Responsive leadership within professional learning networks for sustainable professional learning

ABSTRACT

After outlining the central role of leadership for individual and interorganisational learning in sustainable Professional Learning Networks (PLN), this article describes Austria’s professional learning environment and professional learning (PL) within this changing field. In order to meet urgent institutional requests for sustainable PL, new organisational responses are needed. The authors highlight the implications of the notion of responsiveness, framing it as resulting from interorganisational practices such as PLNs and as ensuring sustainable organisational leadership capabilities within PLNs. After describing the two levels of the study (meso and micro), the findings, which are based on two case studies in Austrian schools, show that the role played by PLNs in challenging professional learning environments is blurry. The discussion shows that these case studies have extended the single-level approach deployed in previous studies. The article concludes by highlighting the specific leadership role that is required within PLNs in order to establish responsiveness, change routines and thus enhance professional learning.

KEYWORDS:

• Professional Learning Network (PLN)
• Professional Learning (PL)
• Leadership Styles
• Responsiveness
• Sustainability
• Austrian Case Study

1. Introduction

It seems like common sense: only school leaders who are equipped to handle a complex, rapidly changing environment can implement deep, lasting reforms that lead to sustained improvements in student achievement (Fullan 2002). Current accelerated levels of social change are fundamentally determining the character of modern (school) life. Such accelerated social change is reflected in cultural knowledge and social institutions, rendering personal and professional relationships fluid and problematic (Rosa 2015). Against this backdrop, the requirement for environmental, social and economic sustainability (cf. UN 2015), and for sustainabile (educational) change and school leadership practices (Prenger et al. 2018), is all the more relevant.

To ensure sustainability within education, a certain style of leadership is required. The literature highlights two main concepts: ‘transformational leadership’, which focuses on the professionalisation of teachers, and ‘pedagogical/instructional leadership’, which takes into account the institutional challenges faced by organisations. Research to date has not been able to determine which role and specific characteristics of leadership enable teachers’ (professional) learning to go beyond immediate student outcomes (e.g. Sebastian et al. 2017). On the contrary, most of the literature focuses on professional development (PD), which is not sufficient to meet schools’ increasingly urgent needs (Timperley 2011) or alter the attitudes and behaviours of school members (Easton 2008).

In this paper we focus upon professional learning (PL), rather than professional development (PD) (cf. Jones and O’Brien 2014, O’Brien and Jones 2014) in the Austrian context. We argue that responsive leadership on the part of school leaders, but also of teachers, is crucial not only for sustainable PL but also for responsive interorganisational learning in PLNs, defined as, ‘any group that engages in collaborative learning with others outside of their everyday community of practice’ (Brown and Poortman 2018, p. 1) at an inter-school level. Underpinning this argument, we aim to provide evidence about the style of leadership needed to encourage PL, promote sustainable organisational structures and ensure that the benefits to schools of engaging in PLN activities are maximised (cf. Brown and Flood 2019).

There are three detailed research questions:

• Who takes which role in relation to PL and PLNs in Austria?

• What kind of leadership style and understanding of PL do (selected) school leaders have in Austria?

• How do school leaders respond to build a sustainable environment for PLNs?

We aim to take a closer look at these questions focusing on the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal, a new school network in Austria, which promotes new types of PD via an understanding of PL (Roessler and Westfall-Greiter 2018). Our findings have implications for the management of schools in future, and for the management initiatives required to enable school leaders to meet the challenge of sustainable leadership in the context of the crucial organisational capability of responsiveness (Gaertner et al. 2017).

2. Institutional background

In Austria, professional teacher education or in-service training for teachers is largely centrally located at University Colleges for Teacher Education (UCTEs). As these institutions are only partly autonomous, the Ministry of Education sets priorities regarding the content of teacher training. The school authority of each federal state also has an influence on the content of (interschool) in-service training and is responsible for the development of teachers and head teachers, working closely with the UCTEs. However, the courses each teacher chooses largely depend on personal interests (Hartmann and Schratz 2010). Consequently in Austria, responsibility for developing professional competence is left to the teachers themselves. It is only recently that developments at a national level have held school leaders accountable for the PD of their teachers. As latest studies (see European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice 2018) show, there is a lack of systematic PD or career guidance for Austrian teachers.

Austrian schools collaborate at different levels with varying degrees of intensity. For example, school leaders in each federal state participate in meetings organised by the regional school authority (at least) once a year. However, regional meetings can also happen more frequently, e.g. once every six to eight weeks, and some schools collaborate within their region in order to exchange and develop knowledge and good practice. More formal networks with frequent exchanges occur in larger policy projects such as Modellregion Bildung Zillertal, which builds on the New Secondary School Reform (NMS-Reform). This reform was launched in 2008 as a pilot project and in 2012 became a mandatory set of national reforms to avoid streaming pupils by ability at the age of 10. This was initially intended to integrate Neue Mittelschule (NMS – middle school/lower secondary) and Allgemeinbildende höhere Schule (AHS – grammar schools with or without lower secondary classes).

