How to enhance teachers’ professional learning by stimulating the development of professional learning communities: operationalising a comprehensive PLC concept for assessing its development in everyday educational practice

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of consulted sources.

Clusters	Characteristics	Sources
Characteristics of the PLG concept
Individual and collective leaning	Collaboration	Doppenberg et al. 2012, Levine and Marcus 2010, Handelzalts 2009, Meirink et al. 2010, Van Wessum 1997, Little 2006, Evers 2012
	Reflection	Kelchtermans 2012, Korthagen and Vasalos 2005, Runhaar et al. 2010, Clara 2015, Evers 2012
	Giving and receiving feedback	Hattie and Timperley 2007, Ros  2009, Runhaar et al. 2010, Evers 2012
	Experimenting	Castelijns et al. 2009, Bolhuis 2009, Zwart et al. 2007, Meijer et al. 2012, Evers 2012
Group dynamic characteristics	Mutual trust and respect	Bolam et al. 2005, Little 2006, Hord 1997, Lockhorst and van der Pol 2008, Van Den Bossche et al. 2006, Louis 2006, Tschannen-Moran 2009, Kramer 2010, Six et al. 2010
	Collegial support	Lockhorst and van der Pol 2008, McLaughlin and Talbert 2001
	Social cohesion	Van Den Bossche et al. 2006, Bolam et al. 2005, Lockhorst and van der Pol 2008
Professional orientation	Shared vision	Bolam et al. 2005, Kruse et al. 1995, Hord 1997, Verbiest 2008, Ros etal. 2009
	Shared responsibility	Hattie 2009, DuFour et al. 2010
	Shared focus on student learning	Hattie 2009, DuFour et al. 2010, Verbiest 2008, Little 2006, Stevens 2010, Tomlinson et al. 2003
	Shared focus on continuous teacher learning	Kwakman 1999, Evers 2012, Little 2006, Martens 2009
Steering factors
Leadership		Waslander et al. 2012, Day et al. 2010, Thoonen 2012
Individual and collective autonomy		Kessels 2012, Hulsbos et al. 2012, Oolbekkink et al. 2017

Table 2. Composition focus group school leaders (n=8).

	Function	School types	m/f	School size	AOS
1	Principal	VMBO, LWOO	m	1000	-
2	Principal	MAVO	f	400	-
3	Upper schools leader	Group of 4 schools, gymnasium, athenaeum, HAVO, VMBO	m	2000	+
4	Vice principal	gymnasium, atheneum, HAVO	m	800	+
5	Vice principal	VMBO, HAVO, atheneum, gymnasium, technasium.	f	1350	-
6	Principal	HAVO, atheneum	m	1300	-
7	Vice principal	VMBO, HAVO, atheneum, gymnasium	m	1200	-
8	Principal	HAVO, VWO, (technasium en TTO)	f	600	+

VMBO: a four year vocational course at various levels

HAVO: a five year course providing access to Teacher Training College or higher levels

of vocational training

VWO: a six year course providing entrance to university education

LWOO: Learning support

AOC: Academic Training School

TTO: Bi-lingual Stream (English)

Table 3. Composition focus group teachers (n = 10).

	Function	School types	m/f	AOS
1	Physics teacher, Course book writer	HAVO, VWO	m
2	Physics teacher course book writer	HAVO, VWO	m
3	Dutch language teacher, researcher	HAVO, VWO	m	+
4	Civics teacher, researcher	HAVO, VWO	f	+
5	Religious studies teacher, PhD	VMBO, HAVO, VWO	m
6	Geography teacher	VMBO, HAVO, VWO	m
7	Dutch language teacher, coach, PhD	VMBO, HAVO, VWO	f
8	Civics teacher	PRO, VMBO	m	+
9	Economics teacher, project leader	VMBO	m
10	Maths teacher	VMBO	m

Table 4. Composition of the assessment group (n=4).

	Function	School type	m/f	School size
1	Principal	HAVO, VWO	f	1700
2	Vice-principal	VMBO, HAVO, VWO	f	500
3	Principal	VMBO, HAVO, VWO	m	1350
4	Vice-principal	VMBO, HAVO, VWO	f	1600

Figure 1. The process of transforming definitions into indicators.

Table 5. Numbers of indicators constructed in the focus groups and from the literature (Stage 1).

