Abstract
In the last decade, there has been growing interest in professional learning communities (PLCs) outside mainstream Western contexts. In this paper, we provide a narrative synthesis of empirical studies of PLCs in kindergarten to 12th grade educational systems in mainland China published between 2006 and 2015. The review reveals five major emerging themes in the published literature: PLC characteristics; PLC practices in different regions; teacher collaboration in PLCs; the roles of university researchers; and educational leadership in PLCs. Significant progress has been identified in the enhancement of social harmony in teaching research groups, structural teacher collaboration, the construction of transregional PLCs and the complex roles of university researchers and school leaders. However, compared with the literature on PLCs in Western contexts, research on these communities in mainland China is still far from mature. The authors highlight the need for more empirically solid research on the development of sustainable PLCs in mainland China.
Introduction
Professional learning communities (PLCs) have spread rapidly in many countries and contexts since a number of early studies built the foundation in the 1990s (e.g. Gao and Wang, 2014; Giles and Hargreaves, 2006; Hord, 1997; Louis and Kruse, 1995). Emerging evidence shows PLCs have systematically positive effects in terms of school improvement, teacher development and student achievement. PLCs provide an organizational structure for teachers to engage in professional dialogue and improved authentic pedagogical actions, and to build capacity for sustainable change, which lead to increased student achievement (Kruse and Johnson, 2017). PLCs, which are conceptually similar to units such as teacher communities, learning communities and professional communities, are vaguely defined and ubiquitously used (Kruse and Johnson, 2017). The common core of these similar variations connotes that groups of teachers share and critically discuss their expertise in the workplace in an ongoing, reflective, learning-oriented and growth-promoting way (Tam, 2015). Five key characteristics define the boundaries of these communities: shared values and vision; collective responsibility; teacher collaboration; shared and supportive leadership; and supportive conditions (Stoll et al., 2006). Shared values and a shared vision establish common purposes that guide teacher collaboration in PLCs, while collective responsibility creates ties between members. Shared and supportive leadership is provided by principals to give teachers opportunities to take on leadership roles to achieve jointly held goals. Supportive conditions are created through the construction of collegial relationships and a collegial structure to support teacher collaboration. Focusing on these key characteristics, policy-makers and school principals have made considerable effort to convert schools into PLCs (Harris and Jones, 2010; Tam, 2015).
Educators have made enthusiastic efforts to develop PLCs in mainland China. PLCs are institutionalized in China’s education system at the national, provincial, county, district and school levels (Paine and Fang, 2006; Wang and Paine, 2003). Within schools, teachers regularly discuss teaching issues that are relevant to their daily practice, and a series of collective activities are organized with a fixed schedule, which contributes to the enhancement of teaching quality and fosters student learning. For example, the results of the Programme for International Student Assessment indicate that the top performance of Chinese students could be partly attributed to the institutionalized teacher collaboration in PLCs (Zhang et al., 2017). In the context of the recent implementation of a round of educational reforms collectively known as the ‘New Curriculum Reform’, PLCs in China are regarded primarily as channels for the widespread dissemination of innovative ideas among teachers (Sargent, 2015). Empirical evidence indicates that scholars have recently made a more concerted effort to develop an empirically grounded literature on PLCs outside ‘mainstream’ Western contexts (Hairon and Dimmock, 2012). As the majority of the research in this field is published in domestic journals in Chinese, it has long been inaccessible to the wider international research community. Consequently, we have only a limited understanding of how PLCs are practised in the Chinese context. A systematic and comprehensive review is needed to characterize previous efforts and assess the potential to establish contextualized PLCs in mainland China, as well as to cast light on PLCs across sociocultural contexts.
This review maps trends in the conceptual models and methodologies to explore PLCs; provides a critical discussion of the major themes covered and research methods used in existing studies; and identifies research gaps and areas for future research. Outlining the contours of the literature on PLCs in mainland China, it uncovers emerging themes, highlights ‘blank spots and blind spots’ in the current knowledge base and identifies directions for future research (Hallinger and Chen, 2015). In addition, the study takes a small but essential step in connecting the Chinese academic community with the world by providing more fine-grained insights into PLCs in local contexts. It establishes necessary building blocks for the development of a ‘global knowledge base’ in the field of PLCs and enriches our understanding of the diversity of PLCs around the world.
