Huber, Ahlgrimm: Kooperation. Aktuelle Forschung zur Kooperation in und zwischen Schulen sowie mit anderen Partnern.

2012, Waxmann

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

The concept of professional community and its relationship with student performance

Abstract
In the past thirty years, both quantitative and qualitative research has supported the notion that cooperation between teachers within their schools increases student achievement and school success (e.g. Little, 1982; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Louis & Marks, 1998). However, especially with respect to a clear specification of the characteristics of teacher collaboration and the demarcation of the collective goals of improving teacher instruction and enhancing student achievement, the construct has proven difficult to define (Westheimer, 1999). This need for a clear conceptualization and operationalization of teacher collaboration within schools has formed the basis for the development of the concept of professional community or professional learning community. In the 1980s, researchers first started efforts to formulate a definition of professional community. After the 1990s, school effectiveness research aimed at identifying the specific school, teacher and student level factors that enhance student achievement, building empirical proof that the specific characteristics of professional community have a positive relationship with school success reflected in student performance in primary and secondary education (Little, 1982; Louis & Marks, 1998; Rosenholtz, 1985; Visscher & Witziers, 2004).

1. Introduction
In this article, we present a chronological literature review of the most relevant articles and reports published on the concept of professional community and its relationship with student achievement. We will first focus on the development of the concept, after which the empirical evidence of its relationships is dealt with. In this context, we formulated the following research questions: 1. How is the concept of professional community defined and operationalized? 2. Is there empirical evidence to support the positive relationship between professional community and student achievement? The term professional community refers to teachers reflecting on specific educational issues, monitor one anothers classes for feedback, engage in cooperative practices and agreeing on the schools mission, all with a mutual commitment to student success.

Huber.indb 51

04.07.12 07:33

52

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

In an attempt to provide an adequate picture of the development of the professional community concept and its multidimensional definition and to gain an insight into its operationalization and relationship with student achievement, we will distinguish between three consecutive periods, starting in the 1980s (Little, 1982): the definition phase (1982-1994), the operationalization and measurement phase (1995-2004), and the implementation and conditions phase (2005-2009).

2. The development of the professional community concept

The definition phase (1982-1994)
First, the concept went through a stage of delimitation and theoretical conceptualization that started mainly around the 1980s with the work of Little (1982) and went on until 1994. This first research period (1982-1994) includes qualitative and quantitative studies that focused on clarifying the concept of teachers collaboration as part of school reforms (e.g. Little, 1982; Nias, Southworth, & Yeomans, 1989). The development of the concept proceeded with a focus on its relationships with other teacher variables, such as commitment and type or quality of instruction (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990). The term professional community was first formulated within this research period, considering its significance for school improvement and innovation (e.g. Little & McLaughlin, 1993; McLaughlin, 1992; McLaughlin & Talbert, 1993; Siskin, 1994). The terms collegiality, norms of collegiality and workplace conditions (Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990) were used by Little (1982) to describe teacher collaboration. Publications by Cohen (1981), and Glidewell, Tucker, Todt and Cox (1983), supported another important study by Rosenholtz, Bassler and Hoover-Dempsey (1986). More specifically, after a complex quantitative investigation and path analysis of data provided by more than 1200 teachers within 78 elementary schools, Rosenholtz, Bassler and Hoover-Dempsey (1986) concluded that specific workplace conditions foster teacher learning. These conditions included principal collegiality and evaluation practices, instructional coordination, school goal setting, and collaboration with colleague teachers. Through these studies, important traits of the concept of teacher collaboration were delimited, such as participating together in selecting instructional materials, giving and receiving help and advice on instruction, goal sharing at the school level, and focusing on student conduct. To continue, Little (1992) identified additional traits of such collaborative school environments, namely concrete conversation about teaching with other teachers, observing one anothers teaching and providing meaningful feedback and collaborating on planning instruction (Jackson & Tasker, 2002). In addition, authors such as Senge (1990), Block (1993), Galagan (1994) and Whyte (1994) emphasized the importance of supporting the collective engagement of staff in such activities as shared vision development, problem identification, learning, and problem resolution (Hord, 1997, p.12). To conclude, at the end of the first research period, the traits presented previously, such as concrete conversation about teaching with other teachers, learning and seeking

Huber.indb 52

04.07.12 07:33

The concept of professional community

53

new ideas, observing one another and providing meaningful feedback on teaching, cooperating on planning instruction, school level focus on student achievement, instructional coordination, and school goal setting were associated with the concept of community and professional community (Hord, 1997; Siskin, 1994). Furthermore, Hord (1997) pointed out the need for specific arrangements at the school level for a good functioning professional community, such as supportive and shared leadership, collective creativity, shared values and vision, colleagues observing one anothers lessons, feedback on teaching, and a collective learning focus on effective solutions for students needs (Hord, 1997).