Full implementation of the reform would have meant that all Austrian students at lower secondary level remained in the same type of school until the age of 14. However, the move towards fully comprehensive schooling at lower secondary level turned out not to be politically feasible. Nevertheless, the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal is in a unique situation in that NMS has been the only type of lower secondary school provision in the region since 2014/15. All AHS schools are located outside of the Zillertal valley. NMS aims to provide better opportunities to students by applying new pedagogical approaches involving enhanced learning and reinforced teacher collaboration (Nusche et al. 2016). In addition, the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal builds upon regional networks in the form of PLNs, which have developed out of bottom-up strategies organised by teachers themselves. In total, there are three different PLN groups with different subject specialisations. Teachers play a vital part in this format, developing a vision of teacher professionalism, as suggested in the recommendations of the OECD review team from 2016:

Building a new conception of the teaching profession that promotes a vision of school as professional learning communities and teachers that work together as peers to improve teaching and learning for all students would help Austria to make the most efficient use of its teaching workforce. (ibid., p. 176)

The Modellregion Bildung Zillertal is based on the premise that the best possible education is not only the task of individual schools, but must go further through enhanced networking of all those involved in the education of the region’s students. Accordingly, formal networks such as the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal need adequate structures such as PLNs as well as specific leadership practices that enable PL with the aim of establishing common reference points at both formal and informal level. Only in this way can the best possible education for all students in the region be ensured. The introduction of PLNs in Austria within the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal thus signifies a pragmatic change in relation to continuing professional development, education and training. Whereas previously, training participants were primarily expected to behave in a passive and receptive manner, in PLNs the focal point is formats in which participants use practical examples of their own practice, acting as proactive agents of their own learning. Hence we suggest that traditional continuing education programmes must become more responsive to participant need. By analysing the Modellregion Bildung Zilllertal, we are able to examine not only the stakeholders involved with different roles in PLNs, but also the leadership styles of school leaders and the roles of teachers with regard to PL at different levels. How are PL and leadership exercised (or not) in inter-organisational practices? Which factors might facilitate responsiveness, change routines and enhance structures within PLNs?

3. Theoretical framework

3.1 School development, roles and leadership practices

Instructional leadership has been identified merely as the first step in increasing student learning (cf. Robinson et al. 2008). To ensure ‘deeper learning’ (Fullan et al. 2017) on the part of students and teachers, teachers’ capacities must be mobilised. Thus, as outlined by Fullan (2002, p. 17), ‘we need leaders who can create a fundamental transformation in the learning cultures of schools and of the teaching profession itself’. A recent study of teacher identity reveals that teachers perceive themselves as professionals, as subjects who have undergone or are undergoing a process of professionalisation (cf. Noonan 2018). Teacher collaboration, e.g. in PLNs, can contribute to the transformation of teachers’ perception of their role as well as to the effectiveness of students’ learning when compared with sustained PD efforts in teachers (Prenger et al. 2018).

For many years, school development has focused upon the individual (school leader or teacher) or the individual school (Mulford 2003). In the 1980s, the focus was on single schools and their lessons, with restricted freedom for school leaders. However, in the past decade there has been a shift from intra-school to inter-school developments with a more systematic concept of the single school. Concomitant with this shift is an effort to pass on to teachers the responsibility for the quality of teaching and its outcomes – without providing the broad structural changes required to acquire some level of collective competence, as will be discussed later. More recent approaches are increasingly pursuing whole eco-system approaches (e.g. Scharmer and Kaufer 2013) or network strategies (e.g. Prenger et al. 2018) to connect individual schools and create new potential for interorganisational collaboration.

Nevertheless, as outlined in the adapted table below, in the last 30 years the role of school leaders in Austria has undergone (and is still undergoing) a number of changes, including new requirements, roles and skills, and the need to tackle new challenges regarding school development and leadership practice (Wiesner et al. 2015). This change is comparable with the Anglo-American system (e.g. Harris and Chrispeels 2006).

Table 1 is based on Scharmer’s and Kaufer’s (Scharmer and Kaufer 2013) approach to economic evolution and applies a linear model of progress expressed in terms of information technology, moving from ‘1.0ʹ, signifying old mechanisms and software (e.g. MS-DOS), to ‘4.0ʹ, state-of-the-art coordination across society. Achievement of the end phase is facilitated by the development of eco-system awareness, which in turn generates a co-creative economy across societal sub-systems.

