Assessing social configurations in teacher learning groups: the ‘Dimensions of Social Learning Questionnaire’

Figures & data

Table 1. DSL Framework Including the Original 30 Items.

Dimensions	Indicators	Items
1. Practice	1a. Integrated or non-integrated activities	1. Agreements about testing group products in classroom practice
		2. Communication about experiences with group products
		3. Integration of group products in local practice
		4. Integration of group products outside local practice
	1b. Temporary or permanent activities	5. Conversation about short- and long-term goals
		6. Description of short- and long-term goals
		7. Relationship between group goals and activities
2. Domain and value creation	2a. Sharing or broadening/deepening knowledge and skills	8. Time investment of group members outside group meetings
		9. Discussion about group products
		10. Feedback opportunities
		11. Adjustment of group products after discussion or feedback
	2b. Individual or collective value creation	12. Shared agenda
3. Collective identity	3a. Shared or unshared identity	13. Informal group activities that enhance shared identity
		14. Feeling of belonging to the group
		15. Contact between group members outside group meetings
	3b. Weak or strong ties	16. Frequent interaction between group members during the meetings
		17. Reciprocal relationships between group members
		18. Contacts between group members and experts
	3c. Task executors or knowledge workers	19. Long-term learning attitude
		20. Interest in ideas and experiences of group members in relation to group goals
4. Organization	4a. Directed or self-organised activities	21. Reflective quality of the group (discussing questions like: what went good and why? What can be improved and how?)
		22. Divided roles
		23. Voluntary participation
	4b. Local or global activities	24. Inward focus towards local activities
		25. Orientation towards external knowledge sharing
	4c. Hierarchic or equal relationships	26. Sense of equality between group members
		27. Group atmosphere that enhances equality
	4d. Shared or non-shared interactional norms	28. Communication about the procedure to achieve shared goals
		29. Feeling of safety to interact within the group
		30. Openness to different perceptions within the group

Table 2. Sample 1 EFA Highest factor Loadings.

	Initial EFA model			Final EFA model
	Factor			Factor
Item	1	2	3	1	2	3
13. Informal group activities that enhance shared identity	0.564			0.552
14. Feeling of belonging to the group	0.499			0.497
17. Reciprocal relationships between group members	0.710			0.703
19. Long-term learning attitude	0.557			0.546
20. Interest in ideas and experiences of group members in relation to group goals	0.662			0.662
21. Reflective quality of the group (discussing questions like: what went good and why? What can be improved and how?)	0.596			0.574
22. Divided roles	0.525			0.506
26. Sense of equality between group members	0.727			0.728
27. Group atmosphere that enhances equality	0.655			0.669
28. Communication about the procedure to achieve shared goals	0.599			0.600
29. Feeling of safety to interact within the group	0.666			0.686
30. Openness to different perceptions within the group	0.599			0.607
1. Agreements about testing group products in classroom practice		0.831			0.827
2. Communication about experiences with group products		0.838			0.823
3. Integration of group products in local practice		0.870			0.859
4. Integration of group products outside local practice		0.606			0.578
9.Discussion about group products		0.802			0.811
10. Feedback opportunities		0.473			0.474
11. Adjustment of group products after discussion or feedback		0.852			0.857
5. Conversation about short- and long-term goals			0.792			0.804
6. Description of short- and long-term goals			0.843			0.856
7. Relationship between group goals and activities			0.540			0.522
8. Time investment of group members outside group meetings			0.217		Removed
12. Shared agenda			0.311		Removed
	1	2	3	1	2	3
15. Contact between group members outside group meetings	0.289				Removed
16. Frequent interaction between group members during the meetings	0.266				Removed
18. Contacts between group members and experts	0.367				Removed
23. Voluntary participation	0.335				Removed
24. Inward focus towards local activities	0.368				Removed
25. Orientation towards external knowledge sharing		0.399			Removed

Table 3. Subsample 1: Final EFA Correlation Matrix.

	1	2	3
1	—	0.265	0.439
2		—	0.284
3			—

Table 4. Subsample 2 CFA Fit Indices for the DSL-Q.

Subsample	Model	Items	Items removed	X^2	df	ΔX^2	Δdf	p	NC	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
2	1	22		541	206			<.001	2.63	0.08	0.86	0.84	0.09
	2	18	10, 19, 22, 28	260	132			<.001	1.96	0.07	0.93	0.92	0.06
	2 vs 1					281	74	<.001
	3	13	9, 13, 20, 21, 30	95	62			.004	1.53	0.05	0.98	0.97	0.05
	3 vs 2					165	70	<.001
	4	12	7, 17	50	41			0.165	1.22	0.03	0.99	0.99	0.04
	4 vs 3					45	21	<.001

Table 5. CFA Model 3 Fit Indices, Grouping Variables are Gender, Role, and Institution.

Grouping variable		n	X^2	df	NC	RMSEA	CFI	TLI	SRMR
Gender	Male	43	75.79	62	1.23	0.07	0.94	0.93	0.09
	Female	109	81.50*	62	1.32	0.05	0.97	0.96	0.05
	Missing	78	97.33**	62	1.56	0.09	0.93	0.91	0.08
Role	Student	170	103.74***	62	1.68	0.06	0.96	0.95	0.06
	Teacher	60	72.97	62	1.18	0.05	0.95	0.94	0.07
Institution	Institution 1	162	83.45*	62	1.34	0.05	0.98	0.97	0.05
	Institution 2, 3, & 4	68 (16, 24, 28)	93.43**	62	1.50	0.08	0.92	0.90	0.09

Note: for 78 students, data were missing on Gender. To avoid exclusion from the dataset, this was treated as a separate subgroup, even though this technically is not a category within Gender.

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 6. CFA Model 3 Measurement (in)variance between Groups.

	Model	X^2	df	p
Gender	Configural	254.62	186	<.001
	Metric	289.88	206	<.001
	Scalar	332.67	226	<.001
	Metric vs. Configural	35.25	20	.019
	Scalar vs. Metric	42.80	20	.002
Role	Configural	176.71	124	.001
	Metric	198.30	134	<.001
	Scalar	237.52	144	<.001
	Metric vs. Configural	21.60	10	.017
	Scalar vs. Metric	39.22	10	<.001
Institution	Configural	176.88	124	.001
	Metric	188.21	134	.001
	Scalar	204.45	144	<.001
	Metric vs. Configural	11.33	10	.332
	Scalar vs. Metric	16.25	10	.093

Note: for 78 students, data were missing on Gender. To avoid exclusion from the dataset, this was treated as a separate subgroup, even though this technically is not a category within Gender.

Table 7. CFA Model 1,2, and 3 Means, Standard Deviations, and Measures of Internal Reliability.

Model	Factor	Items	M	SD	α
1	1	1–4, 9-11	2.76	0.64	0.846
	2	5-7	2.90	0.68	0.870
	3	13, 14, 17, 19–22, 26-30	3.19	0.47	0.897
2	1	1–4, 9, 11	2.67	0.69	0.853
	2	5-7	2.90	0.68	0.870
	3	13, 14, 17, 20, 21, 26–29, 30	3.22	0.50	0.885
3	1	1–4, 11	2.64	0.71	0.837
	2	5 - 7	2.90	0.68	0.870
	3	14, 17, 26, 27, 29	3.28	0.56	0.858

Table 8. Final DSL-Q Based on CFA Model 3.

Factors	Items
Practice integration	1. Agreements about testing group products in classroom practice
	2. Communication about experiences with group products
	3. Integration of group products in local practise
	4. Integration of group products outside local practise
	11. Adjustment of group products after discussion or feedback
Long-term orientation and goals	5. Conversation about short- and long-term goals
	6. Description of short- and long-term goals
	7. Relationship between group goals and activities
Shared identity and equal relationships	14. Feeling of belonging to the group
	17. Reciprocal relationships between group members
	26. Sense of equality between group members
	27. Group atmosphere that enhances equality
	29. Feeling of safety to interact within the group

Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.