The operationalization and measurement phase (1995-2004)

The second research period started around 1995, caused by a clear need to measure and operationalize the concept, and went on until 2004. During this period, significant quantitative investigations of the relationship between professional community and student achievement or other teacher variables were performed (e.g. Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Lee & Smith, 1995, 1996; Darling-Hammond, 1995; Louis & Kruse, 1995; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1996; Marks & Louis, 1997; Louis & Marks, 1998; Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999). As a general characteristic, this research period is essential for the process of defining and operationalizing the concept of professional community, as indicated next. However, qualitative studies were also performed within this research period, some to mention are Grossman, Wineburg and Woolworth (2001) and Achinstein (2002). This second research period corresponds with the comprehensive school reform (CSR) program in the USA, starting 1990s, when many research reports, quantitative and qualitative studies were published on implementing professional communities within schools and their contribution to successful school reforms. Based on how professional community was operationalized in most of these studies (e.g. Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Lee & Smith, 1995; Louis & Kruse, 1995; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Louis & Marks, 1998; Newmann & Wehlange, 1995; Supovitz, 2002; Wiley, 2001) five main characteristics were found to measure the concept, namely reflective dialogue, deprivatization of practice or feedback on instruction, collaborative activity, shared sense of purpose and a collective focus on student learning. Around the year 2000, researchers explicitly started to use the term professional learning community (e.g. DuFour, 2004; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; DuFour & DuFour, 2002; Lieberman, 2000; Roberts & Pruitt, 2003; Mitchell & Sackney, 2001; Thompson, Gregg, & Niska, 2004; Townsend & Adams, 2004). By using this term, they wanted to emphasize professional communitys additional focus on sustained learning activities meant for teachers. Summarizing the results of this important research period, the five characteristics of professional community appeared in various quantitative studies, but they do not represent the only applicable definition, considering the vast domain of professional community.

Huber.indb 53

04.07.12 07:33

54

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

The implementation and conditions phase (20052009)

The third research period could be delimitated starting 2005, when the focus was more than before on the development and sustainability of effective professional communities (e.g. Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Thomas, Wallace, et al., 2005; Lam, 2005; Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005; Goddard, Goddard, & Tschannen-Moran, 2007; Stoll et al., 2006; Stoll & Louis, 2007; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). In addition, this research period is characterized by a more comprehensive approach to the concept of professional learning community (Corrie & Hargreaves, 2006; A. Hargreaves, 2007; Sullivan & Glanz, 2005). During this time, new characteristics were added to the five dimensions previously identified, representing the school conditions required to support the effectiveness of the concept. For example, Jackson and Tasker (2002) added two more characteristics: supportive and shared leadership (i.e. shared power and decision-making and empowerment of teachers and student learning priorities) and supportive conditions (i.e. time and space for teachers to work together; available resources, fostered social cohesion and relationships). In addition, Bolam et al. (2005) introduced openness, networks and partnerships (i.e. staff engaged in external partnerships and learning networks, encouraging risk-taking and innovation), inclusive membership (a professional community should be large, involving staff across the school, as governors or school council members) and mutual trust, respect, support (the staff feels respected, trusted and competent). A relatively new direction for research is formulated within this research period, by empirically investigating possible moderators and mediators of the relationship between professional community, teacher variables and student achievement (e.g. Bolam et al., 2005; Louis, Dretzke, & Wahlstrom, 2010; Ross & Gray, 2006; Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008). The indirect effect of professional community on student achievement became of interest, with studies performed by researchers such as Louis, Dretzke and Wahlstrom (2010), which pointed out specific moderating and mediating variables that could explain the relatively small effect of professional community on student achievement found (Lomos, Hofman, & Bosker, 2011). This indirect effects research perspective raises more questions regarding the concept of professional community, namely if characteristics such as trust, professional support for learning or shared leadership should be part of the concepts definition or considered necessary school facilitators, either internal or external. A number of review studies on the concept of professional community and its relationships were published (e.g. Little, 2006; Stoll, Bolam et al., 2006; Lavi, 2006; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008), indicating the focus of researchers on clarifying and organizing the theoretical and empirical evidence available.

3. Towards a definition of professional community

During the operationalization and measurement research phase, Kruse, Louis, and Bryk (1995) designated five interconnected variables that describe what they called genuine professional communities in such a broad manner that they can be applied to di-

Huber.indb 54

04.07.12 07:33

The concept of professional community

55

verse settings (Toole & Louis, 2002, p. 249). In most quantitative studies these five dimensions were used to define, operationalize (e.g. Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Lee & Smith, 1995; Louis & Kruse, 1995; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Louis & Marks, 1998; Newmann & Wehlange, 1995; Supovitz, 2002; Wiley, 2001) and to measure the concept. They were labeled reflective dialogue, deprivatization of practice or feedback on instruction, collaborative activity, shared sense of purpose and a collective focus on student learning. We will give a definition of each of these sub concepts, based on Louis and Marks (1998). Reflective dialogue refers to the extent to which teachers discuss specific educational issues with one another on a professional basis. Deprivatization of practice means that teachers monitor one anothers classes for feedback purposes. Collaborative activity is a temporal measure of the extent to which teachers engage in cooperative practices. Shared sense of purpose refers to the degree to which the teachers agree with the schools mission and its operational principles. Finally, collective focus on student learning indicates the mutual commitment of teachers to student success. The term professional community has been used interchangeably with the term professional learning community, especially in the implementation and conditions research phase, ultimately focused on improving student achievement. In addition, the concept of professional learning community is broader and it refers also to the teachers learning processes supported by specific school conditions (Stoll & Louis, 2007). In the present article, the theoretical focus was on clarifying the concept of professional community, but both concepts were taken into consideration when the relationship with student achievement was reviewed in the literature available. There are also authors who defined and operationalized the professional community concept in a different manner, such as Westheimer (1999). He defined the concept from the social theory perspective, where it is characterized by shared beliefs, interaction and participation, interdependence, concern for individual and minority views, and a focus on meaningful relationships, collegiality and collaboration. In addition, other authors, such as Wenger (2000) introduced the communities of practice concept, as communities that share cultural practices focused on collective learning. In addition, Lieberman (2005) referred to the phenomenon of networks with external organizations or teachers. The distinction is that professional community is a characteristic of teachers work within schools, focused mainly on students learning, rather than on organizational learning (Leithwood, Leonard, & Sharratt, 1998).