Research method
Given the enormity of the literature on PLCs in mainland China, we limited our initial round of analysis to empirical studies conducted in the last 10 years (2006–2015). Empirical research in this paper refers to studies that are grounded in verifiable evidence by means of observation or direct experience, which can yield illustration or strong confirmation of PLC theories in a research setting (Cohen et al., 2007). We collected studies from a bounded set of sources in indigenous languages and the English language, as follows: (1) empirical studies of PLCs in leading educational journals published in mainland China. We restricted ourselves to the 36 leading education journals listed in the China Social Citation Index 2014–2015 (CSSCI) (see Appendix). As university academics in China compete to publish their research in CSSCI journals, studies in these journals have relatively high quality; (2) doctoral dissertations from mainland China. Relevant doctoral dissertations were identified from the China Doctor Dissertations Full-text Database; and (3) empirical studies of PLCs in mainland China in educational journals in the EBSCO database. This subset is suited to our goal of understanding PLCs in mainland China, as a growing number of Chinese scholars have published in international journals and some international scholars are actively engaged in empirical research on PLCs in China. The targeted studies broadened the scope of our literature review beyond an indigenous language base and bolstered our understanding of the nature of regional PLCs from a global perspective. Due to the nebulous terminology associated with PLCs, we used the following search terms: ‘PLCs’; ‘learning communities’; ‘teacher communities’; and ‘professional communities’. One qualifier, ‘China’, was used to restrict the search to studies conducted in mainland China. Based on these search parameters, we collected an initial pool of relevant studies.
Next, we developed explicit inclusion criteria to screen the studies to narrow down the literature for review (see Table 1). Each piece of literature was screened against the inclusion criteria, which set clear and consistent rules for inclusion and helped to avoid hidden bias. We excluded irrelevant studies: those that simplistically applied the notion of PLCs in a given context but did not explore the PLC phenomenon itself or how such communities were built in schools. Using the same criteria to appraise each study ensured transparent selection.
Criteria for inclusion.
We used narrative synthesis to review the literature collected. This is a general approach to synthesis that allows researchers to address a wide range of relevant questions, classify content topics and integrate the results (Snilstveit et al., 2012). The process of narrative synthesis involved extracting the evidence found in each article, summarizing the mapped studies and collating the summaries, and drawing conclusions based on the findings. We reviewed the following key features of each article: aspects of PLCs studied; conceptual perspective(s) guiding interpretation; research methodology; research context; and major findings. After completing this in-depth process of analysis, we categorized the vast array of data into appropriate groups and refined the groups in line with five emerging themes: characteristics of PLCs; PLC practices in different regions; structural teacher collaboration in implementation-orientated education systems; role of university researchers in the development of PLCs; and educational leadership in PLCs. These themes comprised an organizing framework for the exploratory systematic review. Methodological and contextual issues relating to the study of PLCs in mainland China are also analysed and discussed within this thematic framework.
Results
This section starts with general observations on the empirical studies included in our review. A systematic search of educational research studies yielded an initial pool of 235 sources. The available body of work represented considerable progress in the practice and re-conceptualization of PLCs in mainland China. However, close inspection of individual studies revealed that the majority of the articles in Chinese journals were not empirical research with solid data. After eliminating these non-empirical studies, 44 publications (30 in Chinese, 14 in English) that met the criteria for inclusion and presented findings were subjected to in-depth analysis.
Overview of empirical studies on PLCs in mainland China
As indicated above, the literature reviewed consisted of 44 sources, representing a mean publication rate of 4.4 articles per year over 10 years. Given the scope of the articles and the length of the period under study, these are not large numbers. We noted that only three articles were published between 2006 and 2008. The number of studies published annually has remained steady since 2009 (see Figure 1). This indicates that researchers have maintained a consistent interest in the field and developed a richer understanding of local PLCs since 2009.
Annual volume of studies of professional learning communities in kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12) education systems in mainland China (published 2006–2015).