	School leaders	Teachers	Literature
Characteristics of the PLC
Collaboration	11	11	11
Reflecting	7	7	5
Giving and receiving feedback	6	7	8
Experimenting	8	8	5
Mutual trust and respect	8	11	9
Collegial support	7	7	3
Social cohesion	5	4	8
Shared vision	7	8	5
Shared responsibility	8	10	4
Shared focus on student learning	10	15	11
Shared focus on continuous teacher learning	11	13	10
Steering factors
Leadership	10	11	17
Individual and collective autonomy	6	9	10
	104	121	106

Table 6. Examples of indicators that match and do not match the criteria (Stage 2).

Definitions of PLC characteristics	Matching provisional indicators from focus group	Not matching provisional indicators from focus group
Shared focus on student learning: The work of the teacher is permanently and consistently aimed at the learning of the students and on improving student results.	Teachers analyse students’ test results and draw conclusions from them (1); Teachers give formative test to adapt their lessons (1).	The teacher is versatile and can be employed in all fields, (1); The teacher should be aware of the quality rules, applying them and actually using them (1).
Permanent development: The teacher continues to develop permanently in order to improve student results.	Teachers reflect on what they still can improve regarding their teaching (1); Teachers attend training and courses (1).	Teachers should be aware of each other’s strength and expertise (2); Teachers should be given time and space to participate in a PLC (2).
Collaboration: Jointly exchanging, researching, developing and engaging in shared educational practice.	Teachers develop lessons together (1); Teachers share material for their lessons (1).	The teacher engages in dialogue with the stakeholders (3).
Mutual trust and respect: A supportive, social and safe climate in which people dare to debate problems and differences in convictions and opinions.	Teachers accept differences of opinion and discuss them together (1).
Experimenting: Examining and trying out in a cyclical way new, altered or adjusted attitudes, approaches and materials.	Teachers experiment with new materials, lessons and approaches (1).

Table 7. Division of indicators into categories and rephrasing final indicators (Stage 3).

PLC characteristic	Provisional indicators,	Common denominator	Rephrased final indicator
Focus on student learning	Teachers ask feedback from student about their achievements; Teachers use formative tests; Teachers consult the student track system for information about students Teachers ask feedback from students to improve their lessons; Teachers adapt their lesson based on student achievements.	Collecting information on students; Adapting teaching practice	Teachers collect and analyse information in various ways on student learning; Teachers evaluate and value the results of their teaching practice and deduce improvements from it.
Permanent development	Teachers attend courses or training; Teacher read subject literature; Teachers engage in a professional network; Teachers discuss their teaching practice with their school leader; Teachers draw up a professional development plan.	Similar professional learning activities Self-analysis and reflection on professional development	Teachers engage in professional learning activities to become a better teacher; Teachers reflect on their professional development.
Collaboration	Teachers give each other lesson materials; Teachers give each other tips regarding their teaching; Teachers exchange ideas and experiences; Teachers design lessons together; Teachers set up projects together; Teachers develop various lesson materials together.	Sharing Developing together	Teachers exchange experiences of their teaching; Teachers devise and try out new didactic approaches together (lessons tests, projects, technologies).
Collegial support	Teachers are willing to do something for colleagues; Teachers help each other without being asked; Teacher stand up for each other; Teachers have extra attention for new colleagues.	Help each other Care for each other	Teacher help each other if necessary; Teachers show an interest and mutual care in each other.
Social cohesion	Teachers want to remain a member of the PLC; Teachers don’t want to miss a PLC meeting; Teachers enroll voluntarily for a PLC.	Expressions of how they feel about the PLC	Teachers like to belong to the team/PLG.