4. Professional community, successful schools and high student performance

Considering the large applicability of the concept of professional community, the empirical evidence of the relationship with successful student performance was also organized on the three research periods identified, starting around 1982. Although this review specifically concentrates on the second research period (19952004) when most of the quantitative studies were published, we will also pay attention to some of the

Huber.indb 55

04.07.12 07:33

56

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

results obtained using quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods research, published in the other two periods.

The definition phase (19821994)

This research period was mainly focused on successful schools and their specific characteristics. As indicated before, the work of Little (1982), Rosenholtz (1985), Bryk and Driscoll (1988) and McLaughlin (1992) was essential for introducing the concept of collegiality and relating it with successful schools. After having observed and interviewed 105 teachers and 14 administrators, Little (1982) concluded that in the successful schools identified in her study teachers value and participate in norms of collegiality and continuous improvement (experimentation); they persuade a greater range of professional interactions with fellow teachers and administrators, including talk about instruction, structured observation and shared planning or preparation (Little, 1982, p.325). Moreover, she found that successful schools were also highly colleague-oriented organizations, where teachers frequently discussed topics such as classroom practices and student learning. Furthermore, the teachers worked together in developing new content, they shared teaching materials, they openly gave and received feedback, and they observed each others practices and regularly participated in professional development opportunities. With respect to effective schools, Rosenholtz, Bassler, and Hoover-Dempsey (1986) referred in a quantitative study to the similar findings, such as Armor et al. (1976), Bridges and Halliman (1978), Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore and Ouston (1979) and Venezky and Winfield (1979), arguing that professional dialogue among colleagues is frequent, and analysis, evaluation, and experimentation set the conditions under which teachers improve instructionally (Rosenholtz, Bassler, & Hoover-Dempsey, 1986, p.93). During this research period, which was actually characterized by the qualitative investigation of the new concept of collegiality and learning community, other examples of important studies on teacher collaboration and learning were Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) and Liebermann and McLaughlin (1992). However, most of these publications did not specifically investigate the relationship between professional community and successful student performance. Instead, they focused in a more general sense on the functioning of schools in maintaining high standards of learning and on the professionalization of teachers within the schools and departments in secondary/high schools (Siskin, 1994; Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994). To continue, Newmann, Rutter, and Smith (1989) and Bryk and Driscoll (1988) developed and tested a community index as a representation of schools sense of community as social organizations. According to Newmann, Rutter, and Smith (1989), a sense of community was associated with establishing close relations, cooperation and collegial assistance among the teachers, with the aim of boosting the student achievement levels. In their study, the authors investigated the effect of 10 organizational features of efficacy, community, and expectation in 353 public high schools. They concluded that the two most important conditions for countering teacher alienation were a general knowledge among the teachers of one anothers courses and the willingness to

Huber.indb 56

04.07.12 07:33

The concept of professional community

57

help one another. Furthermore, Bryk and Driscoll (1988) integrated 23 indicators into a single index of school communal characteristic or sense of community (p.28), and assessed in 357 schools the effect of teacher agreement on school goals, beliefs and values, as well as the impact of cooperation and organizational characteristics on different student and teacher characteristics. The authors concluded that within the schools that had strengthened their communal environment, there was a significant increase in the teachers sense of efficacy, the teacher enjoyment in their work, their morale, and their involvement in one anothers practices, as well as an improvement in students behavior, their academic interest and their achievement.

The operationalization and measurement phase (19952004)

This research period is the most significant for the quantitative empirical studies focused on the relationship between professional community and successful student performance. The empirical studies published within this research period particularly dealt with professional communitys relationships with teacher variables, such as authentic pedagogy (Newmann, Marks, & Gamoran, 1995), teacher responsibility for student learning (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996) or teacher professional learning and experimentation (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999) and successful student performance. During this period, the process of operationalization started, which was based on the specific of professional community characteristics. The studies published represent sufficient evidence for professional community to become an important school level predictor of student success (e.g. King & Newmann, 2001; Mulford & Silins, 2003; Odden, Borman, & Fermanich, 2004; Smylie, Wenzel, et al., 2003; Supovitz, 2002; Supovitz & Christman, 2003; Tighe, Wang, & Foley, 2002; Visscher & Witziers, 2004; Wiley, 2001). Authors like Newmann and Wehlage (1995) found that if schools want to enhance their organizational capacity to boost student learning, they should work on building a professional community that is characterized by shared purpose, collaborative activity, and collective responsibility among staff (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995, p.37). More specific, Newmann and Wehlage (1995) published a book that synthesized five years of research (developed by the Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools CORS) in the USA, using data from four studies performed between 1990 and 1995; data focused on education reform programs, school organization and the quality of student learning. Two important publications on the effect of professional community on student achievement, were the School Restructuring Study (SRS) and the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS:88). In the SRS, 24 public elementary, middle, and high schools in 16 states covering 22 urban districts were investigated, while the NELS:88 study included a broad range of more than 800 schools, including more than 10,000 students (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). The type of professional community considered in these studies was school-wide and had resulted from effective school restructuring measures. By comparing elementary, middle, and high schools in terms of the extent (low, average, or high) to which these organizations had adopted the professional community concept, Newmann and Wehlage (1995) found that schools which used professional community concept most inten-

Huber.indb 57

04.07.12 07:33

58

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

sively, showed high levels of student achievement in mathematics, sciences and social studies. Moreover, professional community not only boosted student achievement gains, it also helped to make the gains more equitable among socioeconomic groups (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995, p. 37). Using the NELS:88 data (CORS), Lee and Smith (1995, 1996) investigated the effect of high school restructuring policies on student achievement and engagement in American high schools. Based on a nationally distributed sample of more than 10,000 students and 820 high schools, the effects of restructured school communities on student gains were examined. Some of the characteristics of the restructured school reflected an emphasis on issues such as staff solutions to school problems, interdisciplinary teaching teams, a cooperative learning focus, a school-within-a-school approach, teacher teams commonly sharing planning time, and flexible times for classes (Lee &Smith, 1995). A multivariate analysis of causal effects, indicated that the schools which had implemented these types of restructuring measures, showed higher levels of student achievement in the subjects of mathematics, reading, history, science, as well as in terms of academic engagement (Lee &Smith, 1995). Based on the SRS data (CORS), Louis, Marks, and Kruse conducted three quantitative studies. In 1996, they investigated the effect of professional community on teacher responsibility for student learning. Their study included eight elementary, eight secondary, and eight high schools in the USA, in which relationships were examined by means of correlation analysis and hierarchical linear models (HLM). They found that school professional community was positively associated with responsibility for student learning (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996). In 1997, Marks and Louis established that professional community was also positively related to student achievement. In this study, professional community served as the mediator of the effect of teacher engagement on student achievement. Performing a correlation analysis on the same sample, they concluded the following: teacher empowerment affects pedagogical quality, student academic performance indirectly through school organization for instruction (Marks & Louis, 1997, p. 245). Their third study, conducted in 1998 also with the aid of HLM, again confirmed that professional community positively relates with students academic performance. In 2002, in connection with the reform movement, Tighe, Wang, and Foley (2002) described the results of the evaluation of a reform agenda implemented between 1995 and 2001 in the public schools of Philadelphia in the US. This evaluation included both quantitative and qualitative investigation methods. The students in Philadelphia were asked to do a SAT-9 test in mathematics, reading and science. Based on an HLM analysis of the results obtained in primary schools and the qualitative results, the authors concluded that in schools with a stronger focus on teacher professional community approach the student results improved, which indicated that the concept was significantly related to the rate of growth in childrens achievement scores (Tighe, Wang, & Foley, 2002, p. 23). In the same reform-based context, Supovitz (2002) and Supovitz and Christman (2003) evaluated the effect of professional community on school climate- as well as the impact of teacher teaming on student achievement. They used multiple data sources from a 4-year evaluation of a reform process in Cincinnati and Philadelphia. The

Huber.indb 58

04.07.12 07:33

The concept of professional community

59

schools were surveyed and visited three times between 1997 and 2001. More than 2000 teachers from 79 elementary, middle, and high schools in Cincinnati and around 50,000 students of grades 3 to 8 took part in the study (Supovitz, 2002). However, not for all grades did Supovitzs HLM analysis identify a clear pattern of statistical significant differences in student achievement between the team-based and non-teambased schools (Supovitz, 2002, p.1614). For some of the grades, like grade 6, Supovitz (2002) found a significant association between team group instructional practices and students progress in mathematics, reading, science, and writing. Smylie, Wenzel, et al. (2003), published another research report, which evaluated the success of a number of reform movements. The study included 365 elementary schools in Chicago. This quantitative evaluation was conducted between 1997 and 2001, when a sample of around 60,000 students and 8500 teachers was investigated. In the authors model, teacher professional community was depicted as an essential factor in the improvement of student learning, and defined by the items peer collaboration, reflective dialogue, focus on student learning, orientation toward innovation, and teacher commitment to the school (Smylie, Wenzel, et al., 2003). In general, the authors found no significant differences in student achievement between the schools that had implemented the reform agenda and those that had not. In addition, Mulford and Silins (2003), who used the Leadership for Organizational Learning and Student Outcomes LOLSO research data, evaluated the effects of reform initiatives on school practices and student learning. They found that schools environments with a collaborative climate and a community focus had a positive effect on students non-academic outcomes. For this study, the authors used survey data obtained from a sample of 2500 teachers and 3500 students from 96 secondary schools in South Australia and Tasmania. Path analysis indicated that together with the influence of transformational leadership and teacher/team leadership, the collaborative efforts of the teachers had a significant effect on the students academic self-concept, participation and engagement. Regarding the qualitative studies as part of this research period, Newmann, King and Youngs (2000) created a complex model of student achievement predictors based on evaluating educational policies and programs, naming professional community as an important school capacity predictor. Furthermore, based on fieldwork in 9 American schools, the authors observed that professional community had a positive association with student achievement if the impact of the professional development programs were sustained. To continue, some qualitative studies compared low and high performing schools to identify the main factors that determine improvement. Caron and McLaughlin (2002), for example, examined 4 elementary and 2 middle schools and established that a strong sense of professional community and high expectations regarding all students, together with a culture of shared leadership and collaborative decision-making, were specific characteristics of successful schools. Strahan (2003) conducted a similar qualitative study, which investigated the dynamics of school culture in 3 elementary schools in North Carolina. These schools had succeeded in improving the achievements of low- income and minority students over a period of three years. One of Strahans conclusions was that promoting a collaborative professional culture together with an emphasis on the professional development of the teaching staff was

Huber.indb 59

04.07.12 07:33

60

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

an efficient approach to improving student performance. Berry, Johnson and Montgomery (2005) investigated another school that had achieved significant improvements. They also concluded that the success of this school was achieved by building an efficient teacher community. Other examples of similar studies on successful schools are those of Hipp and Huffman (2003) and Phillips (2003). Some studies applied a mixed-method research design to investigate the importance of professional community for student achievement. For example, in their survey on learning practice profiles, Thompson, Gregg and Niska (2004) used quantitative as well as qualitative methods, such as interviews with the principals and other staff members, as well as focus groups with the teachers. All interviews with the principals clearly indicated that a school culture focused on a shared vision and team learning, bring about a significant improvement in student achievement. Hollins, McIntyre, DeBose, Hollins and Towner (2004) conducted another mixed-methods study. Their research covered two years, focusing on a school in California, which had developed a self-sustaining learning community aimed at improving the achievements of low performing students. They found that the teachers collaborative work significantly influenced the teaching practices and improved student learning. The authors concluded that in particular the subject professional communities of for mathematics and English had a significant and positive relationship with student achievement in secondary and high schools. Other quantitative studies which investigated professional community as a subject or department characteristic and its relationship with student achievement were Kuhlemeier and Van den Bergh (2000), Visscher and Witziers (2004) and Wiley (2001), while additional qualitative studies were published by Little (2002), Siskin (1997) and Talbert and McLaughlin (2002). Focusing mainly on mathematics department professional communities, most of these authors found a significant relationship of professional community with student achievement in secondary schools in countries like the Netherlands and US.

The implementation and conditions phase (20052009)

During the third research period, starting around 2005, the focus of the studies investigating the relationships of professional community or professional learning community diversified and became more oriented towards possible indirect effects. In 2005, Bolam et al. (2005) published the results of a quantitative and qualitative research study performed in England. The principle objectives of this study were to identify the characteristics of effective professional learning communities as well as their enabling and inhibiting factors and to test their collective purpose of enhancing pupil learning (Bolam et al, 2005, p.2). The sample contained 800 organizations: nursery, primary, secondary and special schools. On the basis of their correlation analysis the authors concluded that the more fully a professional learning community expressed the characteristics, the more they impacted positively on pupils attendance, interest in learning, and the actual learning, as well as on the individual and collective professional learning, practice and morale of teaching and support staff (Bolam et al, 2006, p. iii).

Huber.indb 60

04.07.12 07:33

The concept of professional community

61

A publication specifically representative of the third research period is the study of Ingvarson, Meiers and Beavis (2005), which investigate the features of professional development programs and their effect on teacher and student efficacy. In this research, the frequency of the professional community activities was considered a mediator of the effect of the professional development programs on teacher knowledge and practice and student learning and efficacy. No less than 3250 teachers in Australia who participated in eight different professional development programs were surveyed between 2002 and 2003. The findings indicated that the success of the professional development programs partly depended on the teachers motivation and ability to strengthen the interaction and collaboration within their schools and, increase the frequency of the professional community activities (Ingvarson, Meiers, & Beavis, 2005). It is interesting to point out that apart from Ingvarson, Meiers, and Beavis, (2005) more studies have recognized the association between professional community and professional development programs and its effects on teacher learning (e.g. Cordingley, Rundell, Temperley, & McGregor, 2004; Little, 2006; Lumpe, 2007). Examples of other teacher or school variables which have been considered to be related to professional community, successful schools and student performance are the following: shared leadership and school reform (Camburn, Rowan & Taylor, 2003), trust (Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), teacher learning and experimentation (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999), teacher commitment (Hausman & Goldring, 2001; Rosenholtz & Simpson, 1990) and professionalism (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994), collective efficacy (Goddard & Goddard, 2001), and teacher efficacy (Newmann, Rutter, & Smith,1989). A very recent study is that of Louis, Dretzke and Wahlstrom (2010). Here path analysis has been used to investigate the effect of the variables trust, primary or secondary school, and shared and instructional leadership on student achievement, mediated by the effect of professional community. It was found that the effect of professional community on student achievement was significant but indirect, since it was mediated by the effect of focused instruction.

5. Conclusion and future research directions

In this paper, it was our objective to present the theoretical development of the professional community and give an outline of the empirical evidence of its relationship with student achievement. During its conceptualization process, the concept evolved from norms of collegiality (Little, 1982, p.325) and teachers collaboration with colleagues (Rosenholtz, Bassler, & Hoover-Dempsey, 1986, p.91) into professional community (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999, p.751; Louis & Marks, 1998, p.532) and professional learning community (Bolam et al., 2005, p. i). The most commonly applied definition of the concept indicates that a professional community is formed when teachers jointly reflect together on instructional practices and the schools principles and mission, when they engage in cooperative practices and provide each other with feedback on their teaching activities and, specifically, when they focus their collaborative work on the improvement of student learning.

Huber.indb 61

04.07.12 07:33

62

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

In the investigation of the relationships between professional community and successful student performance, a large spectrum of research methods has been used, such as quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods design. Most of these approaches have resulted in similar findings, which indicate a significant and positive connection. Moreover, most of the studies in the three research periods, presenting either onetime measurements or longitudinal research, and positioning professional community either as a direct predictor or as a mediator of other predictors of student success, have indicated that professional community is an important characteristic of successful schools as reflected in student achievement levels. Regardless of the fact that some of the results could not be generalized to all countries, considering that these studies mainly referred to USA, UK, the Netherlands or Australia, it can generally be concluded that professional community has a significant positive relationship with student performance in primary and secondary education. One of the most common limitations reported by the majority of the authors of the quantitative studies reviewed concerned the selectivity of the samples, which hindered the generalizability of the findings and their applicability to other school contexts. For example, some of the studies were limited to urban environments (Louis & Marks, 1998), while other publications only dealt with one particular state in the US (Supovitz, 2002). Another methodological limitation relates to the quality of the measurements used in the different studies. Furthermore, the type of statistical modeling technique used may have also influenced the results, especially in the case when no multilevel modeling techniques (Bosker & Scheerens, 1994) or longitudinal designs (Hofman & Dijkstra, 2010) were applied.

Future research directions

It has appeared difficult to define professional community and differentiate the concept from other related constructs. This conclusion implies that a generally accepted definition may facilitate the measurement and investigation of the concept in future empirical studies. In addition, general agreement on a common operationalization framework would enable researchers to make comparisons among studies as well as among results, and summarize the effects through meta-analyses. On the other hand, Beck (1999) has pointed out the risk of oversimplification of the concept through an operationalization that is too strict. Considering the chronological periods of empirical research, it may be concluded that both a comprehensive model of predictors and a multilevel modeling technique is required to obtain a fair estimation of the effects of professional community on successful schools or on high student performance levels. Moreover, given the complex predictor models used for the school and student success constructs, an efficient method to be used in the future investigation of professional community and its relation with student performance could be the indirect effects approach (Witziers, Bosker, & Krger, 2003). To continue, especially when investigating the professional community in secondary/high schools it is important to specify whether the professional community activities are either school- or subject-related (Lomos, Hofman, & Bosker, 2011).

Huber.indb 62

04.07.12 07:33

The concept of professional community

63

However, in most of the studies presented here, professional community formed part of a specific school reform program, which is why it was not investigated as the result of the efforts of teachers. This means that professional communities need to be stimulated and sustained by the school culture as a day-to-day practice. Once adopted and accepted by the teachers as a tool for interaction, professional community could become a common vehicle of communication for the teachers. Future research could therefore focus on the development and continuance of effective professional communities in primary or secondary/high schools. Finally, the long-term developments of the day-to-day practices of professional community and effects in terms of higher student performance levels could be examined via more longitudinal studies.

References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict among community: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455. Armor, D. J., Conry-Oseguera, P., Cox, M., King, N., McDonnell, L., Pascal, A., Pauly, E. & Zelhman, G. et al. (1976). Analysis of the school preferred reading program in selected Los Angeles minority schools. Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corporation. Beck, L. G. (1999). Metaphors of educational community: an analysis of the images that reflect and influence scholarship and practice. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 13-45. Berry, B., Johnson, D. & Montgomery, D. (2005). The power of teacher leadership. Educational Leadership, 62(5), 56-60. Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M. (with Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A. & Smith, M) (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. Retrieved from http://www/education.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/rr637.pdf Bridges, E. M. & Hallinan, M. T. (1978). Subunit size, work system interdependence, and employee absenteeism. Educational Administration Quarterly, 14(2), 24-42. Block, P. (1993). Stewardship: Choosing service over self-interest. San Francisco, CA: Berret-Koehler Publishers. Bosker, R. J. & Scheerens, J. (1994). Alternative models of school effectiveness put to the test. International Journal of Educational Research, 21(2), 159-180. Bryk, A. S., Camburn, E. & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: facilitator factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35, 751-781. Bryk, S. A. & Driscoll, M. E. (1988). The high school as community: contextual influences and consequences for students and teachers. Madison, WI: National Center on Effective Secondary Schools. Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/ detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED302539&ERICExtSe arch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED302539 Camburn, E., Rowan, B. & Taylor, J. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347-373. Caron, E. A. & McLaughlin, M. J. (2002). Indicators of beacons of excellence schools: what do they tell us about collaborative practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 13(4), 285-314.

Huber.indb 63

04.07.12 07:33

64

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

Cohen, E. G. (1981). Sociology looks at team teaching. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 2, 163-193. Cordingley, P., Rundell, B., Temperley, J. & McGregor, J. (2004). From transmission to collaborative learning: best evidence in continuing professional development. Paper presented at the International Conference for School Effectiveness and Improvement, ICSEI, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Corrie, G. & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 124-156. Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604. DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. DuFour, R. (2004). What is professional learning community? Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6-12. Galagan, P. (1994). Reinventing the profession. Training and Development, 48(12), 20-28. Glidewell, J. C., Tucker, S., Todt, M. & Cox, S. (1983). Professional support systems: The teaching profession. In A. Nadler, J. D. Fischer & B. M. DePaulo (Hrsg.), New directions in helping: Applied perspectives on help-seeking and receiving, Vol. 3 (S. 189212). New York, NY: Academic Press. Goddard, R. D. & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of teacher and collective efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807-818. Goddard, Y. V., Goddard, R. D. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877-896. Grossman, P. L., Wineburg, S. & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward of theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942-1013. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Hrsg.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (S. 181-196). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Hausman, C. S. & Goldring, E. B. (2001). Sustaining teacher commitment: The role of professional communities. Peabody Journal of Education, 76(2), 30-51. Hipp, K. K. & Huffman, J. B. (2003, January). Professional learning communities: assessment-development-effects. Paper presented at the International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, ICSEI, Sydney, Australia. Retrieved from: http://www. eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED482255.pdf Hofman, R. H. & Dijkstra, B. J. (2010). Effective teacher professionalization in networks? Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, 1031-1040. Hollins, E. R., McIntyre, L. R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K. S. & Towner, A. (2004). Promoting a self-sustaining learning community: investigating an internal model for teacher development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2), 247-264. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Retrieved from: http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/4.html Ingvarson, L., Meiers, M. & Beavis, A. (2005). Factors affecting the impact of professional development programs on teachers knowledge, practice, student outcomes and efficacy. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(10), 1-28. Jackson, D. & Tasker, R. (2002). Professional Learning Communities. Cranfield, UK: National College of School Leadership. Retrieved from www.ncsl.org.uk/nlc

Huber.indb 64

04.07.12 07:33

The concept of professional community

65

King, M. B. & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional development: conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of Educational Management, 15(2), 86-93. Kuhlemeier, H. & Van den Bergh, H. (2000).Departmental effectiveness in the third year of Dutch secondary education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26(4), 351-371. Lam, Y. L. J. (2005). School organizational structures: Effects on teacher and student learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(4-5), 387-401. Lavi, J. M. (2006). Academic discourses on school-based teacher collaboration: Revisiting the arguments. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 773-805. Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. B. (1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68(4), 241-270. Lee, V. E. & Smith, J. B. (1996). Collective responsibility for learning and its effects on gains in achievement for early secondary school students. American Journal of Education, 104(3), 103-147. Leithwood, K., Leonard, L. & Sharratt, L. (1998). Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(2), 243-276. Lieberman, A. (2005). Networks as learning communities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 221. Lieberman, A. (2000). Networks as learning communities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 221-228. Lieberman, A. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). Networks for educational change: Powerful and problematic. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(9), 673-677. Little, J.W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: workplace conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3), 325-340. Little, J. W. (1992). Teacher development and educational policy. In M. Fullan & A. Hargreaves (Hrsg.), Teacher development and educational change (S. 170-193). London, UK: Falmer Press. Little, J. W. (2002). Professional community and the problem of high school reform. International Journal of Educational Research, 37(8), 693-714. Little, J. W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the learning centered school. Prepared for the National Education Association. Retrieved from http:// www.nea.org/assets/docs/mf_pdreport.pdf Little, J. W. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1993). Perspectives on cultures and contexts of teaching. In J.W. Little & M.W. McLaughlin (Hrsg.), Teachers work: Individuals, colleagues, and contexts. (S. 1-8). New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. Lomos, C., Hofman, R. H. & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional community and student achievement a meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 121-148. Louis, K. S. & Kruse, S. (1995). Professionalism and community: perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Louis, K. S. & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers work and student experience in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106, 532-575. Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315-336. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M. & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798. Lumpe, A. T. (2007). Research-based professional development: Teachers engaged in professional learning communities. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 18(1), 125-128.

Huber.indb 65

04.07.12 07:33

66

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

Marks, H. M. & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom? The implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 245-275. McLaughlin, M. W. (1992). What matters most in teachers workplace context? Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED). Retrieved from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_ nf pb=tr ue&_&ERICExtS e arch_S e archValue_0=ED342755&ERICExtS e ar ch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED342755 McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional Communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning. Stanford, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School Teaching, Stanford University. Mitchell, C. & Sackney, L. (2001). Building capacity for a learning community. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 19. Retrieved from http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/mitchellandsackney.html Mulford, B. & Silins, H. (2003). Leadership for organisational learning and improved student outcomes what do we know? Cambridge Journal of Education, 33(2), 175-195. Newmann, F. M. & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: a report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED387925 Newmann, F. M., King, M. B. & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/archive/pdbo/default.htm Newmann, F. M., Marks, H. M. & Gamoran, A. (1996). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. American Journal of Education, 104(4), 280-312. Newmann, F. M., Rutter, R. A. & Smith, M. S. (1989). Organizational factors that affect school sense of efficacy, community, and expectations. Sociology of Education, 62(4), 221-238. Nias, J., Southworth, G. & Yeomans, R. (1989). Staff relationships in the primary school: a study of organizational cultures. London, UK: Cassell. Odden, A., Borman, G. & Fermanich, M. (2004). Assessing teacher, classroom, and school effects, including fiscal effect. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 4-32. Phillips, J. (2003). Powerful learning: Creating learning communities in urban school reform. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18(3), 240-258. Roberts, S. M. & Pruitt, E. Z. (2003). Schools as professional learning communities: Collaborative activities and strategies for professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1991). Teachers workplace: The social organization of schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Rosenholtz, S. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93(3), 352-388. Rosenholtz, S. J. & Simpson, C. (1990). Workplace conditions and the rise and fall of teachers commitment. Sociology of Education, 63(4), 241-257. Rosenholtz, S. J., Bassler, O. & Hoover-Dempsey, K. (1986). Organizational conditions of teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 91-104. Ross, J. A. & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education, 29(3), 798-822.

Huber.indb 66

04.07.12 07:33

The concept of professional community

67

Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P. & Ouston, J. (1979). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary school and effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday. Siskin, L. S. (1994). Realms of knowledge: Academic departments in secondary schools. London, UK: The Falmer Press. Siskin, L. S. (1997). The challenge of leadership in comprehensive high schools: school vision and departmental divisions. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 604-623. Smylie, M. A., Wenzel, S. A. (with Allensworth, E., Fendt, C., Hallman, S., Luppescu,S. & Nagaoka, J.) (2003). The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: successes, failures, and lessons for the future. (Final technical report of the Chicago Annenberg research project). Chicago, IL: Consortium of Chicago School Research. Retrieved from http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/content/publications.php?pub_id=60 Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elementary schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 127-146. Stoll, L. & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Hrsg.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (S. 1-13). Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A. & Hawkey, K. (2006). What is a professional learning community? A summary. Retrieved from http:// networkedlearning.ncsl.org.uk/knowledge-base/programme-leaets/professional-learningcommunities/professional-learning-communities-04-summary.pdf Sullivan, S. & Glanz, J. (2005). Building effective learning communities: Strategies for leadership, learning, and collaboration. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing Communities of instructional practice. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626. Supovitz, J. A. & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing communities of instructional practice: lessons for Cincinnati and Philadelphia. CPRE Policy Briefs, 19, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania. Talbert, J. E. & McLaughlin, M. W. (2002). Professional communities and the artisan model of teaching. Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 325-343. Talbert, J. E. & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102, 123-153. Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L. & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning communities, leadership, and student learning. RMLE Online, 28(1), 1-15. Tighe, E., Wang, A. & Foley, E. (2002). An analysis of the effect of children achieving on student achievement in Philadelphia elementary schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Toole, J. C. & Louis, K. S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in international education. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Hrsg.), Second international handbook of educational leadership and administration (S. 247-279). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Townsend, D. & Adams, P. (2004). Action research in Chinooks edge school division: Tracking the journey to a learning community. Innisfail, AB: Chinooks Edge School Division. Venezky, R. L. & Winfield, L. F. (1979). Schools that succeed beyond expectations in teaching reading. Studies in education. Newark, DE: University of Delaware. Vescio, V., Ross, D. & Adams, A. (2007). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.

Huber.indb 67

04.07.12 07:33

68

Catalina Lomos, Roelande H. Hofman und Roel J. Bosker

Visscher, A. J. & Witziers, B. (2004). Subject departments as professional communities? British Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 785-800. Wahlstrom, K. L. & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: the roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 458-495. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organisation Articles, 7(2), 225-246. Westheimer, J. (1999). Communities and consequences: an inquiry into ideology and practice in teachers professional work. Education Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 7193. Wiley, S. D. (2001). Contextual effects on student achievement: School leadership and professional community. Journal of Educational Change, 2, 1-33. Witziers, B., Bosker, R. J., & Krger, M. L. (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-425. Whyte, D. (1994). The heart aroused: Poetry and the preservation of the soul in corporate America. New York, NY: Currency Doubleday.

Huber.indb 68

04.07.12 07:33