Subject departments as professional communities?

Abstract

A growing body of literature suggests that when schools become professional communities there are expected benefits in terms of teacher learning, school improvement and student achievement. In this article the concept of professional communities is examined for certain subject departments in Dutch secondary schools. The authors report on research into the extent to which mathematics departments operate as professional communities. At the same time, it was investigated whether the level at which departments operate as professional communities is related to student achievement. The results indicate that departments are cohesive bodies regulating teacher behaviour in several respects. However, as professional communities they do not focus on improving the quality of their teachers and instruction. Some characteristics of professional communities prove to be beneficial for student achievement, while others are not. The authors offer recommendations on how departments can develop into more professionally organised communities.

Toward Conceptual Clarity

“…The presence of shared beliefs about learning and instruction and a common focus on the improvement of students' learning is often identified as a key dimension of strong teacher professional communities (Bryk et al, 1999;Louis & Marks, 1998). Others refer to a similar dimension using terms such as shared understanding (Sackney et al, 2005), shared values and vision (Hord, 1997(Hord, , 2004Stoll et al, 2006), professional and pupil learning ethos (Bolam et al, 2005;Stoll et al, 2006), and consensus (Visscher & Witziers, 2004). A second often-cited dimension of interpersonal capacity may be described as collective learning (Hipp, 2005;Hord, 1997Hord, , 2004.…”

“…A second often-cited dimension of interpersonal capacity may be described as collective learning (Hipp, 2005;Hord, 1997Hord, , 2004. This dimension comprises several elements related to collective learning and applications of collective learning, such as group learning and external enquiry orientation (Bolam et al, 2005), reflective dialogue (Bryk et al, 1999;Louis & Marks, 1998;Louis et al, 1996), and consultation and cooperation (Visscher & Witziers, 2004). A third commonly cited dimension of interpersonal capacity in support of PLCs is shared practices Hord, 1997Hord, , 2004Mitchell & Sackney, 2000).…”

“…Third, most studies of PLCs acknowledge the importance of stimulating and participative leadership as a key dimension that is part of the organizational capacity that fosters PLCs. This dimension refers to the degree to which school and departmental leaders support and stimulate teacher learning, delegate responsibilities, and share leadership functions (Geijsel, Sleegers, Stoel, & Krüger, 2009;Geijsel, Sleegers, Van den Berg, & Kelchtermans, 2001;Mitchell & Sackney, 2000;Moolenaar, Daly, & Sleegers, 2010;Mulford et al, 2004;Spillane, 2006;Spillane & Kim, 2012;Visscher & Witziers, 2004). Together, the three capacities (personal, interpersonal, and organizational) and their eight underlying dimensions form a conceptual model of PLCs that we will use to test the multidimensional, multilevel nature of PLCs within Dutch elementary schools.…”

“…First, a recurring theme in PLC literature is the need for organizational conditions in the form of supportive resources, structures, and systems that shape organizational capacity. Among these are the amount of time, information, materials, and other resources available in the school (Atteberry & Bryk, 2011;Mitchell & Sackney, 2000;Mulford, Silins, & Leithwood, 2004); supportive and shared decision making (Louis et al, 1996;Visscher & Witziers, 2004); and organizational resources and learning opportunities (Sackney et al, 2005). Second, the dimension of educators' relationships and climate of the school also reflects the organization's capacity and is suggested to play an important role in PLCs (Finnigan & Daly, 2012;Moolenaar & Daly, 2012).…”

“…In most studies, researchers used factor analyses to demonstrate that the different PLC dimensions could be distinguished as separate factors (e.g., Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999;Hipp, 2005;Visscher & Witziers, 2004;Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), while in other studies, researchers used a standardized index that represented the sum of separate factors to operationalize professional community (e.g., Louis et al, 1996;Louis & Marks, 1998;Marks & Louis, 1999). In only one study did researchers use second-order factor analyses to determine whether the separate dimensions measured a single underlying organizational construct, professional community (Bryk et al, 1999).…”