Table 1. Confluence model of school leadership research in Austria (Wiesner et al. 2015, p. 67, Scharmer and Kaufer 2013, p. 196; adapted by the authors)

Timeline: Trend	Leading Paradigm	Main Concept	Headship Approach	Main Concept of Learner	Definition of Relations
Since 1980 1.0	quality improvement and quality management	individual projects	authority-and input-centred approach, optimizer	recipient	hierarchical, controlling
Since 1992 2.0	effectiveness, efficiency	data-based findings, empirical testing	expert-centred approach, output orientation	producer	transactional
Since 2002 3.0	intervention, development	empowerment, changing patterns	design-centred approach, student-centred, enabler	respondent	dialogic, horizontal
Since 2008 4.0	value and meaning orientation, saluto-genesis	sustainability; resilience orientation; co-creation; pre-sensing	awareness-based collective action approach; benefactor	co-respon-dent	resonant; shared ownership within all actors

New connections between schools can empower regional PD and serve to help organisations respond to new challenges more quickly, becoming agile and flexible (Roessler and Schratz 2018). However, professionalisation processes e.g. working in PLNs, are increasingly linked to other people, to the profession itself and to the organisations involved. Hence, such settings are not conflict-free. Firstly, there is great potential for antithetical or paradoxical institutional logic (cf. 1.0–4.0 paradigms) within the organisations and their actors. Secondly, varying forms of leadership can occur, reflecting the embryonic nature of school leaders’ newly acquired autonomy for the learning of their teachers.

3.2 Sustainable PL: what it means and what it needs

The term PL is now becoming more prevalent in its usage, whereas earlier political documentation and educational training programmes referred to PD. This shift in terminology indicates new ways of professional thinking and working (Stevenson 2019). However, we argue that there is very little theoretical description of the kind of learning involved considered with PL, with the exception of the identification of characteristics such as ‘broad’ and ‘deep’. Consequently, the literature lacks a clear and definitive description of which learning processes teachers and school leaders are undergoing in PD and PL.

Although PD is essential for teacher and student learning, the return on investment appears disappointingly low, as PD has little apparent impact on teaching quality (Evans 2019). Easton (2008) emphasises that if schools want to be able to meet their increasingly urgent needs, teachers will have to become active learners. Different qualities of PL (as opposed to PD) can be summarised, according to Timperley (2011), as follows:

PL is directly linked to the real world of teaching and learning and leads to improvements in pupil learning and well-being;

PL can be applied both to student work and to teacher practice;

PL leads to engagement on the part of the whole school and its networks and partners;

PL has no formal end;

PL includes the expertise of staff members, is content-rich and collaborative, requires quality, uses local talent, slows the pace of schooling and is school-based.

Although this description provides a useful framework for defining the differences in the transformation from receiving education to becoming an active learner, there remains no definitive definition of PL; hence the concept remains unclear. Which definition of PL focuses not only upon on the interconnectedness of teaching and learning, but also of teachers and learners? An initial answer is offered by Biesta, who asserts that the language of learning (cf. ‘learnification’), unlike education, makes it nearly impossible to ask crucial educational questions about content, purpose and relationships (Biesta 2012a). Moreover, he suggests that ‘the language of learning has eroded a meaningful understanding of teaching and the teacher’ (ibid., p. 36).

Unfortunately, concepts of learning that take into account the interrelation and responsiveness of teaching and learning as well as teachers and learners are less popular. However, theories that take a phenomenological view of learning as experience (cf. Meyer-Drawe 2013) do consider this interconnectedness alongside the idea that teachers themselves have to become learners. This reinforces the idea that teaching is central to the learning of all. When experiencing learning, learners are shaped by their own experiences. Learning occurs when expectations based on habits of seeing and acting are thwarted. Hence, confronted with the questionability of previous knowledge, learners become aware of those preconceptions. Furthermore, in the context of subsequent reflection, learners and teachers are able and permitted to confront not only their questionable historical knowledge, but also their own identity as a learner (and teacher) (Agostini 2016). The question is how to use teaching as a tool to respond to the (unknown) ‘needs of the learners they serve’ (Easton 2008, p. 755). Since teachers are also learners, they need to be challenged in order to become teaching and learning professionals. Thus, PL also requires leadership.

Learning as experience, we argue, avoids the risk of forgetting educational components such as purpose, content and relationship, as feared by Biesta (2012a). Professionalisation starts from the formation and transformation of the person. Learning (as experience) is professional when it transforms the individual into a professional. This creates a person who is, as Biesta (2012a, p. 8) suggests, ‘educationally wise’, is able to make educational judgements and to learn from the virtuosity of other teachers. All of these conditions are foreseen in PLNs. PLNs are structured in such a way that learners learn from peers, in pursuit of a particular purpose. In engaging in professional dialogue, teachers learn to articulate their position, their priorities and values. Furthermore, they acquire the tools to be able to create and justify their own school’s approach. PLNs enable teachers to learn from each other, developing their practice by connecting with ideas and innovations from outside their own school environment.