Table

PLC clusters	Conceptual definitions	Categories/common denominator	Indicators
Individual and collective learning	Collaboration: jointly exchanging, researching, developing and engaging in shared educational practice.	A. Exchanging experiences; B. Give and receive help; C. Exchange, discuss and agree with experiences; D. Developing together.	Teachers exchange experiences of their teaching; Teachers request and give help to colleagues regarding teaching; Teachers share and discuss teaching practice (i.e. opinions, experiences, approaches, materials, technologies) Teachers devise and try out together new didactic approaches (i.e. lessons, projects, tests, technologies).
	Reflection: individually or jointly considering and questioning daily practice with the aim to improve teaching practice.	A. Evaluating teaching practice; B. Forms of reflection.	Teachers reflect individually or jointly on their teaching practice (including behaviour, competencies and attitudes); Teachers use various forms of reflection.
	Giving and receiving feedback: giving or receiving information on educational practice in order to improve on this.	A. Giving feedback; B. Receiving feedback; C. Forms of feedback.	Teachers provide colleagues with feedback on their teaching; Teachers receive feedback from colleagues on their teaching; Teachers use different kinds of feedback (including lesson observation).
	Experimenting: examining and trying out in a cyclical way with new, altered or adjusted attitudes, approaches and materials.	A. Experimenting teaching practice; B. Implementing and evaluating; C. Working in a cyclic way.	Teachers try out and experiment with (new) parts of their teaching practice (such as new or other insights, materials, lessons, teaching methods, skills, educational approaches, technologies); Teachers implement and evaluate teaching practice; Teachers research teaching practice in a cyclical way as a recurrent activity.
Group dynamic characteristics	Mutual trust and respect: a supportive, social and safe climate in which people dare to debate problems and differences in convictions and opinions.	A. Trust and appreciation; B. Open attitude; C. Discussions.	Teachers trust and appreciate each other; Teachers display openness to each other; Teachers discuss different attitudes, opinions and problems with each other.
	Collegial support and encouragement: Having care and attention for and supporting each other in the work place.	A. Care; B. Help.	Teachers show an interest and mutual care in each other; Teachers help each other if necessary.
	Social cohesion: the desire to belong to and the feeling of belonging to the (PLC) group (group cohesion).	A. Feeling of belonging; B. Feeling of acceptance; C. Feeling of Involvement.	Teachers like to belong to the team/PLG; Teachers feel accepted in and appreciated by the team/PLG; Teachers feel involved in the functioning of the team/PLG.
Professional orientation	Shared vision: a commonly held view on learning and teaching, serving as the basis for setting and working towards targets, and for taking decisions.	A. Developing shared vision; B. Acting on shared vision.	Teachers develop and adjust a shared vision on teaching; Teachers act in accordance with the shared vision.
	Shared responsibility: teachers feel responsible for the learning and the results of the student and act accordingly.	A. Jointly conferring; B. Taking the initiative when results lag behind C. Accounting for results.	Teachers confer with each other on teaching practice and students’ results; Teachers take action individually or jointly when students’ results give rise to it. Teachers account for the teaching practice and students’ results amongst each other.
	Shared focus on student learning: the work of the teacher is permanently and consistently aimed at the learning of the students and on improving students’ results.	A. Collect information; B. Self-analysis and reflection; C. Differentiated instruction; D. Engagement with students’ learning.	Teachers collect and analyse information in various ways on student learning; Teachers evaluate and value the results of their teaching practice and deduce improvements from it; Teachers, in their teaching practice, take into account differences between students (differentiates instruction); Teachers work at a good pedagogical relationship with students.
	Shared focus on continuous learning: the teacher continues to develop permanently in order to improve the learning of students and students’ results.	A. Passion for teaching students; B. Reflecting on professional development; C. Engaging in professional learning activities; D. Trying out (in order to learn from it).	Teachers enjoy working with and the learning of students; Teacher reflect on their own professional development as a teacher; Teachers engage in professional development activities to become a better teacher; Teachers try out new teaching methods/ways of teaching to improve their lessons and make them more interesting and more pleasant.
Steering factors	Conceptual definitions	Categories/common denominator	Indicators
Leadership	Exercising influence by formal school leaders to stimulate learning within the PLC, to improve the teaching practice and eventually increase student’s performance.	A. Developing and conveying vision; B. Stimulating the primary process; C. Stimulate professional development; D. Providing professional space; E. Alignment.	Teachers experience that the principal ensures the development a shared vision on the learning of students and on teachers’ professional development and sets a course for the school; Teachers experience that the principal stimulates, advances and monitors the primary process and students’ performance; Teachers experience that the principal follows and simulates their individual and collective professional development; Teachers experience that the principal provides space for teachers to configure their teaching practice the way they see fit, within the school’s framework; Teachers experiences that the principal takes the school vision as the starting point for his work and translates this vision to other domains of the school organisation.
Professional autonomy	The amount of say teachers have in designing and executing the school’s educational and quality policy, and the ability to use this individually and collectively perceived space.	A. Having a say in work processes; B. Having a say in professional development; C. Decision making/ exercising influence; D. Accounting for.	Teachers, individually or jointly, have a say in and control over their work processes; Teachers have a say in and control over their own professional development; Teachers use, in consultation with colleagues, the possibility to take decisions and/or to influence decision making; Teachers act pro-actively and account for the quality of their teaching practice and professionalisation.

