Professional learning communities in compulsory schools. Development of a measuring instrument.

Abstract

The aim of this study is twofold. First, to increase our understanding of factors that influence the development of a professional learning community (PLC) in an Icelandic context and, second, to develop a reliable instrument to measure the level of PLCs in Icelandic compulsory schools. The literature strongly suggests it is worthwhile for schools to develop PLCs since there are numerous indicators that a PLC positively affects students’ academic outcomes and school teaching practices (Burns et al., 2017; Dogan & Adams, 2018; Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, 2010). Furthermore, the most successful staff development takes place within a learning community in schools, based on inquiry orientated practice and professional collaboration (OECD, 2019). Several PLC instruments exist (e.g., Hord, 1997; Oliver & Hipp, 2010; Sleegers et al., 2013) but only one instrument has been developed specifically to measure PLCs in the Icelandic context (Anna Kristín Sigurðardóttir, 2010). This was a small-scale survey and did not include the most recent components of PLC, such as the critical use of data. Therefore, there was a need for a measurement instrument that grasps all these critical components in an Icelandic context and reliably measures the level of PLCs within Icelandic schools. The goal was to provide the school community with information based on the views of teachers and school leaders regarding the standing of their own professional environment within schools. Such information is vital to the professional development of teachers and for a sustainable improvement of schools and thus for student learning.

Quantitative research methods were used to determine the validity and reliability of the measure for use with teachers and school leaders in Iceland. The development of the instrument was carried out in two steps. First, a pilot survey was conducted in the fall of 2016, when a questionnaire was sent to all teachers and leaders in 13 Icelandic schools. Next, experts evaluated the questionnaire, based on both the literature and on statistical analysis. The survey was then conducted for the second time with a revised version of the questionnaire in 14 schools in two municipalities with the aim of further developing the instrument. An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the data in order to determine the dimensionality of the revised questionnaire. Statistical analysis resulted in an instrument with 34 statements contained in 6 dimensions. The underlying dimensions were (I) shared vision and values, (II) use of critical data to improve teaching, (III) mutual professional support for teaching and learning (IV) shared and supportive leadership, (V) social climate that supports collaboration and (VI) job satisfaction and engagement.

In the discussion, five thought-provoking topics from the findings are considered in light of the literature with considerations as to why some findings were surprising but others were not. Firstly, we discuss the role of data and systematic collection of information to support decision-making regarding daily practice in schools. Secondly, we discuss the role and use of feedback in schools and how to support teachers and school administrators in Icelandic schools in receiving and giving feedback about their work. Thirdly, we discuss the challenge of analysing reflective dialogue between teachers about their practice, since reflective dialogue is considered to be a vital part of a professional learning community within schools. Fourthly, we discuss the partly surprising appearance of job satisfaction as a well-defined and distinct factor in the results (factor IV). Finally, we discuss the argument of Hairon et al. (2017) regarding the difficulty of assessing the influence of out of school factors on a PLC but the instrument presented here only encompasses the influence of factors within the school. The next step in the development and use of the instrument is to further validate the measure with the participation of additional schools and use interviews that can capture participants’ view of the results. If the results from participants own schools are consistent with their experience, this would support the validation of the instrument.