As a result, PL should not end with individual learners. To be sustainable, individual interest groups within the organisation should be linked (Osmond-Johnson et al. 2019). PLN members take common ideas and new methods back to their organisations and apply them there, creating sustainability. Therefore, the dissemination of external ideas to intra-organisational structures comes with pre-existing institutional logics, as outlined in Table 1 (see 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0). At this point, school leadership plays a crucial part, creating a responsive professional environment, which is crucial in enhancing teachers’ PL.

3.3 Responsive view of PL and leadership styles

The starting point for the responsive view of learning and teaching is Waldenfels' paradigm (2006); how one, by acting creatively, experiences the ‘alien’ or the unfamiliar ‘other’. Responsivity is also fruitful in the context of leadership: networks involving different stakeholders and schools place school leaders in powerful positions with regard to the (creative) consideration of different requests, new ideas or innovative institutional demands. In answering or acting upon these, they shape an environment both for their students and for their teachers, but also take into account the demands of a wider range of stakeholders. In line with the aim of PL, this mechanism is understood as a responsive act and described in this paper with the (phenomenological) word ‘responsiveness’. Responsiveness is thus defined as a ‘(creative) answer to the claim of the others’ (Waldenfels 2007, p. 12–13), connecting teaching to learning and vice versa, but also as an ‘act of sensing […], seizing opportunities and reconfiguring organisational resources and routines’ (Gaertner et al. 2017, p. 8).

While Waldenfels' definition represents a more (individual) leadership-orientated understanding of responsiveness, the advanced organisational approach also brings in dimensions of legitimacy and responsibility (Ortmann 2010). The way organisations or organisational leaders respond creatively to external or internal institutional changes, for example, affects the legitimacy of their work, but also renders them responsible for the development of the organisation and its people. Gaertner et al. (2017, p. 16) define responsiveness as,

the capability that ensures timely reconfigurations of value systems and that is established among organizational actors from different levels, i.e. organization, network, and cluster.

Gaertner et al. (2017, p. 16) add that responsiveness ‘not only aims at responding to change, but at influencing change in the making.’ They argue, that responsiveness highlights

the central role of interorganizational practices that are geared not only towards reconfiguring operative routines, but also towards taking responsibility and gaining legitimacy (ibid., p. 9).

By stressing the active aspect of response, this definition highlights the notion of strategic action. Gaertner et al. (2017) also explain the process of responsiveness in different phases: It starts with a process of sensing, followed by a certain way of responding. Both of these actions influence change and therefore responsibility is assumed for these actions. The final element is gaining legitimacy and in this case, the action that was taken actually leads to more legitimacy.

Just as these phases can be structured for PL, they may also describe the actions of school leaders. School culture and institutional rationale emerge as creative answers to the unknown. The following empirical study sheds light on the responsiveness of school leaders in two schools in Austria when addressing the new formats of PL and PLNs.

4. Research design and data

Our research is divided into three parts. To capture the interactivity between different levels, the study was conducted at the meso-level (region) and the micro-level (school) of the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal in Austria. As PLNs are part of the meso-level structure and leadership operates within schools, the two levels have been combined to create a third level (meso-micro level), upon which they are mutually dependent. One main questions focuses on each of the three levels of the study:

1. Meso-level: Who takes which role in relation to PL and PLNs in Austria?

2. Micro-level: What kind of leadership style and understanding of PL do (selected) facilitators and school leaders have in Austria?

3. Meso-micro level: How do school leaders respond to build a sustainable environment for PLNs?

4.1 Data collection and respondents

All data were collected within the Austrian project Modellregion Bildung Zillertal. As all research questions were actor- and/or structure-centred, we conducted qualitative, small-scale, ethnographic research, including semi-structured expert interviews and group discussions.

Data collection for the meso-level involved the analysis of the development process of the PLNs, as well as semi-structured expert interviews and group discussions. The group discussion with all school leaders from within the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal (n = 7) took place in October 2018, as did the interview with the local school inspector (n = 1). The interviews with PLN facilitators (n = 2) and members (n = 8) were conducted in spring 2018.

At the micro-level, all school leaders (n = 7) were also asked to complete an evaluation of their own school's capacity to improve, in the form of a qualitative questionnaire.

Two school principals (male and female) were selected as the basis for an in-depth case study for this paper. This data and statements from PLN participants were used to trace the process of responsiveness at meso-micro level. The two principals had different leadership experience. In the Austrian context, the schools were small (School A) and medium-sized (School B) respectively. Interviews with facilitators were also analysed at the micro-level in order to gain a holistic understanding of leadership.

The interviewees represent a convenience sample (Walliman and Buckler 2008), since they were all involved in regional PD and PL strategies at the time. However, they also constitute a purposive sample (Jupp 2006), since the school leaders interviewed were those who paid particular attention to the PD or PL of their staff. The interview guidelines comprised four sets of questions, totalling 12 questions in all, based on Gaertner’s et al.’s adapted model of responsive leadership (2017).

Due to sample size, it was not possible to guarantee complete anonymisation for the inspector. Hence, mindful of academic ethical principles, this issue was discussed with the inspector and verbal permission was granted to use passages from the interview.