Doppenberg, J.J., Den Brok, P.J., and Bakx, A.W.E.A., 2012. Collaborative teacher learning across foci of collaboration: perceived activities and outcomes. Teaching and teacher education, 28 (6), 899–910. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.04.007

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Levine, T.H. and Marcus, A.S., 2010. How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26 (3), 389–398. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.001

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Handelzalts, A. (2009). Collaborative curriculum development in teacher design teams.Thesis (PhD). Twente University, The Netherlands.

 Google Scholar

Meirink, J.A., et al., 2010. Teacher learning and collaboration in innovative teams. Cambridge journal of education, 40 (2), 161–181. doi:10.1080/0305764X.2010.481256

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Van Wessum, L. 1997. De sectie als eenheid [The subject department as a unit]. Thesis (PhD). The Netherelands: Utrecht Universtity.

 Google Scholar

Little, J. W., 2006. Professional community and professional development in the Learning-Centered school. Best-practices working paper, National Education Association, Washington DC, United States of America.

 Google Scholar

Evers, A.T. 2012. Teachers’ professional development at work and occupational outcomes: an organisational and task perspective. Thesis. (PhD). Open University, Heerlen, The Netherlands.

 Google Scholar

Kelchtermans, G., 2012. De leraar als (on)eigentijds professional: reflecties over de ‘moderne professionaliteit’ van leerkrachten. [The teacher as a (non) contemporary professional: reflections on the modern professionality’ of teachers]. The Hague, The Netherlands: Dutch Educational Counsel.

 Google Scholar

Korthagen, F. and Vasalos, A., 2005. Levels in reflection: core reflection as a means to enhance professional growth. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 11 (1), 47–71. doi:10.1080/1354060042000337093

 Google Scholar

Runhaar, P., Sanders, K., and Yang, H., 2010. Stimulating teachers reflection and feedback asking: aninterplay of self-efficacy, learning goal orientation and transformational leadership. Teaching and teacher education, 26, 1154–1161. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.02.011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Clarà, M., 2015. What is reflection? Looking for clarity in an ambiguous notion. Journal of teacher education, 66 (3), 261–271. doi:10.1177/0022487114552028

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hattie, J.T. and Timperley, H., 2007. The power of feedback. review of educational research, 77 (1), 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Ros, A. (2009). Is ons onderwijs nog up-to-date? [is our education still up-to-date?]. In A. Ros R. Timmermans,J. van der Hoeven M. Vermeulen, eds.Leren en laten leren. Ontwerpen van leeractiviteiten voor leerlingen en docenten. MESOfocus 75 ed., Vol.75. Alphen aan den Rijn:Kluwer.

 Google Scholar

Castelijns, J., Koster, B., and Vermeulen, M., 2009. Vitaliteit in processen van collectief leren: samen kennis creëren in basisscholen en lerarenopleidingen. [Vitality in processes of collective learning: creating knowledge together in primary schools and student training schools]. Antwerpen, Belgium: Garant.

 Google Scholar

Bolhuis, S., 2009. Naar evidence based onderwijs? [Towards evidence based education?]. Vector, 9, 17–19.

 Google Scholar

Zwart, R.C., et al., 2007. Experienced teacher learning within the context of reciprocal peer coaching. Teachers and teaching: theory and practice, 13, 165–187. doi:10.1080/13540600601152520

 Google Scholar

Meijer, P.C., et al., 2012. Teacher research in secondary education: effects on teachers’ professional and school development, and issues of quality. International journal of educational research, 57, 39–50. doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2012.10.005

 Google Scholar

Bolam, R., et al. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. Research Report 637. London: DfES and University of Bristol.

 Google Scholar

Hord, S.M., 1997. Profession al learning communities: communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Leadership, 40 (1), 58–59.