We used author nationality to identify the distribution of knowledge production in the literature reviewed. Most of the studies published in Chinese (30 articles) were produced by authors in China. Only one study (see Thomas et al., 2015) was conducted by an international team. This indicates that the leading journals in this field in China are still locally oriented, and that only a small proportion of authors from other countries choose to publish in Chinese journals. The studies in English showed substantial variation in author nationality. Six articles had authors in Western societies (the USA, the UK and Australia); three were conducted by international research teams; and five were produced by researchers in China (including Hong Kong). This finding indicates that PLCs in the kindergarten to 12th grade (K-12) education system in mainland China are attracting international attention.
Analysis of the 44 collected empirical studies revealed that the authors regarded three main teacher groups in K-12 education systems in mainland China as PLCs: teaching research groups (TRGs) (n = 22; 50%); informal learning groups (n = 3; 7%); and networked learning groups (n = 19; 43%). TRGs [jiaoyanzu] are considered an important local prototype of PLCs in mainland China (Sargent and Hannum, 2009). In structured TRGs, teachers are required to participate in pre-arranged collective activities such as collective class preparation, demonstration lessons, lesson observation (Zhang and Pang, 2014). An informal learning group is a spontaneously organized group of teachers with the same interests, who gather to develop initiatives of their own (Wu, 2012). Whereas TRGs and informal learning groups mainly exist within schools, networked learning groups use Internet tools (e.g., instant-messaging software) or teacher-training programmes to connect teachers from different schools (Zhang and Lin, 2012). However, networked learning groups focus on sharing teaching materials, with infrequent communication between members (Chen and Zhang, 2012; Li et al., 2009; Liu and Ren, 2009). Of the three types of learning group, TRGs are believed to be the most common and sustainable.
The data analysis also reveals that the majority of the studies did not provide obvious evidence that the subject was a factor to influence PLC practice. Although interdisciplinary teacher teams exist in some informal learning groups and networked learning groups, subject departments are still viewed as the most important entity for promoting PLCs. With regard to structural arrangements, researchers have emphasized the importance of well-functioning subject-based TRGs for teacher collaboration (Qiao et al., 2013). Since most studies did not use subject as an explanatory variable, we need to be very cautious in comparing the functioning among different subject departments.
The term ‘PLC’ is regarded as meaningful in the context of mainland China, although it is rarely used directly in schools (Wong, 2010b). Researchers have tended to treat PLCs as an umbrella concept covering many representations of communities, such as networked learning communities, communities of practice and learning communities. Most authors have used these concepts interchangeably or at best failed to distinguish them clearly (Levine, 2010). Only a few authors have explicitly provided specific definitions of PLCs. In addition, some researchers have neither reviewed the related literature nor elaborated on the meaning of the concept, simply designating the group under study a PLC and discussing its activities in practice. Levine (2010) argued that these different conceptions of community needed to be refined clearly, as they have their own strengths, limitations and underlying theories.
The studies have used various research methodologies, such as quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods. Researchers using quantitative methods have developed scales and questionnaires to identify the dimensions and phases of development of PLCs. Qualitative studies have highlighted the contexts and processes of teacher learning in PLCs, and used naturalistic approaches to interpret the specific interactions. Mixed-methods researchers have constructed integrated frameworks to accommodate the diverse characteristics of PLCs. In addition, multiple paths are available to researchers to enrich existing understanding of the complexity of PLCs. As shown in Figure 2, scholars have demonstrated a slight preference for quantitative methods. Of the 44 studies in our review, 17 (39%) were quantitative, 16 (36%) were qualitative and 11 (25%) were mixed-methods studies. To their authors’ credit, many studies have used multiple methods such as questionnaire surveys, observations, interviews and document analysis to obtain data. Whilst most of the studies reviewed contained methodology sections, we were not always able to clearly identify the processes of data gathering and analysis.
Research methods.
Critical interpretation of existing PLC research
The following five major strands of research emerged in our review of recent studies of PLCs in mainland China: (1) characteristics of PLCs; (2) PLC practices in different regions; (3) structural teacher collaboration in implementation-orientated education systems; (4) the role of university researchers in the development of PLCs; and (5) educational leadership in PLCs. In this section, we provide a critical interpretation of these five major themes and discuss the findings in relation to theory and practice.