4.2 Data analysis strategy

For this research, all interviews and group discussions were audio-recorded and then (partly) transcribed. The transcripts for the meso-level analysis were read through iteratively by both authors (separately and then jointly) and then analysed. The interviews and group discussions were explored using a deductive-inductive content analysis based upon categories (Mayring 2010). Codes were based on the following categories from the interview guidelines: participants involved; general perception of PLN; understanding of the concept of learners; role in supporting PLN. For the meso-micro level research, in particular with regard to the concept of responsiveness, a set of codes – derived from the organisational model discussed above – were used: sensing, responding, influencing change and assuming responsibility. These codes allowed the authors to categorise findings according to the key concepts of responsiveness and to gather information on the understanding of leadership (cf. assuming responsibility).

5. Results

5.1 Meso-level: role and perspectives of different participants with respect to PL and PLNs

Starting with the meso-level, the key PL participants in the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal are: school employees (teachers as participants in the PLN, and leaders); the school authority; and representatives of the UCTE. These parties are also central to PD in Austria. However, they represent different perspectives on PL and PLNs, which will be described as follows:

Perspective of the schools (teachers, who were PLN participants): The teachers interviewed said they usually had a choice of courses on specific topics. Because the PLNs were intended to be a bottom-up initiative by the teachers from the region, the teachers had more freedom in choosing discussion topics. This resulted in a collective process with the other teachers, negotiating the topics they wanted to discuss in detail. In doing so, they were guided by topics that were already being covered through traditional, regional, in-service training courses.

‘As our PLN was formed bottom-up – we made sure our topics were linked to the in-service training topics within our region.’ (PLNM_#3)

Teachers also made clear that they derived greater benefit from learning within PLNs, as they saw themselves more as professionals within this context than when they were engaged in traditional in-service programmes. All participants used examples from their own lessons as starting points for common goals. The teachers chose and discussed topics that were related to themes of instructional change in the context of the New Secondary School Reform in Austria (e.g. differentiation and assessment methods). They stated that time for reflection gave them a deeper understanding of their practice and enabled them to identify patterns in their teaching. As PLN formats were new, teachers reported being unsure if they would be credited as formal PD. One interviewee emphasised that support from school leadership was helpful in this regard.

‘As teachers, we do have to attend certain numbers of PD hours each year – my school leader allows me to count my PLN hours as PD hours, too – this is really supportive and creates a win-win situation for everyone.’ (PLNM_#2)

Perspective of the schools (school leaders): During the group discussion, the principals initially indicated that they had little or no influence on what UCTE offered, and that teachers were more or less free to choose which courses they wanted. They stated that new formats had been created in recent years whereby certain in-service training courses could be held within schools; however, many schools were too small to generate enough participants. It would therefore be advantageous, as is practised in the model region, to offer courses that are offered across schools (i.e. to several schools). It would be important, however, for the topics to be aligned with individual schools' areas for development, which is in turn an argument for networked planning and collaboration among school leaders in the region. When thinking about the PLN format and PL concept, the principals noticed improved morale on the part of their staff, due to the responses of colleagues who had participated in PLNs. The school leaders who were interviewed as supporters of PLNs additionally described their role as bridging the meso- and micro-levels. From the perspective of school leaders, the PLN is a ‘missing link between in-service training and [the] instructional development’ (SL_#2) of their faculty members. Moreover, school leaders acknowledged that PLN members ‘reach a depth of knowledge’ that also leads to a new ‘professional language, which is then used in the staff room’ (SL_#3). They also mentioned that participating in a PLN ‘changed the social standing of the PLN members’ among the faculty. As many of the PLN participants were early career teachers (0 to 3 years), this was a result the leaders had not expected.

School authority: As a responsible inspector (Ins), the interviewee had direct influence on regional school improvement plans in Austria. Generating strategies and topics for the regional development plan, which is also the basis for the development plans of all school leaders within the region, Ins had direct influence on the in-service training landscape. From the beginning of the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal, Ins worked closely with the project steering group, and especially with the member responsible for coordinating and setting up in-service training with the UCTE. From the interview, it was clear that Ins coordinated national, federal and local goals, which was challenging and required a lot of work. Ins’s understanding of learners varied between 1.0 (recipient) and 2.0 (producer). As Ins’s role was directly superior to that of school leader in the region, Ins’s opinion was important and created legitimacy. Asked what role Ins thinks leaders have to play when it comes to responsiveness towards PLNs within schools, Ins answers:

‘PLN work is first and foremost professionalisation of teachers and therefore the responsibilities lie with teachers and facilitators and not so much with school leaders.’ (Ins_#1)

