structures and processes that support collective enquiry, and to develop a culture of collaborative learning that builds collective capacities. Developing and sustaining the embedded PLC process within a school seems to provide a promising infrastructure for supporting school improvement in the Chinese school context.

Introduction

The study of teacher learning and professional learning communities has exponentially evolved in the last 20 years. This can be attributed in large part to ongoing reforms and changes characterizing educational systems and contexts around the globe (Kooy & Veen, 2012). Various definitions and models of professional learning communities (PLCs) exist (Bolam et al., 2005; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008; Harris, 2014; Hord, 1997; Louis & Marks, 1998). Despite the definitional issues, it has been generally acknowledged that the major goal of a PLC is staff learning together, with the staff’s learning directed to student needs (Hord & Hirsh, 2008). Professional learning communities can mean the entire organization or a dynamic team within the school or district. A PLC is a group of professionals working as a cohesive team to address specific learner needs arising from an analysis of data and evidence (Harris, 2014). PLCs are groups of teachers or school leaders, or even whole schools or networked learning communities (Stoll, 2012).

Accumulative research evidence suggests a positive impact of PLCs on the improvement in teachers’ practices and student achievement (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2010); Lomos, Hofman, & Bosker, 2011; Timperley, Wilson, Barrar, & Fund, 2007; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). The focus on education has been to raise standards, close the gap, and improve student achievement and teaching quality. There is a broad endorsement of PLCs as a desirable infrastructure for supporting school reform and improvement. A PLC appears to offer a significant staff development approach that contributes to school improvement and effectiveness (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005; Hord, 2004; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006).

The concept of PLCs is gaining increasing attention and utilizing the model in schools and systems is spreading rapidly throughout the English-speaking world (Hargreaves, 2007). Despite the increasing popularity of the term “professional learning community” in the American schools, as argued by DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008), the actual practices of a PLC have yet to become the norm in education. In some Asian countries, PLCs are used as the architecture for generating collective capability building and continuous improvements (Hairon & Dimmock, 2012; Harris, Jones, Sharma, & Kannan, 2013). Recent years have seen an increasing research interest in teacher collaborations and PLCs in China (Sargent & Hannum, 2009; Wong, 2010); yet there is limited empirical research on the concept and practice of PLCs and school leadership in Chinese schools. This article intends to illuminate the PLC practices in non-Anglo-American cultural contexts by drawing on selected findings from a larger study on teacher professional learning and school leadership in China (Wang, 2015).

Literature review

The concept of PLCs is derived from notions of learning organization (Senge, 1990) and community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Learning organizations are rapidly changing, complex, and interconnected systems which focus on continuous learning and development rather than reengineering or restructuring (Senge, 1990; Senge et al., 2000). When schools are led as learning organizations and engage in more active organizational learning, they enhance their effectiveness and improve their outcomes with students (Leithwood & Louis, 1998; Marks, Louis, & Printy, 2002). While the term “organisation” evokes images of structure and efficiency, the term “community” suggests a group linked by common interest (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008), and a sense of identity, belonging, and involvement (Sergiovanni, 2005). In a community of practice, teachers share and critically examine their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, learning-oriented, growth-promoting way (Mitchell & Sackney, 2000; Toole & Louis, 2002). Three key dimensions – mutual engagement, shared repertoire, and joint enterprise – underpin an effective community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Schools that operate as strong learning communities have more successful outcomes in performance results and deal with change more effectively (Fullan, 2003; Hargreaves, 2007).

Researchers have substantiated the strong influence of leadership on teaching and learning and school culture (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2008; Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). The meta-analysis indicated that the leadership dimension that is most strongly associated with positive student outcomes is that of promoting and participating in teacher learning and development (Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). The impact of instructional leadership on student learning outcomes is nearly four times that of transformational leadership. Day and Sammons (2013) provided an overview of the growing body of international literature that examines the nature and purposes of school leadership and its relationships to school improvement. While noting particular evidence that instructional leadership has been shown to be important for promoting better academic outcomes for students, it is concluded that instructional leadership and transformational leadership are not mutually exclusive. It presents recent evidence which reveals that a combination of strategies can be most beneficial in ensuring school success. Most leadership effects operate indirectly to promote student outcomes by supporting and enhancing conditions for teaching and learning through direct impacts on teachers and their work.

What types of leadership are needed to develop and sustain the embedded PLC process within a school? Leadership is an important resource for PLCs, both in terms of principal commitment and distributed leadership (Bolam et al., 2005; Mulford & Silins, 2003), which will be reviewed below. Leadership in shaping a new school culture and leading teacher professional learning in Chinese schools will also be discussed.

Principal leadership

The literature suggests the importance of leadership, its influence on school climate and student achievement. Principals are the lynchpins of school change and provide the necessary modelling and support required for a learning school (Hord & Sommers, 2008). A key function of school leadership is to influence the local practices of teaching and learning (Spillane, Halverson, & Diamond, 2004). Leithwood et al. (2004) contended that leadership is second only to teaching among school-related factors in its impact on student learning. Fullan (2007) asserted that “school improvement is an organisational phenomenon, and therefore the principal, as leader, is key” (p. 167).

Research provides strong evidence regarding the critical role of principals in creating the conditions for school improvement and developing PLCs. McLaughlin and Talbert (2006) argued that principals are in a strategic position to promote or inhibit the development of a teacher learning community in their school. DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008) contended that principals create the conditions that help the adults in their schools continually improve upon their collective capacity to ensure all students acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions essential to their success. Halverson (2007) argued that the role of school leaders in stimulating professional community is to create structures for building and fulfilling obligations around issues vital to instructional improvement. Bolam et al. (2005) concluded that the principal is responsible for optimizing resources, promoting individual and collective learning, promoting and sustaining professional learning communities, and leading and managing them. Principal leadership and participation are key to establishing schoolwide PLCs. Successful principals also plan how they will share guidance and leadership with the staff from its inception (Hord, Roussin, & Sommers, 2010).

Distributed leadership

Researchers have argued that accomplishing workplace responsibility depends on the reciprocal actions of a number of people (Gronn, 2003; Harris & Spillane, 2008). A distributed leadership perspective recognizes that there are multiple leaders and leadership activities are widely shared within and between organizations (Harris, 2007; Spillane et al., 2004). Strong learning communities develop when principals relinquish a measure of control and help others participate in building leadership throughout the school (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). Principals work with teachers in joint enquiry and provide opportunities for teachers to take on a range of leadership roles related to bringing about changes in teaching and learning (Bolam et al., 2005).

Despite the fact that the term “distributed leadership” is open to various interpretations, the empirical evidence shows that distributed leadership if properly planned and enacted has the potential to be a positive influence on student engagement and school capacity for improvement (Day et al., 2009; Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Harris, 2014). Within the overall sphere of school leadership, teacher leadership tends to have more significant effects on student achievement than principal leadership (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). This has led to considerable advocacy for the development of greater teacher leadership (Harris, 2001, 2014; Lieberman & Miller, 2004). Spillane (2006) asserted that school leadership requires both formal and informal leaders interacting and collaborating with a focus on learning. Leadership influences organizational and instructional improvement, and distributed leadership can become a sustaining driver for school improvement (Harris & Spillane, 2008). These leadership actions direct and sustain PLCs.

Shaping a school culture of trust and collaborative learning

Another component of leadership in a PLC is shaping a new school culture. One important facet of culture is trust, and it has been acknowledged that trust is the building block of an organization (Wheatley & Kellner-Rogers, 1996), and trust among teachers is a critical element necessary to increase student achievement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Tschannen-Moran, 2004). Hord and Sommers (2008) maintained that trust is the social lubricant that makes organizations run. Without trust, professionals tend to isolate and go their own way. Louis (2008) concurred that trust is a critical element of organizational culture and a necessary ingredient for cooperative action. Trust is associated with higher levels of performance on varied measures, such as student achievement and parent collaboration. Trust is therefore a precondition to develop PLCs and sustain effective institutional change.

Research evidence suggests that leadership of PLCs includes creating a culture that is conducive to learning, ensuring learning at all levels, promoting and modelling enquiry (Bolam et al., 2005). Schools’ capacity to confront challenges entailed in developing professional learning communities depends upon focused efforts, shared accountability, the knowledge and skills of teacher community facilitators, and broad school leadership for change (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). A number of studies have concluded that creating “structures” that support PLCs is important, but it is shaping school “culture” that has the greatest impact on supporting and sustaining PLCs (Louis, 2008). Through PLCs, principals can develop teacher leaders, promoting the notion of teachers as change agents (Wells, 2008). School improvement is more likely to occur when teachers are provided opportunities to establish ownership of reform initiatives and work together to lead development and change. This broadening of the base of leadership implies distributed leadership and notions of social cohesion and trust and re-culturing of schools in order to successfully implement professional learning communities (Day & Sammons, 2013; Dimmock, 2012; Fullan, 2001). Shaping a culture of trust and collaborative learning usually does not happen overnight. PLCs evolve from collective capacity building and the ongoing committed work of teachers and principals.

Leading teacher professional learning in Chinese schools

Some researchers argued that China has a long history since the 1950s of enhancing teachers’ professional competency and teaching skills through collaboration in school-based contexts (Paine & Fang, 2006; Wong, 2010). Bush and Qiang (2000) contended that the diversity and complexity of contemporary Chinese culture is reflected in four aspects in the Chinese education system: traditional, socialist, enterprise, and patriarchal cultures. Leadership practices have been influenced by different elements of culture and forces. An initial review of principal leadership in China (1998–2008) emphasized the critical role of principals in leading educational quality, school development, and reforms (Walker, Hu, & Qian, 2012). Walker et al. (2012) argued that Western leadership theories such as curriculum leadership, instructional leadership, shared leadership, distributed leadership tended to be generally presented without any explicit contextualization and largely ignored the questions of their relevance and application to Chinese schools.

Other researchers argued that instructional leadership is a core aspect of principal leadership in China (Chen, 2011; Zhao, 2012). Some studies focused on identifying principal practices related to instructional improvement. For example, data analysis of 138 interviews with principals and teachers in two cities of South China revealed that principals as instructional leaders established the norms and school conditions that led to the improvement in teaching and student achievements. They facilitated teacher professional development, empowerment, and delegation (Zhao, 2012). In a quantitative study conducted in seven regions of China (Chen, 2011), most principals encouraged teachers to engage in education research and new initiatives, observed classes and provided feedback on improvement. However, some principals spent most of their time on school administration rather than on leading curriculum development and supervising teaching. Another quantitative study conducted in seven schools in Guangdong Province shows similar results (Qin & Huang, 2012). The findings revealed that teachers were satisfied with strong support for new teach...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Citation Information
• Notes on Contributors
• Introduction: Professional learning communities: research and practices across six educational systems in the Asia-Pacific region
• 1 School leadership and professional learning community: case study of two senior high schools in Northeast China
• 2 Investigating the development of professional learning communities: compare schools in Shanghai and Southwest China
• 3 Educational reforms and the practices of professional learning community in Hong Kong primary schools
• 4 Factors that develop effective professional learning communities in Taiwan
• 5 The emerging landscape of school-based professional learning communities in South Korean schools
• 6 Facilitation for professional learning community conversations in Singapore
• 7 Professional learning community process in the United States: conceptualization of the process and district support for schools
• Index