Characteristics of PLCs
According to the literature, teachers in mainland China build PLCs in three main ways, via informal learning groups, networked learning communities or school-based TRGs. Studies have tended to focus on the characteristics of a single group type.
Informal learning groups are the result of teachers’ spontaneous formation of social groups to improve teacher practice. In the literature, heterogeneous membership has been identified as a prominent feature of informal learning groups (Wu, 2012). In He’s (2009) study, teachers of different subjects formed an interdisciplinary group spontaneously and built partnerships to support each other. Kong and Zhang (2010) observed that academics and schoolteachers have crossed organizational boundaries and engaged in collaborative efforts to promote mutual development. While only three of the studies reviewed discussed informal learning groups in detail and the findings could not be generalized to the wider context, they may shed light on some prominent qualities of informal learning groups.
Networked learning groups, defined as trans-school PLCs in which teachers from different schools and regions connect with each other through teacher-training programmes or Internet-based learning groups, are another variant of PLCs in mainland China (Meng et al., 2015; Wan et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2011). Networked learning groups are usually larger and make greater use of communication tools and online platforms to build connections (Ren and Xu, 2014; Wu et al., 2013). Recent studies have emphasized the significance of extended social networks to networked learning groups (Li et al., 2013). Ryan et al. (2009) reported that the group members built hybrid social networks as part of an internationally collaborative research and development project involving teachers, school and district leaders and academics.
TRGs are regarded as the most widespread type of PLC in mainland China, as they are set up in schools and constitute the basic unit of the centralized educational system. Research has shown that TRGs share some characteristics with PLCs in Western countries (Wong, 2010a). A number of studies have used scales based on well-recognized characteristics of PLCs to measure the extent to which TRGs can be considered as PLCs. These characteristics, albeit expressed in slightly different words, have been ‘repeated’ in a wide range of studies carried out across mainland China. Zhang and Pang (2014) designed a 6-point Likert scale based on the following five characteristics: professional capacity; collective learning; principal leadership; structural support; and organizational obstacles. They found that schools received the highest scores for professional capacity (5.07 on average), and the lowest scores for organizational obstacles (2.44 on average), which were consistent with findings in Western contexts (Stoll et al., 2006). The literature reviewed has strongly engaged with research concepts and theories originating in the West, including attempts to test, modify or contextualize well-established Western theories. These conceptual frameworks provide potential tools for the exploration of TRGs from the perspective of PLCs.
The literature also provides evidence of the differences between TRGs in mainland China and PLCs in Western contexts (Thomas et al., 2015). For example, a case study by Qiao et al. (2013) revealed that TRG teachers tended simply to reproduce others’ experience, which was inconsistent with findings indicating the diversity of perspectives in Western PLCs (e.g. Hargreaves, 2003; Shields, 2001). TRG teachers identified the ‘best’ models of teaching practice and tried to reproduce them in their own classroom activities.
Additionally, social harmony in TRGs has been identified as a unique characteristic of PLCs in China. The principle of social harmony derived from Confucian philosophy emphasizes the need to achieve a consensus and maintain interpersonal harmony in social activities (Li, 2011; Peng, 2007). Accordingly, TRG teachers seek to maintain harmonious relationships and avoid conflict. Craig et al. (2015) found that social harmony and synergistic balance were emphasized in school-based TRGs to secure successful outcomes. This cultural orientation leads to workplace practices in TRGs that strongly emphasize collective efforts by group members to achieve common goals, rather than individual competition. These sociocultural features provide international scholars with a more complex and holistic picture of TRGs in a natural setting.
PLC practices in different regions
Due to the significant regional disparities in school development across mainland China, the studies addressed schools in numerous parts of the country, from urban schools in eastern China (e.g., Beijing and Shanghai) to impoverished schools in western China (e.g., the rural Gansu Province). Their findings indicated that PLCs in China embrace a top-down approach and are structured components of the formal educational system (Sargent and Hannum, 2009). As the PLCs used organizational authority and resources to implement educational reform, they displayed certain similarities (Yin et al., 2014). However, researchers have found that a number of localized factors, such as school culture, principal leadership style and teacher attitudes, also shape the nature and development of PLCs (Wang, 2015, 2016). We took geography as the main unit of description and classified PLCs into three types: PLCs in rural areas; PLCs in urban areas; and transregional PLCs connecting rural areas and urban areas.
A huge amount of literature has addressed PLC practices in urban areas (Thomas et al., 2015). Although schools vary widely in their subject provision, size and type, urban schools tend to have more opportunities and resources to build wide networks with external institutions. Wang (2015) found that urban schools provided extra funding, resources and support for teachers’ professional learning. These results are consistent with the observation in previous studies in Western contexts that the quality of external support is a necessary condition for the development of sustainable PLCs (see Stoll et al., 2006).
However, research has also shown that strong PLCs and weak PLCs coexist in urban areas (Wong, 2010a). For example, Song H (2011) conducted a case study of four schools in Shanghai, and found that their learning communities showed different development trajectories: two became strong PLCs and the others weak PLCs. He found that teachers in the strong PLCs strove for continuous improvement through reflection, dialogue and research. In contrast, most of the teachers in the weak PLCs held negative attitudes towards curriculum reform. The divergent results of these studies imply that external support and the strength of PLCs are not causally related, although these factors are certainly associated.
In studies of PLC practices in rural areas, teachers have been found to have limited access to innovative ideas, and to rely heavily on the top-down diffusion of such ideas (Wang, 2013). Sargent and Hannum (2009) found that PLCs can develop even within remote areas, but may be constrained by a lack of support systems and leadership. Similarly, Sargent (2015) found that weak internal teacher networks in rural schools hindered the smooth flow of innovative ideas and thus the sustained improvement of teaching.
The literature on education in rural areas reveals that some university researchers have attempted to build transregional PLCs to promote knowledge transfer in rural areas to change the current situation (Song Y, 2011). To foster teacher-led research, Ryan et al. (2009) conducted an international project involving schoolteachers, school principals and district leaders in big cities, rural and remote areas in Inner Mongolia, along with academics from three countries (China, Australia and Canada). Whilst these attempts provided rural schools with an inflow of enriching and innovative ideas, efforts to promote knowledge transfer in rural areas are still at an early stage and require further development.
Professional learning community practices around the nation, no matter in urban schools or in rural schools, are structured into the top-down educational system in the form of institutionalized teaching and research activities. As a result, PLC practices are thriving even in rural regions. However, rural schools are less likely to develop strong PLCs due to relatively constrained resources, limited school-based professional networks and the initiative of teachers themselves. Recent attempts to build transregional PLCs show great potential to build school capacity for system change and transform these low-performing schools into strong PLCs.
Structural teacher collaboration in implementation-orientated education systems
Teacher collaboration is regarded as the most significant component of PLCs, capable of supporting teacher development, teacher learning and the diffusion of innovative practices (Giles and Hargreaves, 2006; Song and Wei, 2011; Zhang and Bu, 2007). However, the literature is full of claims and predictions regarding the effects of teacher collaboration and comparatively lacking in solid evidence obtained in practice (He, 2009; Wu, 2008). Teacher collaboration has been interpreted as a contextual process, which is enacted differently in heterogeneous contexts. In the literature reviewed, teacher collaboration in mainland China was generally identified as a structural form of collaboration in an implementation-oriented education system (Hu and Zhou, 2014; Sargent and Hannum, 2009).
Researchers have investigated teachers’ divergent attitudes towards structural collaboration (Gao and Wang, 2014). Some have found that teachers hold positive attitudes towards structural teacher collaboration and enjoy participating in the collective activities arranged (Wang, 2015; Zhao et al., 2013). However, evidence has also been provided of teachers’ negative attitudes towards teacher collaboration under state-mandated policies (Wang, 2015). Such policies place an overwhelming burden on teachers, impeding their efforts to actively engage in collaboration. For instance, Sargent and Hannum (2009) discovered that teachers participated in PLC activities less frequently and considered such activities less important when they had a heavy workload. They also found that some teachers resisted expected changes to teaching practice as a result of work pressure.
Existing studies have also suggested that structural teacher collaboration merely maintains the status quo by reproducing conventional ways of teaching when teachers are forced to follow the requirements of educational policies (Ryan et al., 2009; Tang and Shao, 2014). Teachers focus on tasks rather than meaningful discussion, and have little motivation to change their teaching practices. Qiao et al. (2013) found that a TRG played a conservative role in teacher collaboration and fostered the reproduction of teaching practices from experienced teachers to novice teachers. The members of this TRG acted mainly as ‘passive learners’, following the advice of school authorities.
Role of university researchers in the development of PLCs
Research has shown that university researchers can provide support for teachers in building networked PLCs (Feng et al., 2013). They have built networks to link teachers from different regions or different subjects. For example, Kong and Zhang (2010) reported that university researchers visited primary schools to provide guidance for teachers and developed a four-stage framework to help the teachers to develop PLCs. However, the literature has also provided evidence that although these externally designed networked PLCs are initially successful, the sustainability of the PLCs is limited (Wang, 2013). Teachers sometimes rely too much on the guidance of university researchers, and fail to develop a robust culture of teacher autonomy (Kruse and Louis, 2007; Louis, 2006). Such PLCs have a short life span and tend to decline when the scaffolding and support from university researchers are withdrawn.
There is also evidence that university researchers play different roles at different stages in the development of TRGs (Wang and Lu, 2012). At the beginning of the process, experts played a critical leadership role in demonstrating lessons and integrating technology with subject teaching. Subsequently, their role changed to that of facilitators responsible for providing prompt support when teachers encountered difficulties. Wong (2010b) reported that teacher communities built partnerships with outside teacher-education institutions and solicited the contribution of outside experts. These studies provided evidence that teachers and academic researchers can build collaborative programmes and treat each other as partners to avoid the sensation of an external imposition of requirements.
However, it has also been observed that university researchers are not encouraged to join PLCs when they cannot provide suitable support. Ryan et al. (2009) found that university researchers could not provide appropriate support for PLCs due to their inexperience and lack of connection with school practice. Wong (2010b) argued that heavy reliance on external experts prevents community members from accurately identifying their own specific needs. These findings imply that if university researchers are unable to provide supportive conditions, the opportunities for spontaneous learning and other positive outcomes in these communities will be limited.
Educational leadership in PLCs
According to the literature, supportive leadership plays an important role in promoting and sustaining PLCs (Bryk et al., 1999). The literature reviewed focused on two kinds of leadership in PLCs: the leadership of school principals; and the leadership of TRG heads. Both are identified as formal leadership roles to which individuals are officially appointed. None of the studies we reviewed explored informal leadership in PLCs.
Many scholars have commented on the potential effects of principal leadership, such as providing resources and support, developing a supportive structure and promoting teacher collaboration in PLCs (Zhang, 2009). For example, a correlational study by Zhang and Pang (2014) revealed that principal leadership was significantly associated with teacher collaboration and structural support. Especially in rural areas, engagement in PLCs has been found to be associated with strong principal leadership and policy reforms. However, the findings on principals’ engagement in professional activities are inconsistent (Wang and Lu, 2012). In some cases, the attendance of principals was not welcomed, as the principals displayed a demanding and authoritarian leadership style. Qiao et al. (2013) found that some teachers avoided expressing their own thoughts when the principal participated in professional activities. The diverse results of these studies highlight the complex leadership roles of principals in PLCs.
Other studies have investigated the leadership roles of TRG heads (Zhao, 2011; Zhao and Guo, 2013). TRG heads are officially designated as leaders to provide an exemplar of teaching practice, initiate professional learning activities and diffuse innovative practices (Sargent, 2015). Scholars have generally agreed that the heads of TRGs are professional leaders, not administrators (Hu, 2012); however, their professional skills are far from satisfactory. Hu and Gao (2012) found that TRG heads lacked many of the qualities of effective professional leaders. Hu (2013) showed that TRG heads needed to manage their organizations but lacked authentic decision-making power.
By and large, school principals and TRG heads have been shown to play a significant role in implementing leadership in PLCs in China. However, evidence has also been provided that leadership capacity is lacking in many PLCs (Meng et al., 2015), which negatively affects teachers’ motivation to participate and the quality of collective activities (Hu, 2013). As designated formal leadership is overemphasized in PLCs in China, common teachers are not empowered to become joint leaders (Song H, 2012). Furthermore, as research suggests that teachers need to be empowered to act as community leaders in PLCs, informal shared leadership in China’s PLCs is currently limited.
Conclusions
This review of PLCs in K-12 education systems in mainland China was undertaken to provide an overall picture of the knowledge base for the study of PLCs in this context. Although interest in PLCs seems to be at an early stage in mainland China, the field has great potential for the international academic community. There is also growing recognition among schoolteachers, policy-makers and educational professionals that PLCs play a key part in the implementation of education reform.
However, several problems with the current studies have been revealed in this review. Firstly, scholars have as yet failed to reach a consensus on the nature and characteristics of PLCs in mainland China. They have tended to treat PLCs as an umbrella concept and a term that covers a number of related ideas, and to blur the distinctions between PLCs and other learning communities (DuFour, 2004). Secondly, the examination of the methodology sections of these studies has shown that a larger than expected percentage of the studies in leading Chinese journals did not describe their research methods clearly or in detail. We also noted that some of these empirical studies did not provide sufficient evidence to support their main arguments. The methodological trend suggests that research on PLCs in mainland China is increasing, with growing pockets of research excellence, but is still far from mature.
Before discussing the implications of this review study, a note of caution has to be sounded about its limitations. An implicit limitation flows from our conscious decision on our exploration to a bounded set of sources in indigenous languages and the English language. While we tried our best to include research on PLCs in mainland China in the last decade from various sources, we have to acknowledge, that this review reflects our own resource availability (as well as limitations), and we cannot claim that it has exhausted all empirical studies on PLCs in mainland China published from 2006–2015. There might be some other emergent themes if we had included academic dissertations, reports and book chapters written outside of mainland China (if any). Another limitation comes as we did not distinguish PLC practice in terms of different subjects as the reviewed studies did not highlight different subject teachers’ PLC practice. Since it is possible that PLCs could operate differently among the various subjects, future research may particularly investigate the influence of subjects on teachers’ performance and behaviours in PLC activities.
In spite of the above limitations, this review article has specific recommendations for improving PLC practice as well as teacher training programmes in Chinese contexts and some other similar contexts. First, to orient structural teacher collaboration towards genuine collaboration, policy-makers should provide ongoing support and resources at the school and district levels. As strong PLCs are often characterized by strong cultures of trusted heterogeneous membership who value each other professionally, it would be helpful to construct new pedagogical approaches based on a weaving together of fresh ideas from the ‘outside’. Thus, school leaders should encourage teachers to focus on the learning process of teacher collaboration rather than standardized practices, and teachers need to participate equally to co-constructed knowledge and common understandings rather than reproduce existing teaching practice. Second, building transregional PLCs could provide a potential way to promote the diffusion of innovative ideas and holistic educational change around the nation. Teachers need to break down the barriers, and develop webs of learning relationships within and across different levels of the education system. Third, since sustainable PLCs benefit from outside support from university researchers, increased attention is needed to the integration of university researchers with the vision of school culture change, teachers’ learning needs and the provision of appropriate levels of professional autonomy. University researchers should build trust in collaborative relationship with schoolteachers, and provide external perspectives and support. Finally, shared informal leadership should be stimulated to enable the emergent informal inquiry, alongside existing formal leadership with designated positions that already exist in the schools. Principals should share their power with teachers and seek to facilitate emergent leadership.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The contribution of the first author (Qiao) and the third author (Zhang) to the article was partially supported by a Young Scholar Grant (Grant No. 16YJC880062) of Project of Humanities and Social Sciences of MOE in China, while that of the second author (Yu) was supported by an Research Grant (Grant No. MYRG2016-00100-FED) at the University of Macau.