UCTE: The UCTE was represented in the context of the model region by the facilitators. As the PLNs were bottom-up initiatives requiring unplanned intervention from teachers in the region, the current UTCE structures such as in-service training within the school or inter-school in-service training seem inappropriate. Existing structures require at least 15 participants, pre-defined content and have no enquiry-based approach. Furthermore, they are planned to have a long lead-time, which significantly limits teachers' flexibility or ability to respond in the short-term to local needs. Although the facilitators supported the new format, bureaucratic obstacles hinder the ongoing process. This leads to uncertainties for the facilitators as well as for PLN members:

‘We really would like to continue our PLN work with our facilitator, but as he has an annual contract it isn’t certain if he will lead our group next year, too.’ (PLNM_#3)

In the context of PL, the facilitators’ role in the PLN sessions was to focus upon teachers and their students’ learning. This approach was supported by brief input from the facilitator and collective discussion of specific teaching examples by the participants. In the recurring sessions (about 4 per year), iterative cycles allowed in-depth discussions on topics chosen by the participants themselves.

5.2 Micro level: leadership styles and understanding of PL

First, it is important to mention that none of the facilitators interviewed had any experience with leading a PLN before they commenced this role:

‘Supporting PLNs is not always easy for me – at some points they expect me to be an expert in certain topics, which I’m not. I try to prepare a short introduction to the topic of the day, but I have the feeling that I’m sometimes not well trained enough.’ (F_#2)

Against this background, the two facilitators also indicated that they were not very aware of leadership styles, but saw themselves more as part of the group and thus as learners as well. The concepts of learners put forward by the facilitators enabled us to identify two different perspectives on learning. While one of the facilitators argued that the members of the PLN were still expecting to get input and therefore were quite passive in their attitude, the other facilitator explained that the situation differed in each meeting of the PLN; therefore, the interviewee adopted a flexible strategy:

‘I’m quite sensitive within my role – I try to respond to the needs of the members. We do more or less co-create our roles.’ (F_#1)

With regard to the role played by facilitators in promoting PLN work or supporting its sustainable impact, the interviewee said:

‘PLN members bring their struggles with colleagues into our PLN – if you ask me, it is not their job to enhance PL among the faculty, they can play a role within staff development, but the responsibility for setting up structures or shaping learning environments at school level – this is part of the school leader’s job.’ (F_#2)

Nevertheless, they also underlined that they did not really think about their role within school improvement processes at an individual school level.

In the course of the qualitative questionnaire, we asked school leaders - under the heading ‘professionalisation of the team and staff development’ - what their leadership actions looked like in terms of professionalisation. The answers varied. Most of the principals stated that they supported professionalisation, by e.g. ‘being generous in granting the participation of in-service training’ (SL_#3) or ‘pointing out in-service training courses’ (SL_#6). Only two principals (SL_#1; SL_#7) stated that they regularly talked to individual teachers about their professionalisation process. The analysis of the questionnaire also showed that the principals saw the responsibility for PL as lying primarily with the teachers themselves. If findings from in-service training were embedded in any way, it was in the form of feedback by teachers at conferences (SL_#5). We also addressed the principals’ understanding of leadership in the questionnaire, finding that only some principals involved teachers or specific individuals with extended roles in decision-making (SL_#4; SL_#6; SL_#7). In terms of systematic planning of PD, only one school (SL_#7) engaged in dialogue between school leaders and teacher leaders.

With regard to PLNs, leaders stated that they had not had any contact with the facilitators and had not had any influence on the topics discussed. Nevertheless, all respondents indicated that they were very supportive of their staff’s participation in the PLNs.

‘If a colleague signed up for a course, she could be sure I would approve that participation.’ (SL_#5)

5.3 Meso-micro level: responsive sustainable environment for PL

We questioned two school leaders further about their role in sustaining the effects of the PLNs. As this is the focus of the two case studies, we will continue with these results. To give a better overview of the results at the meso-micro level, the comparative aspects are presented in Table 2 and Table 3.

Table 2. Data collection process Modellregion Bildung Zillertal.

Level	Method	Who	n
Meso
March – October 2018	- Group discussion - Expert interviews	- School leaders (SL_#) - Participants of the PLN (PLNM_#) - UCTE facilitator (F_#) - School authority (inspector) (Ins_#)	7 8 2 1
Meso-Micro
October 2018 – May 2019	- In-depth case study - Expert interviews	- School leaders School A – small school students School B – middle-size school students Participants of the PLN (PLNM_#)	2 >200 <200 > 500 8
Micro
March 2018 – May 2019	- Self-evaluation of school (questionnaire) - Expert interviews	- School leaders - UCTE facilitators (F_#)	7 2

Table 3. Examples of the dimensions of responsiveness of two school leaders

Dimensions of Responsiveness	School A	School B
Sensing	‘Professionalisation is key to school improvement. Therefore, I collect feedback from my staff and make sure I know their needs.’	‘From the beginning of being a school leader, I tried to pay a lot of attention to the professionalisation of my staff. For example, I try to observe as many lessons as possible and also set up clear goals for our school-wide instructional development.’
Responding	‘From my perspective it is really important as school leader to know the system. You have to know the different “offers” with regard to professionalisation. You have to know how to work within the system and you also have to have a sensitivity for which professionalisation path would be best for different staff.’	‘For me as a school leader it is clear that professionalisation is the key to successful school development. Therefore, I encouraged as many members of my faculty as I could to engage in PLNs.’
Influencing change	‘I believe strongly in bottom-up initiatives. You have to give people time. Change is a slow process and not everyone is willing to change at the same rate, sometimes it takes 20 years to create ultural change.’	‘Feedback is a crucial part of my leadership. I try to create space and time slots for getting feedback on the professional development my teachers gained from participating in a PLN or in-service training. We sit together and also think about how to link these new findings with our improvement plans.’
Assuming responsibility	3.0; dialogical and enabling	3.0 and 4.0 enabling but also co-creating

The table demonstrates that both school leaders supported PL or PD initiatives (in German the term used is ‘Personalentwicklung’, which is best translated as ‘staff development’) among their faculty. However, while school leader A delegated responsibility to teachers, school leader B created new (sustainable) structures within the organisation. B initiated new meeting structures, which provided space for teachers to share their new ideas with colleagues. B also invited PLN members for regular feedback meetings and involved them in further school improvement initiatives. School leader A is also open to new ideas, but has not yet set up structures for knowledge-brokering in the school. Both approaches were discussed in the group discussions with teachers in these schools. Whilst teachers in school A stated that they were well-informed and that the school leader gave them freedom to develop, teachers in School B indicated that they were often given responsibility for putting new processes in place. These teachers also reported that the reflective discussions with their school leader helped them to situate the learning from the PLN within a larger developmental picture (PLNM_#4). This delegation of responsibility and opportunities for co-creation also resulted in a high degree of knowledge on the part of teachers, and confirmed their potential to support and shape change within the school.

6. Discussion

6.1 School development and leading roles

As outlined in the findings, in Austria the direction of school development depends heavily on the legitimacy granted to each individual in the field. As the meso-level analysis showed, different individuals with varying degrees of influence play a role in the PD landscape in Austria. While UCTE takes the leading role in terms of offering and setting thematic foci, the school inspectorate has the ability to request thematic foci at the regional level. School leaders can demand (with a longer lead-time) in-school training on specific topics. Teachers have the least influence on the programme being offered. The bottom-up PLNs initiative in the model region provided teachers with a way to take responsibility for their PL. However, such an initiative is only possible within a project such as the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal. Current structures do not yet allow for co-creation (4.0), as in the case of PLNs.

Additionally, school leaders in Austria do not officially have the legitimacy to decide which PD or PL activities their teachers should undertake. Nevertheless, the way school leaders respond to external and internal institutional change affects the legitimacy of their work, thus making them responsible for the development of the organisation and the PL of their teachers. Whether they take on such responsibility, gain legitimacy and therefore (deeply) influence inter-organisational professionalisation processes depends on their individual approaches to leadership.

6.2 Sustainable PL: how it is lived

Compared to Timperley (2011) and Easton’s (2008) suggestions about PL (as opposed to PD), the findings relating to PLNs are directly linked to the real world of teaching and learning and therefore affect student work and teacher practice. All of the participants used their own experiences and lessons as starting points for common goals. Within these inter-school exchanges, teachers encountered new perspectives on their own approaches to teaching. Hence, they assessed their own prior experience and became aware of their habits of seeing learning and acting as teachers (Meyer-Drawe 2013, Agostini 2016). PLN members in the Austrian region therefore achieved PL in the form of learning as experience, and were transformed into professionals who are able to improve their practice. However, change in practice is not automatically improvement – teachers also have to be able to identify why such change represents an improvement and why it is required. In doing so, teachers within PLNs also have to be able to engage with the question of what is educationally desirable, as required by Biesta (2012a, p. 12).

What is less clear is how to ensure that the benefits of engaging in PLN activities are both maximised and sustainable for schools (Osmond-Johnson et al. 2018). As already outlined, research shows that to have a sustainable impact, PLN practices must start with common goals. Learning networks, situated at a regional level as in our study, could be a strong driving force for maximised local- and system-level change. However, from a regional perspective, it is not important merely to promote relevant practices across all schools; staff must also be empowered at all levels (Chapman and Muijs 2014).

Involving all stakeholders in professionalisation processes and developing synergistic mechanisms empowers individuals and has a sustainable effect on the meso- and micro-levels (Hubers and Poortman 2018). That said, involving different stakeholders, who support different rationales, at different levels can also lead to obstacles, as revealed within our findings. Therefore, it is not just necessary to develop common regional goals but also to link these goals with individual goals within areas of learning. Crucial to this process is the contribution of school leaders, who have the ability to ensure that PLNs are more than just a structure (Easton 2008).

6.3 Responsive leadership styles

Having said this, sensing (e.g. via lesson studies, classroom walkthroughs or other systematic review processes) is required by school leaders when it comes to instructional development; they must also set common improvement goals at school level (Easton 2008). Both of the school leaders in our Austrian cases paid extra attention to this. Based on our findings, we also recognised that the two school leaders had different response strategies and utilised different leadership approaches (see Table 3). Research showed that learning-centred approaches such as instructional leadership, and transformational leadership styles, are best suited to promoting PL (see also Vanblaere and Devos 2016, Ronen 2019). Transformational leadership, which pays special attention to influencing change, particularly helps schools to respond to new demands and to support the shift from PD to PL.

Vanblaere and Devos (2016, p. 33) note that ‘teachers’ perceptions of transformational leadership was associated with participation in reflective dialogue and the presence of collective responsibility’. However, our findings for the Austrian context show that for teachers who participated in PLNs, a reflective dialogue with their school leaders was supportive and strengthened their PL. Hence, the act of responsiveness as Ortmann (2016) describes, activates responsibility for the actions and goals of an organisation. Involving teachers, as school leader B did, supported a shared sense of ownership and therefore sustainable leadership (Hubers and Poortman 2018, Brodie 2019) with regard to the improvement goals of the school. The PL and PD of their teachers were directly linked to these goals and therefore the teachers felt more responsibility for the developmental goals and their teaching. Nonetheless, our data also showed that at many schools, leaders indicated that responsibility for PL rested primarily with the teachers. This then diminished the responsibility that leaders took for the PL or PD.

Further examples were found in our study, as the school leaders showed an affinity for level 3.0 (dialogic, horizontal relation) and 4.0 (resonant relation). Moreover, if PL is not only seen as self-regulated and adaptive, but as a creative process which starts with the other and in which something new is learned (Meyer-Drawe 2013), school leaders must prevent teachers from retreating to the familiar by opening up new structural opportunities for PL. In this context, it is important to ‘stimulate creativity and risk-taking behaviour to develop improvement strategies matched to the individual contexts’ (Chapman and Muijs 2014, p. 391). Legitimising these actions, school leaders must assist teachers to explore and engage with new perspectives. Disengaging from the familiar can be associated with great difficulty. However, school leaders and other teachers need to be active instigators in this process. Thus, learning is not fully an active process, as suggested by Easton (2008), but needs its passive side, as underlined by Biesta (2012b).

Finally, we refer to Ortmann (2016, p. 56), who states that ‘responsiveness as an organisational asset, as an organisation’s competence is not one of the quality strengths of schools’. By presenting our findings, we have tried to take an initial step towards demonstrating that responsiveness is a promising framework for leadership in the context of PL as it combines central aspects of both.

7. Conclusion

In this paper, we have explored the implications of sustainable organisational leadership capabilities within PLNs in a changing professional learning environment in Austria. To find answers to our research questions, we collected data from the Modellregion Bildung Zillertal.

One limitation of this study is narrowness at national and regional level. The examination of just two case studies and three PLNs in one region in Austria does not allow for generalisation across a range of examples. As discussed above, our data are cross-sectional and thus unable to fully account for any nuances within PLNs or the ways that practices and PL processes are understood and can evolve over time. Moreover, the discussion of some prominent interorganisational practices is selective. In addition, we concede that we cannot make claims beyond the results of the relatively small number of participants in this study.

It should be added that in Austria in recent years, steps have been taken to strengthen the autonomy of school leaders and to give them more responsibility for PD and thus also for approaches to PL. Therefore, despite these limitations, our in-depth approach from different perspectives and at different levels broadens the understanding of new forms of leadership and indicates the need for an understanding of PL in organisations like schools. It also supports the concept of a specific and sustainable framework for individual schools in a networked context. The discussion shows that the findings extend the single-level approach of previous studies and shed light on particular leading roles within PLNs including responsiveness, changing routines and enhancing structures. The results reveal that if we want to enhance the role of PLNs as sustainable alternatives for practical and evaluative professional development for teachers and school leadership, we need to pay attention to a number of elements, such as new formal (bureaucratic) structures in the UCTE’s area of responsibility and an institutionalised bond between school leaders, facilitators, and PLN participants. Furthermore, and especially with reference to the understanding of PL, greater involvement of teachers as learners, e.g. more direct reference to their teaching, is required in the traditional PD programmes on offer. In addition, structures are needed to give teachers more decision-making power over their areas of learning. In conclusion, a pre-requisite for creating responsive interorganisational and sustainable learning environments is the strengthening of school leadership in preparation for their role in PL processes. In this context, we are thinking above all of the need for school leaders to develop the skills to gather knowledge about the learning needs of their staff in a systematic way, in order to become more responsive as leaders.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Alexandra Miltner and Caroline Vinall for their valuable feedback on the manuscript as well as for their help in finalising the article.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).