 Google Scholar

Lockhorst, D. and van der Pol, J. (2008). A descriptive model of teacher communities. Proceedings of the 6th international conference on networked learning. Hallidiki, Greece: Lancaster University, 253–261.

 Google Scholar

Van Den Bossche, P., et al., 2006. Social and cognitive factors driving teamwork in collaborative learning environments team: learning beliefs and behaviors. Sagepublications, 34, 490–521.

 Google Scholar

Louis, K.S., 2006. Changing the culture of schools: professional community, organizational learning and trust. Journal of School Leadership, 16, 477–489. doi:10.1177/105268460601600502

 Google Scholar

Tschannen-Moran, M., 2009. Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: the role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational administration quarterly, 45 (2), 217–247. doi:10.1177/0013161X08330501

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kramer, R.M., 2010. Collective trust within organizations: conceptual foundations and empirical insights. Corporate Reputation Review, 13 (2), 82–97. doi:10.1057/crr.2010.9

 Google Scholar

Six, F., Nooteboom, B., and Hoogendoorn, A., 2010. Actions that build interpersonal trust: A relational signalling perspective. Review of social economy, 68 (3), 285–315. doi:10.1080/00346760902756487

 Google Scholar

McLaughlin, M.W. and Talbert, J.E., 2001. Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 Google Scholar

Kruse, S.D., Louis, K.S., and Bryk, A.S., 1995. An emerging framework for analyzing school- based professional community. In: K.S. Louis and S. Kruse, Associates, eds.. Professionalism and community: perspectives on reforming urban schools. Long Oaks, CA: Corwin, 23–44.

 Google Scholar

Verbiest, E., ED., 2008. Scholen duurzaam ontwikkelen: bouwen aan een professionele leergemeenschap [Improving schools sustainably: building a professional learning community]. Apeldoorn, The Netherlands: Garant.

 Google Scholar

Hattie, J., 2009. Visible learning: a synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. London: Taylor and Francis group.

 Google Scholar

DuFour, R., et al., 2010. Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington: Solution Tree Press.

 Google Scholar

Stevens, L., 2010. Zin in onderwijs. [Relishing education]. Belgium. Antwerpen: Garant.

 Google Scholar

Tomlinson, C.A., et al., 2003. Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. journal for the education of the gifted, 27 (2–3), 119–145. doi:10.1177/016235320302700203

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kwakman, K. (1999). Leren van docenten tijdens de beroepsloopbaan. Studies naar professionaliteit op de werkplek in het voortgezet onderwijs. [Teacher learning during their career. Studies on professionality in the workplace in Secondary Education]. Thesis (PhD). Catholic University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands).

 Google Scholar

Martens, R., 2009. RdMC onderzoeksprogramma 2009-2011. Succesvol leven lang leren op de werkplek: onderzoek naar de praktijk van docentprofessionalisering [Research program 2009-2011: lifelong learning successfully: research on the practice of teachers’ professionalization]. Heerlen, The Netherlands: Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open University.

 Google Scholar

Waslander, S., Dückers, M., and Dijk, G.V., 2012. Professionalisering van schoolleiders in het voortgezet onderwijs: een gedeeld referentiekader voor dialoog en verbetering [Professionalization of school leaders in Secondary Education: A shared framework for dialogue and improvement]. Utrecht: Leadership Development Centre TiasNimbas Business School, IVA beleidsonderzoek en advies & VO-Raad.

 Google Scholar

Day, C., et al., 2010. Ten strong claims about successful school leadership.Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham/ National College for School Leadership.

 Google Scholar

Thoonen, E.E.J. (2012). Improving classroom practices: the impact of leadership, school organizational conditions and teacher factors. Thesis. (PhD). University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

 Google Scholar

Kessels, J., 2012. Leiderschapspraktijken in een professionele ruimte [Leadership practice in professional space]. Oration, Heerlen: Open University.

 Google Scholar

Hulsbos, F., et al., 2012. Professionele ruimte en gespreid leiderschap. [Professional space and distributed leadership]. Look - Open Universiteit. 1–51. Heerlen, the Netherlands: Ruud de Moor Centrum, Open University.

 Google Scholar

Oolbekkink-Marchand, H.W., et al., 2017. Teachers’ perceived professional space and their agency. Teaching and teacher education, 62, 37–46. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2016.11.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar