Understanding Teacher Learning in Professional Learning Communities in China: Experiences from a Shanghai Junior Secondary School 9781032389387, 9781032390369, 9781003347583

Citation preview

UNDERSTANDING TEACHER LEARNING IN PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES IN CHINA EXPERIENCES FROM A SHANGHAI JUNIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL Licui Chen

Understanding Teacher Learning in Professional Learning Communities in China

Based on six-month fieldwork in a junior secondary school in Shanghai, this book qualitatively investigates the implementation of Teaching Research Groups (TRGs), a form of school-based Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in China, and teachers’ different professional learning experiences within the ­structure of TRGs. The author situates teacher professional learning in TRGs within broader historical, social, and cultural contexts and further suggests that the practice of TRGs reflects the Chinese approach of balancing the seemly complex dualities (e.g., commitment and control, collaboration and authority, and individual and collective approaches) in educational settings. This book supplements the present knowledge base on PLCs in the context of China and thus enriches the global discussion on constructing effective PLCs for teacher professional learning. Scholars and students studying teacher professional learning and development, PLCs, school improvement, and Chinese schooling would find this book helpful. Licui Chen is an assistant professor at the College of Education, Zhejiang ­University, China. Her main research areas include teacher professional learning and development, curriculum and instruction, and education policies and reforms. Her recent publications appear in Teaching and Teacher Education and ­Educational Research Review.

Understanding Teacher Learning in Professional Learning Communities in China Experiences from a Shanghai Junior Secondary School Licui Chen

First published 2024 by Routledge 4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2024 Licui Chen The right of Licui Chen to be identified as author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-032-38938-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-032-39036-9 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-003-34758-3 (ebk) DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583 Typeset in Times New Roman by KnowledgeWorks Global Ltd.

Contents

List of Figures and Tables List of Abbreviations Preface

vii viii ix

1 Introduction

1

2 Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs: Theoretical Perspectives

9

3 The Development of TRGs in China: A Historical Review

36

4 Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School

47

5 The Organisation of TRGs: An Institutionalised and Systematic Design

63

6 Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs: Three Illustrative Cases 7 Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 8 Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning: The Balancing Act

80 97 116

vi Contents

Appendix A: Methodology132 Appendix B: School Regulation on TRG Development145 Appendix C: Semester Agenda of TRG Activities147 Appendix D: List of Interviewees149 Index151

Figures and Tables

Figures 3.1 The structure of the Chinese teaching research system. 4.1 The organisation structure of Yangshan School.

40 54

Tables 4.1 4.2 5.1 A1 C1

Teachers’ basic information at Yangshan (by June 2017) 56 A weekly teaching schedule for a Yangshan teacher 58 Timetable for TRG and LPG activities (2016)66 Major observations conducted in this study 139 Semester agenda of the Chinese language TRG as an example (the second semester of 2015–2016) 147 D1 The Demographic information of interviewees 149

List of Abbreviations

CCP DEB DTRO LPG MEC MEO MOE OECD PLC PRC TAO TRG TRO UNESCO YG

Chinese Communist Party District Education Bureau District Teaching Research Office Lesson Preparation Group Municipal Education Commission Moral Education Office Ministry of Education Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development Professional Learning Community People’s Republic of China Teaching Affairs Office Teaching Research Group Teaching Research Office United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Year Group

Preface

As a teenager, I was inspired by many great teachers and have long been ­interested in understanding their professional lives. While doing fieldwork in a ­Shanghai ­senior secondary school for my master’s degree, which was about teachers’ ­implementation of the new curriculum standards, I found that teachers relied greatly on Teaching Research Groups (TRGs) to interpret curriculum standards and textbooks, prepare their lessons, and improve their classroom teaching, indicating that TRGs are a crucial venue for teacher professional learning and development. I also noted that Shanghai students’ remarkable success in some international comparative assessments had gained increasing attention from international scholars who were curious about how Chinese teachers improved their teaching. This drove me to explore in-service teachers’ professional learning and development through the structure of TRGs in our country. This book is based on my PhD thesis, completed at the University of Hong Kong. Parts of the book were expanded from my earlier journal articles that were developed from this research, “A historical review of professional learning communities in China (1949-2019): Some implications for collaborative teacher professional development” (Chen, 2020), in Asia Pacific Journal of Education, “Facilitating teacher learning in professional learning communities through action research: A qualitative case study in China” (Chen, 2022) in Teaching and Teacher Education, and “Exploring the role and practice of teacher leaders in professional learning communities in China: A case study of a Shanghai secondary school” (Chen & Zhang, 2022), in Educational Studies. I acknowledge Taylor and Francis Ltd and Elsevier Ltd for generously allowing me to adapt some materials in this book. I would like to acknowledge with gratitude all the wonderful people who contributed to the publication of this book in many different ways. First and foremost, my sincere gratitude goes to my doctoral supervisor, Dr. Ho-Ming Ng, at the Faculty of Education of the University of Hong Kong, for his support and guidance on and critiques of my research. My sincere thanks also go to Professor Wing-Wah Law, my co-supervisor, for his warm care during my PhD study and insightful comments on this research. I am much obliged to Professor Jianjun Wang, Professor Xiaofeng Zhang, and Dr. Jia Jiang for their kind support and valuable suggestions on this study. I also wish to give my thanks to all the examiners, reviewers, and editors

x Preface for their helpful comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Robert James for his professional editing. I am more than indebted to all the participants of this study, including the district teaching researchers, the school principal, and the teachers for their willingness to share their experiences, thoughts, and insights with me.Last but not least, my deepest gratitude goes to my family. I could not have completed this work without their patience, care, and encouragement. I am blessed to have my daughter Suyu, who came to this world during the writing of this book. Along with the great joy and happiness she has brought me, her day-to-day growth has inspired me to keep reflecting on the complexities and power of learning. Licui Chen Hangzhou, China References Chen, L. (2020). A historical review of professional learning communities in China (19492019): Some implications for collaborative teacher professional development. Asia ­Pacific Journal of Education, 40(3), 373–385. Chen, L. (2022). Facilitating teacher learning in professional learning communities through action research: A qualitative case study in China. Teaching and Teacher Education. 119(Nov). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2022.103875 Chen, L., & Zhang, J. (2022). Exploring the role and practice of teacher leaders in professional learning communities in China: A case study of a Shanghai secondary school. ­Educational Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2022.2026297

1

Introduction

In this era of rapid change, education reforms have been embarked on around the world to prepare future competitive citizens for the knowledge economy and society. Policymakers in many countries have prioritised improving the quality of school education to achieve expected educational outcomes. At the same time, front-line teachers have been recognised as key agents in changing teaching and shaping student learning in schools (Borko, 2004; Lieberman & Mace, 2008; ­Spillane, 1999). Thus, discovering how to support teachers’ continuous learning and development to take on new responsibilities and develop new pedagogies is essential to coping with the changing reform needs. Researchers have made many efforts to understand how to promote teachers’ professional learning effectively by developing different models and strategies. It has been argued that external and individual strategies are not powerful enough to lead to effective and sustained teacher learning (Fullan, 2007; Lieberman & Miller, 2011). Researchers have identified that effective structured professional learning (1) is content focused, (2) incorporates active learning strategies, (3) features collaboration, (4) uses models of effective practice, (5) provides coaching expert support, (6) offers feedback and reflection, and (7) is of sustained ­duration (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017) and have emphasised the building of p­ rofessional learning communities (PLCs) as one of the most promising strategies to support teachers’ continuous professional learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; D ­ uFour & Eaker, 1998; Stoll & Louis, 2007). Increasingly, studies have shed light on the positive effects of community building, including improved teaching practice, a collaborative teaching culture, and greater student achievement (Andrews & Lewis, 2002; Berry et al., 2005; Dunne et al., 2000). Although there are still debates around the definition of PLCs, there is broad agreement that they provide teachers with venues for sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, and growth-promoting way (Stoll & Louis, 2007). The existing theories on PLCs have also yielded some critical elements to create effective PLCs, including supportive and shared leadership, collective creativity, shared values and goals, supportive conditions, and shared personal practice (Hord, 1997; Huffman & Hipp, 2003; Stoll et al., 2006). Yet, some PLCs are poorly designed, and their implementations have experienced structural and cultural challenges (Harris & Jones, 2010), leading to superficial or DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583-1

2  Introduction even failed implementations in many cases (DuFour et al., 2008; Sims & Penny, 2014). How to operationalise these essential elements to create effective PLCs in school organisations adhering to a bureaucratic model remains unclear ­(Harris, 2014; Lieberman & Miller, 2011). Therefore, there is a growing need to seek ­successful PLC designs and practices across the world. In addition, how teachers work and learn together in the form of PLC is not identical in all contexts and cultures. In some English-speaking countries, PLCs are usually voluntary and loosely organised (Hargreaves, 2007; Lieberman, 2007); in contrast, in some Asian systems, such as Singapore, that follow a state-led approach to building PLCs, PLCs remain in their initial stage, both conceptually and practically (Hairon & Goh, 2017; Lee & Kim, 2016). Given the important role of context in understanding how communities work, general theories are not specific enough to explain the practice of PLCs in contexts with different educational systems and distinctive cultures, such as China. China has the world’s largest education system and teaching force, with a ­total of 142 million students enrolled in the nine-year compulsory schooling and over 9.2 million full-time teachers employed to teach them (Ministry of Education, 2017). The issue of teachers’ continuous professional learning is crucial to ­improving teacher quality in such a large system. Like many other countries, China has undertaken both large- and small-scale educational reforms. In particular, the launch of the New Curriculum Reform in 2001 highlighted the Chinese government’s efforts to radically change China’s traditional examination-oriented education (Dello-Iacovo, 2009). The reform aims at changing teachers’ instructional modes and students’ learning methods to facilitate students’ all-round development (Ministry of Education, 2001). Changing reform requirements present major challenges to Chinese teachers’ implementing the new curriculum reform in their practice. It has been argued that the reform implementation should be facilitated by teachers’ continuous professional development (Huang, 2004). In China, teachers’ professional learning and development have been promoted in many ways. One distinctive Chinese solution has been to extend teachers’ ongoing professional learning and development into the schools in which the teachers teach (Paine & Ma, 1993; Tsui & Wong, 2009). Although the term PLC is not used in China, the practice of teachers working together as a formal structure, namely, teaching research groups (jiaoyanzu, TRGs), has been a part of China’s education system for almost seven decades. A TRG is a group of teachers who teach the same subject in the same school and regularly interact for educational improvement (Paine & Ma, 1993). Whether TRGs are an “indigenous” practice or a “borrowed” product imported from the Soviet Union is still a matter of debate (G. W. Hu, 2005; Liu, 2021). In the past, the existence of TRGs was rarely discussed in Chinese educational publications, because it seemed “too common and too customary” to notice (Paine & Ma, 1993, p. 677). In recent years, with Shanghai students ranking firmly at the top of PISA (Programme for I­nternational Student Assessment) tests in 2009, 2012, and 2018 (OECD, 2011, 2014, 2019), school-based teaching research has paid more attention to the

Introduction 3 significant role of teacher professional growth in Shanghai, arguing it is a key factor leading to students’ high performance (Cheng, 2011; Tucker, 2014). Despite a growing research interest in TRGs in China, whether TRGs are effective PLCs is open to debate. Recent studies have suggested TRGs in China share many similarities with PLCs, including shared vision and values, c­ ollaborative cultures among group members, collective inquiry into best teaching ­practices, and a focus on improving student learning outcomes (G. W. Hu, 2005; Zhang & Pang, 2016; Zheng et al., 2019). These researchers stress the professional and learning-oriented nature of TRGs. However, TRGs are considered different from the “­communities” advocated in the West, as they are associated with strong ­administration (Paine & Ma, 1993; Wang, 2015). TRGs’ limitations—e.g., their administrative orientation, superficial collaboration, and insufficient professional leadership—have also been identified (Zhang et al., 2017). So far, researchers have not reached a consensus on nor a comprehensive understanding of how TRGs in school settings are practiced to achieve teacher professional growth. Although previous research suggests that TRGs are valuable for promoting teacher professional development, “why” and “how” TRGs achieve their effects and the challenges and barriers they face need more empirical research (Qiao et al., 2018), which informs the research problem of this study. This book examines three TRGs in a junior secondary school in Shanghai to explore how well TRGs in China facilitate teacher professional learning and the underlying rationale for the effective implementation of TRG practices. Specifically, this study aims to investigate the mechanisms by which TRGs function as PLCs and how Chinese teachers learn together in the structure of TRGs. In doing so, this study hopes to contribute to understanding Chinese teachers’ work by shedding light on their professional lives and how they are organised to improve teaching in school settings. The study adopted a qualitative case study as a research paradigm (Stake, 1995). Shanghai was chosen as the research site for several reasons. First, as a leader in educational development in mainland China, Shanghai has put much emphasis on improving teacher quality. Second, school-based teaching research has significantly focused on teacher professional learning (OECD, 2015) as an important factor contributing to Shanghai students’ top performance in PISA tests (Cheng, 2011; Jensen et al., 2016; Tan, 2013). Thus, examining the practice of TRGs in Shanghai allows the researcher to better understand the complex issues of how TRGs work and promote teacher professional learning. I spent almost six months at the case school, Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School (pseudonym) between February 2016 and July 2017. Yangshan has an area of less than 6000 square meters and a population of around 500 students and 60 teachers. It is a relatively small-scale public school, located in an urban district that is home to around 40 junior secondary schools. Teacher professional development is stressed as a key strategy for improving school quality at Yangshan and the school’s teacher professional development efforts have been recognised by the Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, which named it a Municipal Teacher Professional Development School—a title granted to schools that have

4  Introduction made significant achievements and are expected to play a leadership role in schoolbased teacher professional development programmes and activities (Q. Hu, 2013). Yangshan has developed various kinds of school-based learning activities to help teachers to develop, including school-based training programmes, mentoring, open lessons, etc. It is thus an appropriate case school, with rich school-based opportunities for teacher professional learning. Multiple data collection methods were employed during the fieldwork, including interviews, observation, and document collection and analysis. Interviews were conducted with teachers, TRG leaders, school leaders, and district teaching researchers to gain different perspectives on the organisation of teaching research activities, leadership roles at different levels, relationships and collaboration among teachers, and interactions and learning experiences in TRGs. Long-term observation of different teaching research activities, school meetings, and some other school activities (e.g., teacher professional development activities) was useful for gaining a deeper understanding of how TRGs were practiced and how teachers supported peer learning in the school. Documents related to teacher professional learning at the district, school, TRG, and individual teacher levels were gathered and analysed, together with the other two data sources. Detailed information on the study’s methodology can be found in Appendix A. As it selected only three TRGs—Chinese language, Mathematics, and English—in a junior secondary school in Shanghai for study, this qualitative study has no intention of generalising its findings to other TRGs or other schools in Shanghai or China. By employing a case study approach, this study sought rich descriptions and interpretations of why and how TRGs achieved teacher professional learning within school settings. Despite the study’s limited sample size, its empirical findings can be used to inform hypotheses and as comparative materials for further investigation in other schools or contexts. This study demonstrates and explains how TRGs facilitate teacher professional learning and development in the Chinese school context. In analysing TRGs as a typical form of PLCs in a junior secondary school in Shanghai, this study finds that TRGs could contribute to teacher professional learning to different extents. It further reveals the diversity of PLCs worldwide and that PLCs can thrive even with strong administrative intervention. By unpacking the structural conditions in TRG practices, the professional learning experiences of teachers in different TRGs, and the influencing factors, it demonstrates the possibilities of teacher professional learning in well-structured PLCs. The effectiveness reflects the Chinese approach of balancing complex dualities in educational practices (e.g., commitment and control, collaboration and authority, individual and collective approaches). However, the practice of TRGs is not devoid of challenges. Challenges to teacher professional learning, such as excessively strong subject and group boundaries, an overemphasis on uniformity, restricted collective and individual autonomy, and vulnerable collegiality and collaboration, are identified. The significance of this study is twofold. First, it enriches the global discussion on PLC policies, structures, and practices for teacher professional learning. It adds to our knowledge of the practice of structured PLCs in a highly hierarchical

Introduction 5 and bureaucratic education system and supplements extant studies on schoolbased teacher professional learning and development by illustrating the dynamics of communities at the subject department level as resources for teaching improvement. Second, this study contributes to studies in the research area of teacher professional learning and development in China. It depicts a nuanced picture of how “communities” work in school settings to enhance teaching improvement. It is expected that the identified challenges and barriers in TRG practices can provide practical implications for school leaders, educational authorities, and policymakers to improve the functioning of TRGs and maximise teacher professional learning in the Chinese school context. This book consists of eight chapters. Chapter 1 briefly introduces the book, ­including the study’s research problem, questions, methodology, significance, and the book’s organisation. Chapter 2 reviews relevant theories guiding this study. It first reviews theories of teacher professional learning and development and PLCs in the global literature. Specifically, it examines teaching as a profession, approaches to teacher professional development, and effective features of teacher professional development. It introduces the theoretical origins of PLCs and reviews the debatable definitions, key features, and challenges in implementing PLCs to highlight the need to explore PLC practices in different contexts. Next, it examines Chinese perspectives on teacher professional learning and its distinctive features, the debates on the nature and purpose of TRGs as a form of PLCs in China, and existing research on teacher professional learning in TRGs. Finally, it addresses the need for more empirical research into the role of TRGs for teacher professional learning. Chapter 3 outlines the development history of TRGs in China. It reviews how TRGs were established and developed since 1949, dividing the history of TRGs into three stages: their establishment in the new China, regularisation in the expansion of compulsory education, and transformation under the new curriculum reform. It further reviews their continuity and changes over the past seven decades. The historical background information lays a solid foundation for further analysis and understanding of TRG practices in China. Chapters 4–7 report the research findings. Chapter 4 introduces the broad context of China’s education system, the teaching research system in Shanghai, and the context of the case school where this qualitative study was conducted. In particular, the local teacher professional development characteristics of Shanghai are highlighted. Chapter 5 presents how TRGs are organised and structured in terms of time and space, activities, and tasks in the case school. Chapter 6 reports findings concerning teachers’ professional learning experiences in three different TRGs. Chapter 7 explores multi-level factors to offer some possible explanations for the operation of TRGs for teacher professional learning. Chapter 8 presents an overall interpretation of the research findings to conclude this study. It begins by summarising the main findings from each chapter. Next, it points out how the implementation of TRGs reflects the Chinese approach to balancing complex dualities in educational practices. The challenges and barriers of

6  Introduction TRGs in facilitating teacher professional learning are also discussed. It then revisits the theories of PLCs to highlight the theoretical contributions and addresses the practical implications for PLC facilitation and teacher professional learning and development. Finally, it suggests the limitations of this study and makes recommendations for future research. References Andrews, D., & Lewis, M. (2002). The experience of a professional community: Teachers developing a new image of themselves and their workplace. Educational Research, 44(3), 237–254. Berry, B., Johnson, D., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The power of teacher leadership. ­Educational Leadership, 62(5), 56–60. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. ­Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Cheng, K. M. (2011). Shanghai: How a big city in a developing country leaped to the head of the class. In M. S. Tucker (Ed.), Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems (pp. 21–50). Harvard Education Press. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. Dello-Iacovo, B. (2009). Curriculum reform and ‘quality education’ in China: An overview. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 241–249. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Solution Tree. Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends groups: Teachers helping teachers to improve student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 28(4), 31–37. Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 35–36. Hairon, S., & Goh, J. W. P. (2017). Teacher leaders in professional learning communities in Singapore: Challenges and opportunities. In A. Harris, M. Jones, & J. B. Huffman (Eds.), Teachers leading educational reform: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 86–99). Routledge. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 181–195). McGraw-Hill. Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and p­ otential. Corwin Press. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172–181. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hu, G. W. (2005). Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 654–705. Hu, Q. (2013). Shanghaishi zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi zhuanye fazhan xuexiao de gongneng dingwei ji shijian tese [Function positioning and practical characteristics of Shanghai ­primary and middle teachers’ professional development schools]. Theory and Practice of Education, 33(4), 25–28.

Introduction 7 Huang, F. (2004). Curriculum reform in contemporary China: Seven goals and six strategies. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(1), 101–115. Huffman, J. B., & Hipp, K. K. (2003). Reculturing schools as professional learning communities. Scarecrow Education. Jensen, B., Sonnemann, J., Roberts-Hull, K., & Hunter, A. (2016). Beyond PD: Teacher professional learning in high-performing systems. National Centre on Education and the Economy. Lee, M., & Kim, J. (2016). The emerging landscape of school-based professional learning communities in South Korean schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(2), 266–284. Lieberman, A. (2007). Professional learning communities: A reflection. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 199–203). McGraw-Hill. Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. H. P. (2008). Teacher learning: The key to educational reform. Journal of Teacher Education, 59(3), 226–234. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2011). Learning communities: The starting point for professional learning is in schools and classrooms. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4), 16–20. Liu, Y. (2021). Zhuigen suyuan: “Jiaoyan” yuanzi zhongguo bentu shijian [Tracing back to the root: Teaching research originated from the local practice in China]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 39(5), 85–98. Ministry of Education. (2001). Jichu jiaoyu gaige gangyao (shixing) [Outline of basic education curriculum reform (trial)]. http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/ moe/moe_309/200412/4672.html Ministry of Education. (2017). 2016nian quanguo jiaoyu shiye fazhan tongji gongbao [National education development statistics bulletin in 2016]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_ sjzl/sjzl_fztjgb/201707/t20170710_309042.html Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong performers and successful reformers in education. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/9789264096660-en Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. http://www. oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2015). Shanghai: Key findings from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). http://www.oecd.org/edu/ school/TALIS-2014-country-note-Shanghai.pdf Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf Paine, L., & Ma, L. (1993). Teachers working together: A dialogue on organisational and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 675–697. Qiao, X., Yu, S., & Zhang, L. (2018). A review of research on professional learning communities in mainland China (2006-2015): Key findings and emerging themes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 713–728. Sims, R. L., & Penny, G. R. (2014). Examination of a failed professional learning community. Journal of Education and Training Studies, 3(1), 39–45. Spillane, J. P. (1999). External reform initiatives and teachers’ efforts to reconstruct their practice: The mediating role of teachers’ zones of enactment. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 31(2), 143–175. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.

8  Introduction Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 1–13). McGraw-Hill. Tan, C. (2013). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on achieving educational success. Springer. Tsui, A. B. M., & Wong, J. L. N. (2009). In search of a third space: Teacher development in mainland China. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner (pp. 281–311). Springer. Tucker, M. S. (2014). Chinese lessons: Shanghai’s rise to the top of the PISA league tables. National Centre on Education and the Economy. Wang, T. (2015). Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: Demystifying professional learning communities in Chinese schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(6), 908–930. Zhang, J., & Pang, N. S. K. (2016). Exploring the characteristics of professional learning communities in China: A mixed-method study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 11–21. Zhang, J., Yuan, R., & Yu, S. (2017). What impedes the development of professional learning communities in China? Perceptions from school leaders and frontline teachers in three schools in Shanghai. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(2), 219–317. Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Li, Z. (2019). Exploring the relationships among instructional leadership, professional learning communities and teacher self-efficacy in China. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 47(6), 843–859.

2

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs Theoretical Perspectives

This study investigates how PLCs facilitate teacher professional learning in teachers’ daily life, using TRGs in a Chinese school as a research window. This chapter reviews relevant studies to address the topic’s theoretical issues. The following sections first map the landscape of teacher professional learning, then explore theories on PLCs as a strategy for effective teacher professional learning. Next, studies on teacher professional learning and development in China and the specific practice of TRGs as a well-established structure for teachers to learn and work collaboratively in Chinese schools are examined, after which the research gap is addressed. 2.1  Theories of Teacher Professional Learning This section mainly examines studies on teacher professional learning and development. It begins by clarifying the nature of teaching as a profession. The terminology, teacher professional learning, used in this study and its related terms are then presented. It further reviews different models to understand the complexities of teacher professional learning processes. 2.1.1  Teaching as a Profession

Promoting teacher professional learning and development is related to a fundamental understanding of the teaching profession. Numerous studies debate whether teaching is or should be a profession (e.g., Broudy, 1956; A. L. Goodwin, 2012; Hayes & Hegarty, 2002). Some researchers challenge the notion of teaching as a profession, pointing out that, unlike elite expert professions like medicine and the law, teaching is a “craft”, and teachers are skilled practitioners who develop a body of skills through experience (Pratte & Rury, 1991). Some point out that teaching is a semi- or quasi-profession, as it lacks some of the defining attributes of professions, such as (1) a defined body of knowledge, (2) control of entry requirements, (3) autonomy in spheres of work, and (4) high prestige and economic standing (Etzioni, 1969; Glazer, 2007; Lortie, 2002; Ornstein, 1981). However, most researchers claim that teaching is more of an established profession and should DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583-2

10  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs be advanced as such (A. L. Goodwin, 2012; Holmes Group, 1986; Koff, 1988; Thomas, 1998). According to UNESCO (1966), Teaching should be regarded as a profession: it is a form of public service which requires of teachers’ expert knowledge and specialised skills, acquired and maintained through rigorous and continuing study; it calls also for a sense of personal and cooperate responsibility for the education and welfare of the pupils in their charge. (III.6) Many efforts have been made to advance teaching as a profession, among which two strategies stand out. The first is the occupational strategy, usually termed “­professionalisation”, which involves improving teachers’ professional status, working conditions, and standing (Whitty, 2000). The second strategy emphasises that establishing teaching as a profession should focus on not only the occupation but also on improving the quality of teachers’ work, including “what they do; and of the conduct, demeanor and standards which guide it”, referred as teacher ­“professionalism” (Hargreaves, 2000, p. 152). If we conceive of teaching as a profession, teachers’ professional learning and development is considered a necessary step and integral to the growth of teachers’ professionalism (Thomas, 1998). As claimed by Day (1999), “The nature of teaching demands that teachers engage in continuing career-long professional development” (p. 1). 2.1.2  Professional Learning and Its Related Terms

As teachers play an important role in educational practices, many researchers have been concerned about improving teaching quality. There are vast numbers of studies contributing to our understanding of teacher professional learning. Among these, various terms or concepts are used, including “teacher professional learning”, “teacher professional development”, “continuous teacher development”, “teacher growth”, “teacher change”, etc. The connotations of these terms are interrelated in that they all aim to improve teachers’ teaching practices in classrooms. Researchers usually do not define precisely what they mean by the terms used in their studies, despite some nuanced differences among such terms. For example, “continuous teacher development” emphasises the continuity of development and teachers’ implicit responsibility to maintain high-quality practices (WebsterWright, 2009). “Teacher growth” understands teachers by considering deeper subjective, personal, and professional meanings from an inner perspective (D. R. Goodwin, 2005). “Teacher change” is used to describe the consequences and outcomes of teacher “learning, development, socialisation, growth, improvement, implementation of something new or different” (Richardson & Placier, 2001, p. 905). “Teacher professional development” is the most widely used term, albeit defined differently by researchers; some consider it as a research area for discussion (e.g., Evans, 2002), while others define it as a one-size-fits-all approach, often associated

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 11 with prescribed and designed activities and programmes such as one-time workshops, seminars, and training sessions for teacher improvement in the classroom (e.g., Borko, 2004; Fullan, 2007). While scholars use different terms to describe the changing conceptions of teacher learning and development, all terms directly or indirectly imply teachers’ learning for professional practices. In other words, the process by which teachers develop themselves is fundamentally a learning process (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Fishman et al., 2014; Fishman et al., 2003). In this study, “teacher professional learning” is mainly used and is taken to go beyond formally designed professional development activities to stress the interactive learning strategies in the process. To be specific, it refers to a “continuous” process by which teachers “develop the knowledge, skills, and emotional intelligence” (Day, 1999, p. 4) in a “complex” system that consists of both natural learning experiences and those consciously designed learning activities (Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Timperley, 2011). 2.1.3  Approaches to Teacher Professional Learning

Three main approaches have been summarised to contribute to teacher ­professional learning: (1) inputting knowledge and skill, (2) self-reflection, and (3) establishing networks and collaboration (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992; Lieberman & Miller, 2014). The first approach focuses on deepening teachers’ knowledge and skills to promote their professional learning, which implies a deficit in teachers’ knowledge and skills (Clarke & Hollingsworth, 2002; Guskey, 2002). This approach contends that teachers’ professional practices can be improved spontaneously by inputting teachers’ knowledge or skills. The process usually begins by identifying teachers’ missing knowledge and skills. Next, external forces or experts are invited to transmit ideas, materials, or practices to fill teachers’ knowledge gaps. Despite many efforts to increase teachers’ knowledge base, this approach has been criticised. First, the efficacy of transferring learning to practice through the mastery of prescribed knowledge or skills via designed programmes or one-shot workshops to practice is dubious (Hargreaves, 2003; Webster-Wright, 2009). The decontextualisation of learning is regarded as reinforcing the division between theory (what teachers learn) and practice (what teachers do) (Webster-Wright, 2009; Wilson & Berne, 1999). Second, the effects of knowledge inputs by prescribed learning programmes are usually short-term (Sykes, 1996), and follow-up activities, support, and pressure to sustain the learning outcomes are often lacking. Thus, emphasis on the input of knowledge and skills “can never be powerful enough, specific enough, or sustained enough to alter the culture of the classroom and school” (Fullan, 2007, p. 35). The second approach to teacher professional learning is reflection. Different from the external input of knowledge and skill, teachers are regarded as full persons in this approach, and teachers’ personal factors (for instance, personal life experience, practical experience, and personal development) in teaching are valued (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992). Reflection is a key means for teachers to understand themselves and their practice (Schön, 1983). It involves examining personal and

12  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs professional belief systems and constructing meaning and action, thus associating teacher beliefs with teacher practices (Hatton & Smith, 1995; Richardson & Placier, 1998; Stipek et al., 2001). However, individual teachers’ reflection is tacit, involving “intuition, emotion, and passion” (Zeichner & Liston, 1996, p. 9), and differs from person to person. In addition, the learning process can be “slow and time-consuming”, and learning outcomes can be “unpredictable” (Hargreaves & Fullan, 1992). The first two approaches mainly involve cognitive or individual approaches to teacher professional learning. However, influenced by the sociocultural and situated perspectives in learning theories (Lave, 2009; Wenger, 1998), teacher professional learning is no longer viewed as a cognitive and individual construct but one in which the sociocultural context should be considered (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Aligning with the sociocultural and situated perspective, the third approach to teacher professional learning emphasises teachers learning in the contexts in which they live and work (Borko, 2004; Lave & Wenger, 1991). It assumes that teachers perform their professional activities in a social environment that is complex, ecological, and dynamic. Teaching is not a private activity; teachers’ beliefs, conceptions, knowledge, and actions are shaped by their interactions with others. In this approach, the dynamic interaction between individuals and their environment is studied in various ways to promote teacher learning, including the school culture, teacher collaboration, and school leadership, all of which are important and influential contextual conditions (Chan & Pang, 2006; Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000; Louis et al., 1996). Lessons learned from colleagues, collaboration, and collaborative culture are called on to counter the isolation of teaching practices and promote teacher professional development. As Hargreaves (1994) pointed out, collaboration has become “an articulating and integrating principle of action, planning, culture, development, organisation and research” (p. 245). The learning community has become an increasingly popular notion for developing teachers in specific contexts. Furthermore, in recent studies on the core principles of effective professional learning, researchers suggest that teacher learning in communities is a promising strategy. For instance, Darling-Hammond et al. (2017) identified seven features of effective structured professional learning; specifically, that it: (1) is content focused, (2) incorporates active learning strategies, (3) supports collaboration, (4) uses models of effective practice, (5) provides coaching expert support, (6) offers feedback and reflection, and (7) is of sustained duration. Specifically, professional development programmes intentionally focusing on teaching strategies associated with discipline-specific curriculum content can support teacher learning within teachers’ classroom contexts. Using authentic artefacts, interactive activities, and other active learning strategies is conducive to engaging teachers in designing and trying out teaching strategies. Teachers are encouraged to share ideas and work collaboratively in high-quality professional learning. Modelling instruction provides teachers with a clear example of best practices. Coaching and expert support provide opportunities for teachers’ sharing of expertise to address teachers’ individual needs. Feedback and reflection help teachers to think about and make changes to their practice towards expert visions. Finally, high-quality professional learning

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 13 is sustained and provides teachers with the necessary time to learn and transform teaching practices (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017). All these three approaches reveal that teacher professional learning needs to be designed and structured to improve professional competency. These studies ­suggest that teacher professional learning is a complex process influenced by different factors (e.g., the quality of programmes and activities, personal beliefs, and contextual conditions). They are useful for understanding the complexity of teaching professional learning. As the purpose of this study is to address the building of communities as a strategy to facilitate teacher professional learning in a specific form, the contexts where teachers work are highly regarded as resources for ­learning. ­However, the extant literature has paid little attention to teachers’ specific interactions in specific environments (e.g., school environment and communities) and cannot fully explain the dynamics of communities nor how communities ­facilitate teacher professional learning. Understanding teachers’ interactions in specific contexts requires examining studies on PLCs as a strategy to foster teachers’ i­nteractions and collaboration for learning. 2.2  Theories of Teacher PLCs As a mechanism to promote teachers’ continuous learning, PLCs are an important concept in this study, and their theoretical origins, definitions, and key characteristics are reviewed in this section. The benefits of and challenges to building successful PLCs in schools are also reviewed. 2.2.1  Theoretical Origins and Definitions of PLCs

The potential of PLCs for teacher instructional improvement and educational reform has been increasingly recognised. Numerous researchers have introduced the concept of “community” to break down individual teachers’ isolation and make them work collaboratively. A wide range of terms—e.g., “communities of inquiry” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Erickson et al., 2005), “teacher community” (Grossman et al., 2001; Little, 2003), and “professional community” (Bryk et al., 1999)— have been used in connection with PLCs. The notion of PLCs derives from theories of learning organisation (Senge, 1990) and communities of practice (Wenger, 1998). First, the concept of PLCs was developed based on studies of learning organisations in the business sector. Modern organisations face many challenges due to the rise of knowledge-based work in competitive, complex, and dynamic environments. Business management principles have highlighted the significance of breaking down staff fragmentation and isolation to improve quality and productivity. Teamwork within and across functions is believed to be an important strategy for realising individuals’ potential, facilitating continual organisational development, and optimising staff knowledge and resources (Deming, 2000). Organisational theorists have paid increasing attention to enhancing teamwork to increase companies’ competitiveness and replace traditional approaches to organisational management, which relied on “hierarchically

14  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs determined decisions, goals, rules, programmes, and job descriptions” (Supovitz, 2002, p. 1598). Senge’s (1990) influential book, The Fifth Discipline, proposed the idea of the learning organisation. In it, he developed five disciplines—­building shared visions, team learning, improved mental models, personal mastery, and system thinking—to convert companies into learning organisations. A learning ­organisation is thus defined as one in which people are encouraged to extend their knowledge, thinking, and capacities and to work collaboratively to achieve desired results (Senge, 1990; Smith & Sadler-Smith, 2006). The learning-oriented form of organising emerging in the business literature caught the attention of education researchers. Many researchers have advocated that schools should be transformed into learning organisations in the knowledge society (e.g., DuFour, 1997; Fullan, 1993; Leithwood & Louis, 1998). As learning organisations, schools would enhance their organisational capacity, develop clear shared visions, and enable teachers to take responsibility and engage in collective activities for student learning (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). The term “community” is preferred, as it suggests “a group linked by common interests”, while an organisation emphasises “structure and efficiency” (DuFour & Eaker, 1998, p. xii). It indicates an inherent dichotomy between an organisational bureaucracy and a community defined by commonality among members (Furman, 1998). This shift’s underlying assumption suggests that an organisation’s hierarchical structure and top-down administration should be minimised to form a “community”. In addition, Lave and Wenger’s work on communities of practices (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998), derived from social learning theory, also contributes to theories on PLCs. In the past, learning was generally perceived as an individualistic process happening within the head of an isolated learner (Schunk, 2008); according to social learning theory, however, learning is a more complex activity that takes place in an interactive process with the social environment (Vygotsky, 1978; Wenger, 1998). Communities of practice suggest the situated nature of learning and argue communities of practice are arenas in which a group of individuals share a common knowledge base and practice and deepen their knowledge and expertise through ongoing interaction (Barab et al., 2004; Wenger et al., 2002). In general, three dimensions—joint enterprise, mutual engagement, and shared repertoire—characterise a community of practice (Wenger, 1998). Thus, the main idea of communities of practice is congruent with the essence of PLCs in schools—to break down the isolation of professionals and group them to work collaboratively for continuous learning (Hairon & Goh, 2017). The compelling idea of PLCs has spread rapidly throughout the English-­ speaking world (Lieberman, 2007), leading to different constructs or models of PLCs in education. A PLC can be interpreted as an across-school network, a wholeschool organisation, or a teacher team within the school (Harris et al., 2017). The first mainly aims to contribute to system-wide improvement by creating collaborative and supportive networks across schools (e.g., Kaser & Halbert, 2006). The second model conceptualises a school as an entire learning community, wherein a set of collaborative norms and practices is constructed to foster improving school

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 15 capacity (e.g., DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Olivier & Hipp, 2010). The third focuses on a small group of teachers’ continuous improvement of their professional expertise through collaborative work (e.g., Harris & Jones, 2010). Therefore, PLCs may have different manifestations and interpretations in different contexts. Despite the different interpretations of a PLC, there is substantial agreement that a PLC is a setting in which a group of professionals works collaboratively and regularly to address a collective purpose (DuFour et al., 2008; Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2008). Stoll and Louis (2007) argued that PLCs indicate a focus on “1) professional learning; 2) within the context of a cohesive group; 3) that focuses on collective knowledge; and 4) occurs within an ethic of interpersonal caring that permeates the life of teachers, students and school leaders” (p. 3). 2.2.2  Characteristics of PLCs

Numerous studies have developed and synthesised key features and components of a PLC, yielding five fundamental attributes; specifically, a PLC features (1) shared values and goals, (2) supportive and shared leadership, (3) shared personal practices, (4) collective learning and application, and (5) supportive conditions (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997; Huffman & Hipp, 2003).

• Shared values and goals. Shared goals based on common values present a cred-

ible yet realistic picture for PLC members to pursue (Huffman & Hipp, 2003). Goals are not articulated solely by those in positions of authority; they are generated and embraced by all members to develop their professional and personal commitment to the PLC. • Supportive and shared leadership. The leadership of school leaders and administrators is necessary to support building PLCs. To achieve effective communities, school leaders need to share power and authority with staff and invite them to participate in the decision-making process in PLCs (Hord, 1997). In other words, teachers are not viewed as merely “implementers” or “followers” in schools; they also take responsibility for leadership and decision-making. • Shared personal practice. It is argued that teachers develop their practice in public and de-privatised ways within the communities wherein they make teaching practice, pedagogy, and student learning under collective scrutiny (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Louis et al., 1995). Based on shared individual practices, teachers provide feedback to their peers to support individual and community improvement. The mutual trust and collaboration among teachers underlying the process are central to a successful PLC (Hallam et al., 2015). • Collective learning and application. In PLCs, learning is an ongoing process embedded in various educational activities. Teachers learn and work collaboratively, identify teaching-related issues and problems, and apply collective knowledge and resources to address students’ learning needs. Huffman and Hipp (2003) argued that an outcome of collective learning in PLCs is the emergence of teacher leadership that influences other colleagues toward improved practice within the community.

16  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs

• Supportive conditions. A supportive environment determines when, where, and

how PLC members regularly work together for interaction and is generally considered an essential condition for PLCs (Louis et al., 1995). Structural conditions (time, places, and communication systems), human capacities (people and their relationships), and external support systems (educational policies) are all necessary for PLCs to function effectively.

Apart from the five dimensions listed above, other dimensions of PLCs—e.g., mutual trust, respect, and support; inclusive membership; openness, networks, and partnerships; and a collaborative culture with a focus on student learning—are also highlighted (Newmann, 1996; Stoll et al., 2006). Exploring the critical characteristics of PLCs has implications for the conditions that make PLCs effective and for fostering strong teacher communities for professional development. However, the concept of PLCs remains a complex “multi-­dimensional” metaphor that needs to be “unpacked” (Bolam et al., 2005). In addition, the list of criteria is static and does not go far enough to explain how to operationalise these elements to create a PLC (Harris, 2014) nor the benefits of and challenges in PLC implementation (Little, 2002; Philpott & Oates, 2017). 2.2.3  Benefits and Challenges of Building PLCs

There is a growing number of explorations on building and sustaining PLCs to encourage teachers to work together to improve their teaching quality. Various studies have shed light on the positive effects of PLCs for teacher professional learning, and suggested the challenges of and hindrances to PLC implementations. Research suggests that the creation and implementation of PLCs contribute to teacher professional learning in several ways: reducing teacher isolation and enhancing teacher collaboration, improving content knowledge, increasing job satisfaction, undertaking fundamental and significant changes, etc. (Hord, 1997). Evidence shows such communities are conducive to building a collaborative ­teaching culture in schools; teachers have been reported to share lessons learned, use protocols to make decisions, and discuss their practice openly in professional learning teams (Berry et al., 2005). By establishing PLCs, teachers are encouraged or required to adopt collaborative grouping practices to work together, which contributes to a fundamental shift in their habits for teaching practice in schools (Vescio et al., 2008). In addition, teachers’ participation in communities could mediate teachers’ sense-making process as they interpret, adapt, and even transform policy in their classroom practices (Coburn, 2001). Conversations with colleagues facilitate teachers’ understanding of reading policy messages, deciding which messages to pursue in their classrooms, and negotiating technical and practical policy implementation details (Coburn, 2001). Generally, successful PLCs can facilitate teacher professional growth (Dunne et al., 2000; Louis & Marks, 1998; Supovitz, 2002). The benefits of PLCs are not limited to teacher professional learning. Research shows strong evidence that implementing PLCs systematically and positively ­affects student learning outcomes (e.g., Andrews & Lewis, 2002; Louis &

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 17 Marks, 1998; Vescio et al., 2008). For example, Louis and Marks (1998) employed quantitative (multilevel) and qualitative methods to investigate the impact of elementary, middle, and high school professional communities on the intellectual quality of student performance and the technical and social dimensions of classroom organisation. They found that the promotion of PLCs had a positive relationship with the organisation of classrooms for learning and students’ academic performance. Existing research on the practices of PLCs tends to assume that interactions among teachers in communities always positively affect teaching improvement and student learning achievements. Due to such assumptions, the concept of PLCs is used ubiquitously, such that all collections of individuals with a common interest characterise themselves as PLCs (DuFour et al., 2008). In reality, it is not easy to build effective PLCs in schools, and PLCs in manifestation do not necessarily generate positive effects on teacher professional learning, due to many factors. The challenges in implementing and sustaining PLCs in school settings have been well documented. The first concerns organisational structure; schools must set aside time and resources to support teachers’ regular interactions. Technical and logistical support are important to creating PLCs (DuFour et al., 2005), and a lack of time for collaborative activities is a barrier to teachers building PLCs (Harris & Jones, 2010). A second essential challenge related to organisational structure is school leadership or management. School principals and headteachers play important roles in promoting teacher professional learning (Fullan, 2009; Newmann et al., 2000), as they can allocate more time and resources, create a collaborative environment, provide intellectual stimulation, symbolise professional practices and values, etc. (Leithwood & Jantzi, 2000). However, while necessary, it is difficult to build ­authentic professional communities in schools while adhering to a bureaucratic structure (Lieberman & Miller, 2011; Spillane et al., 2016). In schools, bureaucratic authority “in the form of mandates, rules, regulations, job descriptions, and expectations” is mainly relied on to exercise leadership (Sergiovanni, 1994, p. 222). The third challenge is cultural. As a desirable social infrastructure, PLCs are usually designed and imposed by external agents such as governments, university researchers, and school principals to bring teachers together to achieve ­predetermined goals and visions (Printy, 2008). Under such teaming arrangements, teachers’ professional collaboration might be superficial and inauthentic, as they are invited, pressed, and required to collaborate on pre-set agendas. Hargreaves (1991, 1994) proposed the concept of “contrived collegiality”, a regulated form of collaboration driven by formal and bureaucratic procedures to have teachers work together for external and administrative purposes (Hargreaves, 2013). In contrast, authentic collegiality tends to be spontaneous, voluntary, development-oriented, pervasive across time and space, and unpredictable (Hargreaves, 1994, 2013). It is perceived as incompatible with highly centralised school organisation systems and difficult to develop in PLCs (Hargreaves, 1994). In addition, establishing ­collaborative cultures depends on respect and trust among teachers (Hallam et al., 2015). It takes much time to develop teacher professional collaboration conducive to learning due to the cultural resistance to publicly exposing teaching found in

18  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs many contexts (Schechter, 2012). Furthermore, communities may generate negative influences, such as conflicts among colleagues, exclusion of outsiders, and restrictions on individuals’ freedoms (Stein & Coburn, 2008). The fourth challenge concerns external policy efforts, including community support and policy decisions. The material, human, and social resources required for developing PLCs are often in short supply (Gamoran et al., 2003). Other role players—e.g., teacher educators, district administrators, and other community stakeholders (e.g., parents)—are also important to sustaining PLCs but are difficult to involve (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006). In addition, the enactment of PLCs may be disturbed by accountability pressures that emphasise standardised test scores (Talbert, 2010). Under such pressures, school leaders and teachers may focus on achieving short-term effects rather than long-term change. To conclude, theories of PLCs have yielded the organisational, technical, and social conditions of strong in-school communities, which have contributed to our understanding of key factors teacher professional learning and development in an authentic environment. They are also useful for analysing how the communities facilitate teaching improvement and how community building changes school culture and student achievements. However, the practices of PLCs in different contexts might experience different challenges or tensions that might hinder teacher professional learning. How to address these challenges of building PLCs to teacher professional learning merits further exploration. Furthermore, the conceptual frameworks of PLCs have been proposed and developed predominantly in Western contexts. Yet, how teachers work together in PLCs does not look the same in all contexts and cultures. Given the important role of context in understanding how communities work, general theories are not specific enough to explain the practices of PLCs in contexts like China, which has a different educational system and several distinctive cultures. Thus, there is a need to review relevant studies in the specific context of China. 2.3  Teacher Professional Learning in China This section reviews studies on teacher professional learning in China. Similar to the global consensus on the importance of improving teachers’ professional learning and classroom teaching practices, the specific strategies may vary in different education systems (Day & Leitch, 2007). Teacher professional learning in China has distinctive features, including the increased external standards for teachers and teaching, highly institutionalised teacher professional learning, and an emphasis on learning embedded in teachers’ daily work. 2.3.1  Establishing Teaching as a Profession in China

Teachers in China have enjoyed a highly respected and honoured standing since the time of Confucius. Historically, teachers were listed among the five most respected classes, alongside the God of Heaven (tian), the God of Earth (di), the emperor (jun), and parents (qin) (Guo, 2015). However, teaching did not become

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 19 an occupation until a planned school education system was established in modern (i.e., 20th century) China (G. S. Chen, 2007). Teacher professional learning has been a focus of educational reforms since 1978 when China initiated wide-ranging economic and social reforms that made education a priority. In 1985, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) promulgated The Decision on the Reform of the Educational System, which was significant in educational development history in that it initiated a comprehensive educational reform, including the establishment of nine-year compulsory education, curriculum, textbooks, etc. This was accompanied by an increasing focus on teaching and teacher professional learning. Training and developing in-service teachers were considered important educational work (Central Committee of CCP, 1985), and an in-service teacher professional learning system was established. Teachers were not formally recognised as professionals performing teaching and education duty until the release of the Teachers Law (National People’s Congress, 1993), which stipulated the minimum education level for different teachers; for example, the minimum education required for junior secondary teachers was the completion of a three-year programme offered by junior (normal) colleges. The law also prescribed that teachers had the right and obligation to improve themselves continuously in their teaching career. In the year following the implementation of the Teachers Law, the release of the Regulation of Teacher Qualifications refined the system of teacher professional qualifications and promotion (State Council, 1995) and stipulated that one must have a professional qualification certificate ­before entering the teaching profession. The professional status of teachers was enhanced further in 2012 when ­formal professional standards were promulgated. The professional standards for primary and secondary teachers served as the basic principles for pre-service teacher preparation, qualification licensing, in-service teacher training, and teacher evaluation, and described teacher professional development and lifelong learning as key ­dimensions of teachers’ professionalism (Ministry of Education, 2012). Until recently, teaching was no more an “iron rice bowl” (i.e., a lifelong job). Then, the MOE initiated a pilot reform of professional qualification examination systems and introduced the periodic registration of issued qualification licenses, aiming to strictly control entry into the teaching profession and improve the overall quality of teachers (Ministry of Education, 2013). By 2015, 28 provinces and municipalities had joined the pilot reform, meaning in-service teachers in those areas must strictly follow professional ethics and revalidate their professional qualification certificates every five years (Ministry of Education, 2015). Teaching as a profession in China is ensured at the policymaking level. Increasing policy efforts have been made to improve teaching as a profession by introducing new laws and regulations, requiring professional qualification certificates, publishing professional standards, and strengthening certificate renewal. The relevant policy documents define who can be teachers and what they must do to become qualified. Teacher professional learning is now considered a lifelong learning enterprise in China and has been built into the system as an integral part of their professionalisation (Ding, 2001).

20  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 2.3.2  Institutionalisation of In-Service Teachers’ Professional Learning

Research on in-service teacher professional learning in China started in the 1990s (e.g., Fu, 1990; Lin et al., 1996; Paine, 1990; Y. G. Tang, 1999), influenced by the promotion of teacher professionalism and professionalisation in Western countries. Following the general research trend, the enhancement of knowledge and skills was highly stressed in Chinese teachers’ professional learning system. ­Researchers invested considerable efforts in developing theoretical frameworks to develop Chinese teachers’ knowledge. For example, Lin et al. (1996) proposed an influential tripartite framework for teachers’ knowledge base—subject knowledge (benti ­zhishi), practical knowledge (shijian zhishi), and pedagogical knowledge (tiaojianxing zhishi). In China, subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge are central tasks to promote teacher professional learning. Mastering in-depth subject knowledge is the foundation of good teaching practices (Tsui & Wong, 2009). Teachers across China were long considered deficient in knowledge and skills due to the poor-quality professional training they received before entering the teaching profession (J. Zhou, 2014). With the implementation of new curriculum reform in China in 2001, building a qualified teaching force to translate reform ideas into classroom practices has become the central task of education development. The new curriculum reform attempts to cultivate “creative and independent thinking skills, integrated practical skills, teamwork and co-operation” (DelloIacovo, 2009, p. 243) for the development of every student (Zhong et al., 2001). Therefore, teachers were expected to shift from teacher-centred to student-centred instructional modes to facilitate students’ all-around development (Ministry of ­Education, 2001). This new vision of curriculum reform set new expectations for what good teaching entails and what good teachers do. The Chinese government has made tremendous efforts to specify and create mechanisms to ensure teachers participate in professional learning activities to implement the new curriculum reform. Training was a key strategy used to transform teachers’ teaching beliefs and help them master updated knowledge and skills and be qualified to teach the new curriculum. A national survey administered by an East China Normal University research team showed that 93.8% of teachers had received training related to the new curriculum reform (Ding, 2010). The survey also indicated that it was common for Chinese teachers to receive formal training covering different areas (e.g., educational theories, subject content knowledge, moral and work ethics, educational technology, etc.). The training programmes related to curriculum reform were first designed for backbone teachers (gugan jiaoshi), who were then expected to pass on their learning outcomes to other teachers. The model was characterised as the “cascade model” (Paine & Fang, 2006). Training was considered a cost-effective way to transfer necessary knowledge and skills to teachers as recipients. It is still prevalent in the ­Chinese educational system to improve teachers’ professional competency through training. Since 2010, the central government has promoted the National Teacher Training Project (NTTP) to improve the quality of teachers across the country, especially in rural areas (Ministry of Education & Ministry of Finance, 2010), investing nearly

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 21 10.7 billion Yuan to support training activities from 2010 to 2017 (Ministry of Education, 2017). In addition, several policy documents were released to strengthen institutionalised processes for ensuring teachers’ continuous improvement in primary and secondary schools. For example, Shanghai took a lead role by promulgating the “240/540” project, which required all teachers to take formal continuing education by participating in 240 course-hours of professional development (540 hours for senior teachers) over five years. The reform was later carried out nationally, and the minimum learning hours requirement increased; all teachers are now mandated to undergo 360 hours of training every five years (Ministry of Education, 2011). Teachers’ professional learning has been institutionalised as part of their work duty, under tight government control. Consequently, external educational authorities ­define the terms, contents, and participants of professional development (Paine & Fang, 2006). However, the effectiveness of developing teachers through government-led mandatory learning activities has been questioned. According to a 2013 national survey, only 57.1% of 9197 teacher respondents reported being satisfied with the training programmes they were required to attend, as they relied too much on lecturing, were not closely related to their daily practice, and placed a significant financial burden on teachers (X. M. Chen & Wang, 2013). 2.3.3  School-based Teacher Professional Learning

In addition to the organised teacher professional learning required by the government, school-based teacher professional learning is also highly valued. Developing teachers continuously and teacher collaboration in schools have been practised for a long time in China. It is generally believed that the educational programmes offered in formal teacher education institutions mainly inculcate teacher candidates with subject matter knowledge and pedagogical theories, which provide a sound theoretical foundation for school teaching but inadequate practical preparation (J. Chen & Mu, 2010; Guo, 2005). One Chinese solution has been to extend ongoing teacher professional learning in the schools where the teachers teach (Paine & Ma, 1993; Tsui & Wong, 2009). Therefore, school-based in-service teachers’ professional learning has been given much emphasis. Schools are considered the prime site for teachers to receive professional learning and development after obtaining their professional qualifications (Paine & Ma, 1993; Tsui & Wong, 2009). After entering the teaching profession, participating in learning activities in school settings becomes an integral part of teachers’ daily life. Tsui and Wong (2009) argued that numerous school-based teacher development practices have been institutionalised in school contexts in China, distinguishing Chinese teachers’ learning activities from those found in most other parts of the world. Wong and Tsui (2007) identified six types of school-based activities for teachers’ teaching improvement, including mentoring schemes, open lessons, collective lesson preparation, lesson observation and post-lesson conferencing, monthly/weekly learning activities, and self-reflection reports or essays. These activities are perceived

22  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs positively as a way to enhance teachers’ professional competency (Han & Paine, 2010; Lee & Feng, 2007; Wong & Tsui, 2007). In particular, mentoring scheme model and open lessons are typical in promoting teacher professional learning. The mentoring scheme, known as the apprenticeship model or “the old guiding the young (laodaiqing)”, mainly targets the induction of new teachers, who are regarded as “practically incompetent” to teach in classrooms (Ma, 1992). New teachers are assigned an experienced teacher as a mentor for their first two or three in-service years to help them adapt to the teaching profession. The underlying philosophy of the apprenticeship model is that novice teachers, as learners, can ­become familiar with the routines of teaching and generate a deeper understanding of subject matter knowledge and teaching strategies with the one-to-one guidance of more experienced teachers (Huang et al., 2017; Tsui & Wong, 2009). Through formal and informal interactions, mentoring could provide novice teachers with ­instructional support—e.g., mastering effective teaching strategies—and emotional support (Lee & Feng, 2007; J. Wang, 2001; J. Wang & Paine, 2001). In turn, mentors are exposed to innovative teaching ideas and new pedagogical technologies during their interactions with their novice teacher mentees (Huang et al., 2017). However, some limitations of the mentoring scheme have been pointed out. First, the mentoring relationships are arranged by school leaders, and there might be tensions and conflicts between mentor and mentee (Lee & Feng, 2007). In ­addition, the effectiveness of apprenticeship relies too much on mentors’ personal commitment and willingness to support novice teachers. Furthermore, the boundaries of a mentoring relationship are clear, in that it involves only two teachers who probably benefit from the professional relationships. Lastly, the novices are the ones assumed to learn from the mentors; the mentoring relationship is neither democratic nor reciprocal in Chinese contexts (Lee & Feng, 2007). Open lessons—also termed public lessons (Han & Paine, 2010), exemplary lessons (Huang et al., 2011), or lesson study (X. Chen & Yang, 2013)—are a typical professional learning activity for teachers in China, and have received much attention (X. Chen & Yang, 2013; Han & Paine, 2010; Yang & Ricks, 2013). An open lesson in China usually comprises three parts—collective lesson planning, lesson observation, and post-lesson reflection. Different types of open lessons serve different purposes (e.g., for competition, demonstration, or evaluation). This cycle of activities has proven effective for teachers’ teaching improvement. First, open lessons provide a common pedagogical framework for teachers to identify a lesson’s difficult points (what students have trouble learning), key points (what students must grasp), and hinge points (key steps to help students overcome difficulties and understand the key points) (Paine & Fang, 2006; Paine et al., 2003; Yang & Ricks, 2013). Second, open lessons create opportunities for teachers to examine their teaching practice, construct a profound understanding of subject knowledge, learn teaching theory in action, and try out different designs and teaching strategies (Han, 2006; X. Tang & Shao, 2014). The mentoring schemes and open lessons are characterised as “learning from example and by doing” to develop Chinese teachers’ knowledge and skills (Li et al., 2011). In addition, other learning activities, such as joint lesson planning

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 23 and action research projects, have also been confirmed as important to promoting teacher collaboration (Yuan & Zhang, 2016; Zhu & Pei, 2017). These learning activities offer great opportunities for teachers to attain professional growth but are not PLCs per se. The organisation of these activities largely depends on a particular subject TRG, which includes more daily routines for teacher professional learning. While the extant studies provide some understanding of the practices and activities in school contexts, they cannot provide a full picture of how TRGs work in school settings nor how teachers gain professional learning through the structure of TRGs. 2.4  Debates on PLCs in China 2.4.1  TRGs as a Form of PLCs in Chinese Schools

Although the concept of PLCs is imported from the West, using collaborative ­efforts for teachers’ professional learning and development is not new to teachers in China (T. Wang, 2016). Most school-based professional learning activities are highly institutionalised in the form of TRGs. Typically, TRGs are composed of teachers teaching the same or similar subjects in a single school who seek to improve teaching practices through collective work (Paine & Ma, 1993). TRGs are not limited to secondary schools; they are also seen in primary schools, as teachers in China mainly teach one subject. TRGs are a part of the formal structure of Chinese schools, rooted in a teaching research system (jiaoyan xitong) that spreads across provincial/municipal, city, county/district, and school levels (their development history and structure will be detailed in Chapter 3). Each TRG includes lesson preparation groups (LPGs, beikezu), small units composed of subject teachers teaching at the same grade level. In each TRG, a group head is appointed to organise regular weekly or bi-weekly collective activities, including collective lesson planning, peer observations, open lessons, action research, and mentoring to promote teacher collaboration and professional learning. TRG heads take charge of the overall team development and teachers’ subject teaching. It should be noted that school-based TRGs are not the only form of PLCs in Chinese schools. Teachers can also be grouped for professional learning in LPGs, year groups (YGs, nianjizu), and “master teacher studios” across schools. Specifically, an LPG is a small unit established under the TRG for teachers’ collaborative lesson planning. YGs group teachers teaching different subjects at the same grade level to facilitate students’ moral education. A “master teacher studio” is a crossschool community for teaching improvement led by a well-known expert teacher; teachers from several schools join the community voluntarily (Liu, 2022; Zheng et al., 2019). All these teacher collaboration networks can be considered forms of PLCs valuable to teacher professional learning. Among them, TRGs, the focus of this study, are the most common forum for teachers to discuss their classroom teaching in their daily school work and life. Researchers have not yet reached a consensus on the nature of TRGs as a form of PLCs. Unlike the voluntary and emergent nature of PLCs noted in the literature

24  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs (Hargreaves, 2007; Lieberman, 2007), TRGs in China are administration-led, wellstructured, and conducted in a school-based setting. Due to their mandatory nature and administrative requirements, some studies found TRGs had disadvantages— such as formalistic collaboration among teachers and incompetent teacher leadership—that hindered teacher professional learning (Y. Hu, 2012; B. Zhou, 2005). For example, Y. Hu (2012) investigated how Beijing teachers perceived TRGs and the role of TRG leaders, revealing that TRG heads were distracted from their professional role by administrative affairs, with the result that group members’ continuous professional learning did not receive their full attention. B. Zhou (2005) also highlighted the administrative power of TRGs, asserting they were no longer a “catalyst” for teacher professional development but a basic administrative unit in the school. Similarly, Qiao et al. (2013) found teacher collaboration caused the reproduction of teaching skills. Therefore, some researchers argue that Chinese TRGs are not full-form PLCs (Zhang et al., 2017), characterising them as a “contrived teaching organisation” (J. Wang, 2002). However, others found that TRGs share, to some extent, some similarities with the PLC model. For instance, despite the professional activities’ intentional design and organisational structure, T. Wang (2015) found that teachers can still generate genuine collaboration in the collective learning process. In addition, some recent studies suggest that TRGs adopt the critical features of PLCs, including shared vision and values, collective inquiry into best teaching practices, improvement of student learning outcomes, and collaborative cultures among group members (Zhang & Pang, 2016; Zhang et al., 2022). Thus, TRGs serve as a critical platform for teachers to openly discuss their practices and work collaboratively on improving teaching and learning in China (Zhang et al., 2017). In this study, TRGs are perceived as a typical form of PLCs in China to highlight their significant role in teacher professional learning. 2.4.2  Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs

The institutionalisation of TRGs for teachers’ professional growth was argued to be a key factor leading to Shanghai students’ remarkable Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) performance. In recent years, there has been growing ­research interest in the role of TRGs as a Chinese form of PLCs worldwide (Hairon & Tan, 2017; Sargent, 2015). Researchers have documented teachers’ different learning experiences. Some studies have examined the TRG as an effective PLC model for helping teachers acquire new knowledge and skills for reform implementation (Gao & Wang, 2014; Sargent, 2015). For instance, Sargent (2015) investigated the role of TRGs in education policy innovations and found that the frequent opportunities for teacher interaction and peer observation contributed to the diffusion of innovative pedagogical ideas. Some, however, reported teachers’ superficial collaboration and learning experiences. Zhang et al. (2022) examined how teachers learn in TRGs in two schools in China and found that teachers may generate innovation-driven or inheritance-led learning cultures in different schools. The diverse results of these studies highlight the complexity of the dynamics of teacher interaction in TRGs.

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 25 Researchers suggested that the operations of TRGs in China and their influences on teacher professional learning are determined by various factors, including institutional factors, leadership capacities, and cultural factors. First, it has been proved that institutional factors—e.g., the structure of the educational system—facilitated the functioning of TRGs. In a highly centralised educational system, upper-level educational authorities greatly influence schools and teachers. Assigning teachers a relatively light workload allows them time to discuss and work with their colleagues (OECD, 2011). Second, leadership is believed to be an important factor influencing the success of TRGs in schools. Researchers have mainly paid attention to two kinds of leadership—school leaders’ leadership and TRG heads’ leadership. Leaders at the school and group levels are officially appointed and regarded as formal leaders. Researchers have confirmed that school leaders play a critical role in developing TRGs. For example, Zhang and Pang (2016) reported that school leaders strongly supported developing TRGs, and played key roles in shared leadership. These findings were echoed in a study by T. Wang (2016), in which school leaders showed strong instructional leadership and visionary stewardship in maintaining TRGs. In addition, the leadership of TRG leaders, characterised as expert leadership, played a facilitative rather than formal administrative leadership role (T. Wang, 2016). Third, TRGs’ function is highly related to Chinese cultural values. Collectivism is a cultural feature permeating Chinese schools and Confucian tradition and ­explains teachers working together in TRGs. Researchers argue that the organisational structure of TRGs is supported by traditional Chinese culture, which ­encourages “collectivism, collaboration, closely knit social and working relations, and shared responsibility for common values and goals”(G. W. Hu, 2005, p. 680). Power relations in Chinese schools are another feature. Deference to power is a salient feature of Chinese society, and teachers show obedience to in-school superiors and authority (Yin, 2013). Some researchers have identified that some cultural barriers—such as respecting authority and conflict prevention—may lead to superficial collaboration (Zhang & Pang, 2016; Zhang et al., 2017). The influencing factors explore many possibilities of what a TRG may look like in different school scales, equipped with different leadership capacities and depths of collaboration. These factors help to explain how TRGs function and their underlying rationale but cannot provide a full picture of how TRGs achieve their effects, nor any other features that contribute to understanding TRGs. Nor is it enough to illustrate the virtues and flaws of TRGs for teachers’ professional learning and development. The above studies suggest TRGs have been established, institutionalised, and managed for decades as a powerful unit to promote teacher professional learning in Chinese schools. The emergence of TRGs has been enforced under a highly hierarchical power system, very different from the concept of “communities” discussed and advocated in Western countries. As TRGs play an important role in continuously developing in-service teachers in their school life, researchers have paid increasing attention to and generated discussions on TRGs. However, research on PLCs in China is still far from mature (Qiao et al., 2018). Whether TRGs are

26  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs effective teachers’ PLCs is still a matter of debate. How TRGs shape teachers’ teaching practice and how teachers work and learn in PLCs merit empirical exploration. Many studies on TRGs in China are mainly prescriptions and commentaries with insufficient empirical data. Qiao et al. (2018) found that, even in leading Chinese journals, researchers did not clearly introduce their research methods, and some empirical studies did not provide sufficient evidence to support their main arguments about TRG practices. Therefore, it is important to investigate the nature of PLCs in different cultural contexts, and how those structured communities’ practices contribute to teacher professional learning in an authentic working environment, using TRGs in China as a window. Exploration of the virtues and flaws of TRGs for teacher professional learning in the Chinese context may enrich global discussions on the development and sustainability of effective PLCs for continuous teacher professional growth. 2.5 Summary This chapter has considered teacher improvement as key to achieving education reform goals and explored PLCs as an important venue for improving teacher learning. However, most of the current knowledge base on PLCs has focused on Western contexts. How PLCs are constructed and operationalised in Asian contexts such as China, which have distinctive societal cultures and educational systems, remains under-researched. TRGs in China provide a salient example to examine teachers’ professional learning in bureaucratic school organisations. According to the literature, whether TRGs are a form of PLCs in China is a matter of debate. The diverse results of these studies highlight the complexity of the dynamics of teacher interaction in TRGs. In this book, TRGs are perceived as a practice of PLCs with Chinese characteristics to enrich our understanding of how PLCs work in the Chinese context to facilitate teacher professional learning and whether and how teachers can achieve effective learning experiences in their PLCs. References Andrews, D., & Lewis, M. (2002). The experience of a professional community: Teachers developing a new image of themselves and their workplace. Educational Research, 44(3), 237–254. Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., & Scheckler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Characterising and online professional development community. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 53– 90). Cambridge University Press. 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., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities (Report No. RR637). University of Bristol.

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 27 Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Broudy, H. S. (1956). Teaching—craft or profession? The Educational Forum, 20(2), 175–184. Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organisational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781. Central Committee of CCP. (1985). Guanyu jiaoyu tizhi gaige de jueding [Decision on reform of education system]. In D. He (Ed.), Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhongyao jiaoyu wenxian (1949–1997) [Important education documents in People’ Republic of China (1949–1997)] (pp. 2285–2289). Hainan Press. Chan, C. K. K., & Pang, M. F. (2006). Teacher collaboration in learning communities. Teaching Education, 17(1), 1–5. Chen, G. S. (2007). Jiaoshi zhiye de xingcheng [The development of teacher occupation]. Jiangxi Educational Research, (7), 1415. Chen, J., & Mu, Z. (2010). The cross-national comparison of pre-service mathematics teacher education and curriculum structure. Journal of Mathematics Education, 3(1), 119–136. Chen, X. M., & Wang, Z. M. (2013). Yiwu jiaoyu jieduan jiaoshi peixun diaocha: xianzhuang, wenti yu jianyi [A study on the training of teachers for the compulsory education]. Open Education Research, 19(4), 11–19. Chen, X., & Yang, F. (2013). Chinese teachers’ reconstruction of the curriculum reform through lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2(3), 218–236. Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170. Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 249–305. Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning. Falmer Press. Day, C., & Leitch, R. (2007). The continuing professional development of teachers: Issues of coherence, cohesion and effectiveness. In T. Townsend (Ed.), International handbook of school effectiveness and improvement (pp. 707–726). Springer. Dello-Iacovo, B. (2009). Curriculum reform and ‘quality education’ in China: An overview. International Journal of Educational Development, 29(3), 241–249. Deming, W. E. (2000). Out of the crisis. The MIT Press. Ding, G. (2001). The integration of pre-service and in-service teacher education: The cases of Shanghai and Jiangsu. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education & Development, 4(2), 61–72. Ding, G. (Ed.). (2010). Zhongguo zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi zhuanyefazhan zhuangkuang diaocha yu zhengce fenxi baogao [National survey and policy analysis for teacher professional development in primary and secondary schools]. East China Normal University Press. DuFour, R. (1997). The school as a learning organisation: Recommendations for school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 81(588), 81–87.

28  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at work: New insights for improving schools. Solution Tree. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Solution Tree. DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Solution Tree Press. Dunne, F., Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends groups: Teachers helping teachers to improve student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 28(4), 31–37. Erickson, G., Darling, L. F., & Clarke, A. (2005). Constructing and sustaining communities of inquiry in teacher education. In G. F. Hoban (Ed.), The missing links in teacher education design: Developing a multi-linked conceptual framework (pp. 173–191). Springer. Etzioni, A. (1969). The semi-professions and their organisation: Teachers, nurses, social workers. Free Press. Evans, L. (2002). What is teacher development? Oxford Review of Education, 28(1), 123–137. Fishman, B. J., Davis, E. A., & Chan, C. K. K. (2014). A learning sciences perspective on teacher learning research. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. T. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658. Fu, S. T. (1990). Jiaoshi zhuanyehua yu woguo zhongxiaoxue shizi duiwu jianshe [Teacher professionalisation and the building of a teaching force in China]. Journal of Hebei ­University, (2), 43, 44–48. Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. Falmer Press. Fullan, M. (2007). Change the terms for teacher learning. Journal of Staff Development, 28(3), 35–36. Fullan, M. (2009). The principal and change. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The challenge of change: Start school improvement now!(pp. 55–69). Corwin Press. Furman, G. C. (1998). Postmodernism and community in schools: Unraveling the paradox. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 298–328. Gamoran, A., Anderson, C. W., Quiroz, P. A., Secada, W. G., Williams, T., & Ashmann, S. (2003). Transforming teaching in math and science: How schools and districts can support change. Teachers College Press. Gao, S., & Wang, J. (2014). Teaching transformation under centralised curriculum and teacher learning community: Two Chinese chemistry teachers’ experiences in developing inquiry-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 1–11. Glazer, J. L. (2007). Educational professionalism: An inside-out view. American Journal of Education, 114(2), 169–189. Goodwin, A. L. (2012). Teaching as a profession: Are we there yet? In C. Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development (pp. 44–56). Routledge. Goodwin, D. R. (2005). Comprehensive development of teachers based on in-depth ­portraits of teacher growth. In D. Beijaard, P. C. Meijer, G. Morine-Dershimer, & H. Tillema (Eds.), Teacher professional development in changing conditions (pp. 231–243). Springer. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012.

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 29 Guo, S. B. (2005). Exploring current issues in teacher education in China. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 51(1), 69–84. Guo, S. B. (2015). Ideological, social and cultural forces influencing teacher education and development in China: A critical analysis. In Q. Gu (Ed.), The work and lives of teachers in China (pp. 22–38). Routledge. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching, 8(3), 381–391. Hairon, S., & Goh, J. W. P. (2017). Teacher leaders in professional learning communities in Singapore: Challenges and opportunities. In A. Harris, M. Jones, & J. B. Huffman (Eds.), Teachers leading educational reform: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 86–99). Routledge. Hairon, S., & Tan, C. (2017). Professional learning communities in Singapore and Shanghai: Implications for teacher collaboration. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and ­International Education, 47(1), 91–104. Hallam, P. R., Smith, H. R., Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., & Wilcox, B. R. (2015). Trust and collaboration in PLC teams: Teacher relationships, principal support, and collaborative benefits. NASSP Bulletin, 99(3), 193–216. Han, X. (2006). Collective reflection on a public lesson in a Mathematics teaching research group. Research in Comparative and International Education, 1(4), 403–418. Han, X., & Paine, L. (2010). Teaching mathematics as deliberate practice through public lessons. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 519–541. Hargreaves, A. (1991). Contrived collegiality: The micropolitics of teacher collaboration. In J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools: Power, conflict, and cooperation (pp. 46–72). Sage. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Cassell. Hargreaves, A. (2000). Four ages of professionalism and professional learning. Teachers and Teaching, 6(2), 151–182. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of i­ nsecurity. Teachers College Press. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 181–195). McGraw-Hill Education. Hargreaves, A. (2013). Push, pull and nudge: The future of teaching and educational change. In X. Zhu & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st century, new frontiers of educational research (pp. 217–236). Springer. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (Eds.). (1992). Understanding teacher development. Teachers College Press. Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and p­ otential. Corwin Press. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172–181. Harris, A., Jones, M., & Huffman, J. B. (Eds.). (2017). Teachers leading educational reform: The power of professional learning communities. Routledge. Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11(1), 33–49. Hayes, A., & Hegarty, P. (2002). Why teaching is not a profession—and how it might ­become one. Education 3–13, 30(1), 30–35.

30  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs Holmes Group. (1986). Tomorrow’s teachers: A report of the Holmes Group. The Holmes Group. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hu, G. W. (2005). Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 654–705. Hu, Y. (2012). Woguo zhongxue jiaoyanzu xingzhi de shizheng yanjiu: Yi Beijingshi chengqu zhongxue weili [An empirical study on the nature of teaching and research group in secondary schools in China: A case study of secondary schools in the urban area of Beijing]. Journal of Educational Studies, 8(6), 78–89. Huang, R., Li, Y., Zhang, J., & Li, X. (2011). Improving teachers’ expertise in mathematics instruction through exemplary lesson development. ZDM Mathematics Education, 43, 805–817. Huang, R., Ye, L., & Prince, K. (2017). Professional development of secondary mathematics teachers in Mainland China. In B. Kaur, O. N. Kwon, & Y. H. Leong (Eds.), Professional development of mathematics teachers: An Asian perspective (pp. 17–31). Springer. Huffman, J. B., & Hipp, K. K. (2003). Reculturing schools as professional learning communities. Scarecrow Education. Kaser, L., & Halbert, J. (2006). An approach to school-wide action research: Sustaining inquiries in networked learning communities. BC Educational Leadership Research, 6, 1–13. Koff, R. H. (1988). Making teaching a profession. The Clearing House, 61(7), 297–299. Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning (pp. 200–208). Routledge. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press. Lee, J. C. K., & Feng, S. (2007). Mentoring support and the professional development of beginning teachers: A Chinese perspective. Mentoring & Tutoring, 15(3), 243–262. Leithwood, K. A., & Jantzi, D. (2000). The effects of transformational leadership on organisational conditions and student engagement with school. Journal of Educational Administration, 38(2), 112–129. Leithwood, K. A., & Louis, K. S. (Eds.). (1998). Organisational learning in schools. Swets & Zeitlinger. Li, Y., Huang, R., Bao, J., & Fan, Y. (2011). Facilitating mathematics teachers’ professional development through ranking and promotion practices in mainland China. In N. Bednarz, D. Fiorentini, & R. Huang (Eds.), International approaches to professional development for mathematics teachers (pp. 72–85). University of Ottawa Press. Lieberman, A. (2007). Professional learning communities: A reflection. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 199–203). McGraw-Hill Education. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2011). Learning communities: The starting point for professional learning is in schools and classrooms. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4), 16–20. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2014). Teachers as professionals: Evolving definitions of staff development. In L. E. Martin, S. Kragler, D. J. Quatroche, & K. L. Bauserman (Eds.), Handbook of professional development in education: Successful models and practices, pre-K-12 (pp. 3–22). The Guilford Press. Lin, C. D., Shen, J. L., & Xin, T. (1996). Jiaoshi suzhi de goucheng jiqi peiyang tujing [The constitution of teachers’ competency and its training paths]. Journal of The Chinese Society of Education, (6), 16–22.

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 31 Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917–946. Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. The Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913–945. Liu, P. (2022). Understanding the roles of expert teacher workshops in building teachers’ capacity in Shanghai turnaround primary schools: A Teacher’s perspective. Teaching and Teacher Education, 110, 103574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103574 Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (2nd ed.). The University of ­Chicago Press. Louis, K. S., Kruse, S. D., & Bryk, A. S. (1995). Professionalism and community: What is it and why is it important in urban schools? In K. S. Louis, S. D. Kruse, & Associates (Eds.), Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp. 4–26). Corwin. Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798. Ma, L. (1992). Discussing teacher induction in China and relevant debates in the United States with a Chinese teacher: A conversation with Yu Yi. National Centre for Research on Teacher Learning. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. Teachers College Press. Ministry of Education. (2001). Jichu jiaoyu gaige gangyao (shixing) [Outline of basic education curriculum reform (trial)]. http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2002/content_61386. htm Ministry of Education. (2011). Guanyu dali jiaqiang zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi peixun gongzuo de yijian [Recommendations on greatly strengthening primary and secondary teacher training]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/s7034/201101/t20110104_146073.html Ministry of Education. (2012). Zhongxue jiaoshi zhuanye biaozhun(shixing) [Professional standards for secondary school teachers (trial)]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/ s6991/201209/t20120913_145603.html Ministry of Education. (2013). Guanyu yinfa “zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi zige kaoshi zanxing banfa” he “zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi zige dingqi zhuce zanxing banfa de tongzhi [The notice on “Interim measures for the qualification examinations of primary and secondary school teachers” and “Interim measures for periodic registration of primary and secondary school teachers”]. http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2013/content_2547145.htm Ministry of Education. (2015). Guanyu jinyibu kuoda zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi zige kaoshi yu dingqi zhuce zhidu gaige shidian de tongzhi [The notice on further expanding the pilot reform of primary and secondary school teachers’ qualification examination and periodic registration system]. http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A10/s7151/201507/ t20150731_197045.html Ministry of Education. (2017). Shoupi “Guopeijihua” youxiu gongzuo anli gongbu [The announcement of the first batch of outstanding implementation cases of “National Teacher Training Project”]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_xwfb/gzdt_gzdt/s5987/201709/ t20170901_312876.html Ministry of Education & Ministry of Finance. (2010). Guanyu shishi “zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi guojiaji peixun jihua” de tongzhi [The notice on the implementation of “the National

32  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs Primary and Secondary Teacher Training Project”]. http://www.gov.cn/zwgk/2010-06/30/ content_1642031.htm National People’s Congress. (1993). Zhonghua renmin gongheguo jiaoshifa [Teachers’ Law of the People’s Republic of China]. http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/ moe/moe_619/200407/1314.html Newmann, F. M. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. Jossey-Bass. Newmann, F. M., King, M. B., & Youngs, P. (2000). Professional development that addresses school capacity: Lessons from urban elementary schools. American Journal of Education, 108(4), 259–299. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Center on Organisation and Restructuring of Schools. Olivier, D. F., & Hipp, K. K. (2010). Assessing and analysing schools as professional learning communities. In K. K. Hipp & J. B. Huffman (Eds.), Demystifying professional learning communities: School leadership at its best (pp. 29–41). Rowman & Littlefield Education. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualising teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States, Strong performers and successful reformers in education. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/9789264096660-en Ornstein, A. C. (1981). The trend toward increased professionalism for teachers. The Phi Delta Kappan, 63(3), 196–198. Paine, L. (1990). The teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. The Teachers College Record, 92(1), 49–81. Paine, L., & Fang, Y. (2006). Reform as a hybrid model of teaching and teacher development in China. International Journal of Educational Research, 45(4–5), 279–289. Paine, L., Fang, Y., & Wilson, S. (2003). Entering a culture of teaching: Teacher induction in Shanghai. In E. Britton, L. Paine, D. Pimm, & S. Raizen (Eds.), Comprehensive teacher induction: System for early career learning (pp. 20–82). Springer. Paine, L., & Ma, L. (1993). Teachers working together: A dialogue on organisational and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 675–697. Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2017). Professional learning communities as drivers of educational change: The case of learning rounds. Journal of Educational Change, 18(2), 209–234. Pratte, R., & Rury, J. L. (1991). Teachers, professionalism, and craft. Teachers College Record, 93(1), 59–72. Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice perspective. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(2), 187–226. Qiao, X., Lu, N., & Li, W. (2013). Cong jiaoshi hezuo kan woguo xiaoben jiaoyan jiqi dui xuexi gongtongti fazhan de qishi [A study of school-based teaching research in mainland China through the lens of teacher collaboration and its implications for teacher communities]. Teacher Education Research, 25(6), 74–78. Qiao, X., Yu, S., & Zhang, L. (2018). A review of research on professional learning communities in mainland China (2006–2015): Key findings and emerging themes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 713–728. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (1998). How teachers change. Focus on basics, 2(C), 1–10. Richardson, V., & Placier, P. (2001). Teacher change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 905–947). American Educational Research Association.

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 33 Sargent, T. C. (2015). Professional learning communities and the diffusion of pedagogical innovation in the Chinese education system. Comparative Education Review, 59(1), 102–132. Schechter, C. (2012). The professional learning community as perceived by Israeli school superintendents, principals and teachers. International Review of Education, 58(6), 717–734. Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic books. Schunk, D. H. (2008). Learning theories: An educational perspective (5th ed.). Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organisation. Doubleday. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Organisations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214–226. Smith, P. J., & Sadler-Smith, E. (2006). Learning in organisations: Complexities and diversities. Taylor & Francis. Spillane, J. P., Shirrell, M., & Hopkins, M. (2016). Designing and deploying a professional learning community (PLC) organisational routine: Bureaucratic and collegial arrangements in tandem. Les dossiers des sciences de l’éducation (35), 97–122. State Council. (1995). Jiaoshi zige tiaoli [Regulations on teacher qualification]. In D. He (Ed.), Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhongyao jiaoyu wenxian (1949-1997) [Important education documents in People’ Republic of China (1949-1997)] (pp. 3907–3908). Hainan Press. Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 583–626. Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(2), 213–226. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 1–13). McGraw-Hill Education. Supovitz, J. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. The Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591–1626. Sykes, G. (1996). Reform of and as professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(7), 464–467. Talbert, J. E. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder or engender change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, & D. Hopkins (Eds.), Second international handbook of educational change (pp. 555–571). Springer. Tang, Y. G. (1999). Jiaoshi zhuanye fazhan de yanjiu [Research on teacher professional development]. Foreign Education Materials (6), 39–43. Tang, X., & Shao, F. (2014). On the evolution of a lesson: Group preparation for teaching contest as teacher professional development activity for Chinese elementary science teachers. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 23(2), 252–266. Thomas, N. (1998). Teaching as a profession. Education, 3–13, 26(1), 8–16. Timperley, H. (2011). Realising the power of professional learning. McGraw-Hill.

34  Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs Tsui, A. B. M., & Wong, J. L. N. (2009). In search of a third space: Teacher development in mainland China. In C. K. K. Chan & N. Rao (Eds.), Revisiting the Chinese learner (pp. 281–311). Springer. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (1966). Recommendations concerning the status of teachers. http://www.unesco.org/education/pdf/TEACHE_E. PDF Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). 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. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press. Wang, J. (2001). Contexts of mentoring and opportunities for learning to teach: A comparative study of mentoring practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(1), 51–73. Wang, J. (2002). Learning to teach with mentors in contrived contexts of curriculum and teaching organisation: Experiences of two Chinese novice teachers and their mentors. Journal of In-Service Education, 28(2), 339–374. Wang, J., & Paine, L. (2001). Mentoring as assisted performance: A pair of Chinese teachers working together. The Elementary School Journal, 102(2), 157–181. Wang, T. (2015). Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: Demystifying professional learning communities in Chinese schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(6), 908–930. Wang, T. (2016). School leadership and professional learning community: Case study of two senior high schools in Northeast China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(2), 202–216. Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Press. Whitty, G. (2000). Teacher professionalism in new times. Journal of In-Service Education, 26(2), 281–295. Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173–209. Wong, J. L. N., & Tsui, A. B. M. (2007). How do teachers view the effects of school-based in-service learning activities? A case study in China. Journal of Education for Teaching, 33(4), 457–470. Yang, Y., & Ricks, T. E. (2013). Chinese lesson study: Developing classroom instruction through collaborations in school-based teaching research group activities. In Y. Li & R. Huang (Eds.), How Chinese teach Mathematics and improve teaching (pp. 51–65). Routledge. Yin, H. B. (2013). Societal culture and teachers’ responses to curriculum reform: Experiences from China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 391–401. Yuan, R., & Zhang, J. (2016). Promoting teacher collaboration through joint lesson planning: Challenges and coping strategies. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(5-6), 817–826. Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching: An introduction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Teacher Professional Learning and PLCs 35 Zhang, J., & Pang, N. S.-K. (2016). Exploring the characteristics of professional learning communities in China: A mixed-method study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 11–21. Zhang, J., Yuan, R., & Shao, X. (2022). Investigating teacher learning in professional learning communities in China: A comparison of two primary schools in Shanghai. Teaching and Teacher Education, 118, 103839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103839 Zhang, J., Yuan, R., & Yu, S. (2017). What impedes the development of professional learning communities in China? Perceptions from leaders and frontline teachers in three schools in Shanghai. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45(2), 219–237. Zheng, X., Zhang, J., & Wang, W. (2019). Teacher learning as boundary crossing: A case study of Master Teacher Studios in China. Teachers and Teaching, 25(7), 837–854. Zhong, Q. Q., Cui, Y. H., Zhang, H., & You, B. H. (2001). Weile meiyige xuesheng de fazhan: Xin shiji zhongguo jichu jiaoyu kecheng gaige zouyi [For the development of every student: Discussion on the curriuclum reform in the Chinese school education in the new century]. Global Education, (2), 38. Zhou, B. (2005). Yu “Jiaoxue yanjiu” jianxing jianyuan de “Jiaoyanzu” [Teaching Research Groups: Going far away from Teaching Research]. Shanghai Research on Education, (4), 8–9. Zhou, J. (2014). Teacher education changes in China: 1974–2014. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 507–523. Zhu, X. D., & Pei, M. (2017). Jiaoshi xuexi moshi yanjiu [Research on teacher learning models: Experiences from China]. Beijing Normal University Publishing Group.

3

The Development of TRGs in China A Historical Review

This chapter discloses how TRGs as a form of PLCs in China emerged and developed to promote teachers’ collaborative professional learning, from a historical perspective. Before reviewing the history of TRGs, this chapter presents the debates on their origins and clarifies three major stages of their development—the establishment stage (1949–1976), regularisation stage (1977–2000), and transformation stage after the promotion of the new curriculum reform—each of which reflects important social changes and shifts in educational policy in China. It then identifies the changes to and continuities in PLC implementation over the past seven decades. Through historical accounts, this chapter lays the necessary foundations for empirical investigations into the operation of TRGs and their role in teachers’ professional learning in school-based settings in China. 3.1  Debates on the Origins of TRGs Whether TRGs are an “indigenous” product inherited from the Republican era or a “borrowed” product imported from the Soviet Union is still under debate. Researchers have confirmed the existence of collective professional activities in the Republican era, although the term or name of TRGs did not exist at that time (Y. Hu, 2017; M. Wang, 2013). Based on historical documents, in the early Republican era, teachers participated in teaching seminars and lesson observations held by education associations at the provincial level (Y. Hu, 2017; Y. Liu, 2021). In addition, the National Government of the Republic of China promulgated several policies (e.g., Primary School Rule, General Rules for the Organisation of the Teaching Research Associations of All Subjects in Secondary Schools) to promote collective teaching research activities to enhance teachers’ understanding of both general education and subject-based teaching (Song & Zhang, 2005). These Republican-era policies and practices might provide practical experiences and cultural foundations for the native development of TRGs after the foundation of the People’s Republic of China. In contrast, some argue that the organisational structure for building school-based TRGs was imported from the Soviet Union in the 1950s, against the political background of “China learning from the Soviet Union” (Chen, 2006; G. Hu, 2005; H. Hu & Liu, 2012). DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583-3

The Development of TRGs in China 37 3.2  Establishment of TRGs in the Foundation of the New China Combining native heritage and foreign influences, TRGs were not established as specialised units, and in-school teaching research activities were not formalised nationally until the founding of New China to address the lack of qualified teachers at that time (H. Hu & Liu, 2012). Due to the poor educational conditions after the establishment of New China, teachers’ qualifications were quite low. In 1952, there were 1.554 million primary teachers, only 13.5% of whom were secondary normal school or senior secondary school graduates (Editorial Board for Education Yearbook, 1984). Consequently, teacher professional development became a burning issue across the country, and promoting teachers’ quality efficiently and ­effectively was deemed extremely important. In the same year, the Ministry of ­Education (MOE) stipulated that primary and secondary schools should set up TRGs in all subjects to enable teachers to study the work of teaching improvement (MOE, 1952a, 1952b). At that point, TRGs were established nationally in all primary and secondary schools (Cong, 2011). In 1957, TRGs were further emphasised as organisations for teachers to “learn secondary education policies and instructions; study teaching syllabus, textbooks and teaching methods; combine teaching practices with studying educational theory and subject knowledge; summarise and exchange experiences of teaching and guide extracurricular activities” (MOE, 1957). It was also made clear that TRGs were intended to be organisations for studying teaching for educational improvement rather than administrative purposes, with the document detailing the frequency and format of TRG activities. Specifically, TRG activities should be ­biweekly or triweekly, but teacher involvement was voluntary instead of mandatory, and the activities should not occupy too much time, lest they become a burden to teachers. The organisational leadership was also regulated. The duty of the TRG head was specified as that of an organiser rather than an administrator or mediator between school leaders and teachers. The professional and voluntary nature of organising TRG activities was strongly stressed. However, TRGs in schools and school-based teacher professional interactions were disbanded during the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) (Pepper, 1996). ­Although TRGs re-emerged in some schools late in the Cultural Revolution era, their functions were restricted, with their major role being to serve political and ideological purposes; for example, teachers discussed “strategies to integrate revolutions of ‘condemning Lin Biao and Confucius’ into science teaching”, and “inviting preliterate peasants to mark compositions” (W. Liang et al., 2011, p. 60) in their collective professional activities, which were explicitly ideologically oriented and largely ignored the development of teachers’ subject knowledge or teaching skills. TRGs were established throughout the country in this period, despite their functioning only intermittently for the decade of the Cultural Revolution. Teaching research activities were mainly designed for teachers to learn basic educational theories and knowledge and master basic teaching skills. Teachers collaborated with their peers mainly through such collective activities as open lessons, peer observation, and lesson planning (Y. Hu, 2011). Teachers also discussed certain

38  The Development of TRGs in China educational theories together in TRGs, such as the pedagogical theory developed by the Soviet Union’s then-Deputy-Minister of Education Ivan Andreevich Kairov. Through TRGs, certain teaching principles and strategies became well known to teachers, who then applied them in their classrooms (Li, 2010). Another special task for teachers in China was to learn political thoughts, as the political ideology greatly influenced teaching research activities at that time. 3.3 Regularisation of TRGs in the Expansion of Compulsory Education Most TRGs were suspended until normal school education resumed after the end of the Culture Revolution. When Deng Xiaoping came to power in 1978, economic construction became the nation’s priority, and the key role of education in producing the qualified workforce needed to promote economic development was affirmed. TRGs’ role in teacher professional development was re-regulated as education’s significant role in boosting national economic development was highlighted; a milestone in education development was the 1978 reinstatement of the National College Entrance Examination (Gaokao). Regulations regarding teachers’ collaborative study of teaching contents and methods and the exchange of teaching experiences between junior and senior teachers were issued in 1978 (MOE, 1978) for the organisation of TRGs. In addition, provinces and municipalities introduced specific regulations concerning TRGs and their activities. For example, Shanghai re-regulated school principals’ and middle leaders’ (i.e., Teaching Affairs ­Office directors) leadership of teaching research, the duties of the TRG and its head, and requirements for teachers’ lesson planning in schools (W. Liang et al., 2011). Additionally, weekly schedules for teaching research activities at the school and district or municipal levels were regulated to coordinate teachers’ collaborative professional development at different levels (W. Liang et al., 2011). Later, in 1990, the State Education Commission implemented a policy document entitled Some Recommendations on Improving and Strengthening Teaching Research Work, stipulating that the roles of TROs were to provide teaching guidance, manage subject teaching affairs, and do teaching research (State Education Commission, 1990). The document’s promulgation normalised establishing TROs at the system level in China. In addition to re-establishing the education system after the Cultural Revolution, Chinese society faced tremendous challenges in developing both the quality and quantity of education in this period. Several education reforms were embarked upon in the late 1980s to transform school education. There was increased pressure placed on teachers to improve their teaching quality and, thereby, the quality of students in the school system, reflecting an emphasis on the quality of school education. Teaching research activities varied during this stage. Besides regular teaching research activities (i.e., open lessons, peer observation, collective lesson planning), other activities, such as teaching competitions, were organised to foster excellence in teaching practices and to enrich teachers’ professional knowledge and practices (Wu & Clarke, 2018). Additionally, schools and teachers were encouraged

The Development of TRGs in China 39 to undertake research projects and experiment with new teaching methods to improve teaching quality. In addition to the pursuit of quality, the expansion of school education also influenced the roles of TRGs. In particular, the implementation of compulsory education in 1986 required all school-aged children to complete nineyear compulsory education. Enrolment peaked in the 1990s, which made the management of teachers more difficult and led to some administrative duties (e.g., the examination of teachers’ work) being decentralised to TRG heads (Q. Liu, 2007). Generally, TRGs were re-established and further regularised to allow teachers to adapt to teaching in this period. Time was set aside in TRGs for collective lesson planning and curriculum and textbook study to improve the effectiveness of teacher education and teaching work. Moreover, teachers’ learning activities changed from collectively studying how to implement textbooks to pursuing pedagogical innovation; the emphasis placed on research was stronger than ever before (W. Liang et al., 2014). Additionally, the role of TRGs shifted from professional development alone to embrace both professional and administrative purposes. 3.4  Transformation of TRGs under New Curriculum Reform Since the turn of the 21st century, China has implemented a series of educational reforms designed to transform from examination-oriented to quality-oriented education. In 2001, a new, full-scale curriculum reform was launched, considered the most radical and wide-reaching educational reform in 21st-century China (Ryan et al., 2009), aimed at cultivating globally competitive citizens adept at facing changes and working with knowledge. The reform regulated ways of teaching and learning. Radical and systematic transformation of curriculum goals, structure, content, teaching and learning approaches, and assessment and administrative structures occurred (Ryan et al., 2009). In the new curriculum reform context, teachers were required to transform their teaching. For example, teachers were expected to learn and adopt new and innovative teaching strategies to develop students as active participants in classrooms and move from teacher- to student-centred instruction. In the face of such challenges, the teaching research system has received increased attention, with several official documents regarding teaching research work being issued at both the school and system levels (MOE, 2001, 2002, 2019). In 2001, it was clearly stated that the duty of teaching research organisations was to make reform implementation their core work and to play a full role in teaching research, guidance, and service; in 2002, the role of school-based teaching research was further stressed. Schools were empowered to set up school-based, bottom-up teaching research networks, encourage teachers to participate in teaching reform, and propose teaching research projects based on reform implementation practice (MOE, 2002). In 2019, the MOE reasserted the teaching research system’s roles in curriculum reform and promoting school education quality (MOE, 2019). TRGs were regarded primarily as channels for the widespread dissemination of innovative curriculum reform ideas among teachers (Sargent, 2015). Moreover, in the same year, an institute entitled the ­National Centre for School Curriculum and Textbook Development was specified

40  The Development of TRGs in China Ministry of Education

Provincial/Municipal Education Department

National Center for School Curriculum and Textbook Development

Provincial/Municipal Teaching Research Office

City Education Bureau City Teaching Research Office

County/District Education Bureau

Schools

County/District Teaching Research Office

Teaching Research Groups

Figure 3.1  The structure of the Chinese teaching research system. Source: Adapted from Chen (2020).

to oversee the teaching research activities at the national level. So far, a teaching research system has been fully established at the national, provincial/municipal, city, county/district, and school levels (see Figure 3.1). Policies released during this stage promoted integrating teaching research activities with other teacher professional development mechanisms. For example, initiating teacher action research projects and implementing teacher training programmes were combined with teachers’ participation in school-based teaching research activities. This trend was confirmed in official documents suggesting that different institutions (i.e., teacher training institutions, teaching research offices, educational research academies, and educational technology centres) in the education system should integrate their resources to better serve the purpose of regional teacher professional learning (MOE, 2018, 2019). TRGs’ main purpose was set as teacher professional learning and development. While some researchers have expressed concerns about TRGs’ becoming administrative units and their weakening role in promoting teacher professional collaboration and continuous learning (M. Liu & Wang, 2008; B. Zhou, 2005), TRGs are generally acknowledged as important to teacher professional learning but are expected to solve practical problems encountered in implementing the new curriculum reform, through teachers’ collaborative efforts (Gao & Wang, 2014;

The Development of TRGs in China 41 Sargent, 2015). In addition, teaching research activities are not merely vessels for teachers to exchange teaching experiences; rather, teachers are expected to apply updated educational thoughts and theories in their teaching practices and to generate valuable and practical principles for sharing. Teachers have widely adopted action research to inquire about their classroom teaching practice in schools (X. Liang et al., 2016). Teachers are encouraged and required to follow a regulated and standardised research process that includes drafting research proposals, seeking approval from official authorities, undergoing mid-term project evaluation, and submitting research reports. Doing action research projects has become a major duty of teaching research organisations at different levels (W. Liang et al., 2011). 3.5  Changes in TRG Development in China The above section has sketched a macro-level historical overview of the main developments of TRGs, as a form of PLC, since the establishment of New China and shown that there have been both continuities in and changes to the operation of TRGs over the past 70 years. 3.5.1  Intensified Institutionalisation of the Organisational Structure

While TRGs were first established as subject organisations at the school level in the 1950s, their regional-level roles and responsibilities were not specified until the 1990s; the national institute overseeing teaching research activities throughout the country was founded in 2019. The organisation structure has undergone an institutionalised process. In addition, leaders in charge of teaching research activities at each level (e.g., TRG leaders and teaching researchers) were specified, and their roles and responsibilities were further regulated. On the one hand, the institutionalisation of TRGs at the system level is crucial to ensure their operation and function for teaching improvement, especially for schools in rural or less developed regions (Sargent & Hannum, 2009; D. Wang et al., 2017). On the other hand, the intensified institutionalisation process leads to increased administrative duties placed on TRGs and teachers, which will be discussed in the following section. 3.5.2  Increased Administrative Duties

Parallel to the intensified institutionalisation of the organisational structure, the seven decades witnessed increased administrative duties being added to TRGs. When first established, TRGs’ exclusive purpose was teachers’ teaching improvement; however, following an intense institutionalisation process in the late 1980s, TRGs were no longer organised only for professional development purposes but also for school administration and teaching management purposes. While TRGs’ administrative management role is not regulated at the policy level, it seems a common strategy for TRGs to cope with school-level teaching management (e.g., teacher evaluation) in practice. For instance, studies have suggested that teacher evaluation was carried out concerning teaching research activities and that teachers’ participation in TRG

42  The Development of TRGs in China activities, including lesson planning and lesson observation, was not only a required duty but also a basis on which they could be appraised; this linkage was seen as facilitating teacher professional learning (Tan, 2013; Zhang & Ng, 2011). TRGs are generally seen as organisations serving the dual purposes of teacher professional learning and school-level administrative management (Y. Hu, 2011). 3.5.3  Shifts in Orientation of Collective Work

TRGs have transitioned from a teaching-oriented emphasis to a research-oriented one. From 1949 to the end of the 1970s, TRGs’ main focus was on teachers’ ­exchanging “how to teach” insights, as such teaching-based activities such as collective lesson planning, lesson observation, and studying syllabi, textbooks, and teaching methods were mainly organised to help teachers master basic knowledge and skills. Since the promotion of educational reforms in the late 1980s, and especially since the new curriculum reform’s 2001 implementation, TRGs have become an increasingly important tool for helping teachers implement educational reforms and achieve those reforms’ visions. In such circumstances, “research” particularly became more emphasised as a way for school-based TRGs to generate pedagogical innovations based on their frontline practices. As a TRG leader in T. Wang’s (2015) study noted, “our current TRG is different from 17 years ago. Previously, we emphasised sharing teaching experiences, but we now focus on reflections, dialogues, and particularly research” (p. 916). This reflects that the organisation of TRG activities is in alignment with wider educational reform initiatives and that PLCs in China have been enacted to satisfy the increased demands on teaching in response to reforms. Teachers are not only expected to master subject knowledge and develop professional expertise but they are also expected to conduct practicebased research and use their research outcomes to improve their practice. 3.5.4  Increased Integration with Other Professional Development Efforts

In addition to teaching research activities, various in-service teacher professional development mechanisms have, for decades, been created to ensure teachers’ continuous learning and professional improvement. For example, teacher training has, since the 1970s, been a key strategy for transforming teachers’ teaching beliefs and improving their knowledge and skills in primary and secondary schools (J. Zhou, 2014); additionally, since the late 1980s, action research projects have been promoted for teachers to innovate based on their contextualised teaching conditions. These different professional development mechanisms were implemented on separate tracks; teacher training institutions provided teacher training programmes, teachers’ action research projects were led by educational research academies, and teaching research activities were organised as an independent teaching research system. In the past two decades, as reflected in the phase jiao yan xun yi ti hua (which means, “teaching research, teacher research, and teacher training cannot be separated”), it has been encouraged that different professional development strategies be incorporated into a single system. In some cities (e.g., Shanghai), teachers’

The Development of TRGs in China 43 participation in teaching research activities has become a crucial component of teachers’ in-service training (Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, 2016), and action research projects a key component of teaching research activities. This integration reflects the Chinese approach of utilising all kinds of resources to ­maximise teachers’ professional development. 3.6  Continuity in TRG Development in China The current structure of TRGs is not much different from what it was 70 years ago. Current TRGs are set up as top-down, school-based teacher organisations that group teachers by subjects for collective inquiry into teaching improvement. TROs set up at system levels, including district and municipal levels, are responsible for the professional learning and development of the teachers under their jurisdiction. This institutionalised and mandated structure has not influenced TRGs’ focus on the collective work of teachers in schools. Despite their suspension during the Cultural Revolution, TRGs have always been relied on to promote teachers’ professional collaboration and teaching improvement. Moreover, despite TRGs’ having been assigned some administrative duties, teacher professional development has remained their priority. This emphasis on job-embedded professional development is related to the “ineffectiveness” of pre-service teachers in China (J. Zhou, 2014). Different from many other countries (e.g., Finland, the US, and Australia), where teachers are believed to be competent upon entering the teaching profession, China considers teachers’ formal pre-service training insufficient to provide “practically” qualified teachers (Ma, 1992). Participating in teaching research activities is considered an essential daily practice for teachers to develop their teaching practices in school-based contexts. 3.7 Summary Although influenced by the Soviet Union after the foundation of the People’s ­Republic of China, the practice of TRGs has its native roots in the Republican era. The development of TRGs has experienced three major stages of TRGs since the establishment of New China. Specifically, the first stage dates from the ­establishment of the People’s Republic of China, when TRGs were set up formally to improve teaching quality (MOE, 1952a, 1952b). The operation of TRGs was suspended due to the Cultural Revolution, during which school education generally suffered from related political chaos. In 1977, however, a second stage of development began, which saw the return of conventional school education and the re-establishment and regularisation of TRGs and the teaching research system (W. Liang et al., 2011). In their most recent incarnation, which started with China’s new curriculum reform, TRGs have experienced more external reform demands (Yin, 2013), leading to research-oriented collaborative professional development. The chapter has argued that over the past seven decades, TRGs in China have remained a top-down strategy with a strong focus on teacher collaboration and professional development. At the same time, however, some changes have occurred,

44  The Development of TRGs in China including intensified institutionalisation of the organisational structure, increased administrative duties, a shift in the orientation of collective work, and increased integration with other professional development efforts. This depiction of changes to and continuities in the TRG development in the Chinese educational system suggests that TRGs could continue to work and thrive within a hierarchical structure for decades to come. References Chen, G. (2006). “Zhongguo de jiaoyanzu xianxiang” pingyi [A commentary on “the teaching research group phenomenon” in China]. Journal of Nantong University (Education Sciences Edition), 22(4), 1–4. Chen, L. (2020). A historical review of professional learning communities in China (19492019): Some implications for collaborative for collaborative teacher professional ­development. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 40(3), 373–385. Cong, L. (2011). Chenmo de quanwei: Zhongguo jichu jiaoyu jiaoyanzuzhi [The silent ­authority: The teaching research system in China’s basic education]. Beijing Normal ­University Publishing House. Editorial Board for Education Yearbook. (1984). Zhongguo jiaoyu nianjian: 1949–1981. [China Education Yearbook 1949–1981]. Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. Gao, S., & Wang, J. (2014). Teaching transformation under centralised curriculum and teacher learning community: Two Chinese chemistry teachers’ experiences in developing inquiry-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 1–11. Hu, G. (2005). Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 654–705. Hu, H., & Liu, Q. (2012). Woguo zhongxiaoxue jiaoxue yanjiu zuzhi de fazhan jiqi kunjing [On the development and plight of China’s basic education research organisation]. ­Research in Educational Development, 32(2), 1–8. Hu, Y. (2011). Xinzhongguo 17nian zhongxiaoxue jiaoyanzu de zhineng yu xingzhi chutan [Exploration of the function and character of teaching and research groups of primary and secondary schools in 17 years since 1949]. Teacher Education Research, 23(6), 50–55. Hu, Y. (2017). Minguo shiqi woguo zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi de xuexi yanjiu zuzhi jiqi huodong [An exploration of the learning and research institutions and their activities of the teachers in primary and middle schools in the period of the Republic of China]. Teacher Development Research, 1(1), 98–106. Li, J. (Ed.) (2010). Shanghai jiaoyu fazhan zhongda shijian jishi [Documentary of m ­ ajor events of Shanghai education development in the 60 years]. Shanghai Educational ­Publishing House. Liang, X., Kidwai, H., & Zhang, M. (2016). How Shanghai does it: Insights and lessons from the highest-ranking education system in the world. World Bank. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24000 Liang, W., Lu, L., & Huang, D. (2011). Qiaodong zhongguo jichu jiaoyu de zhidian: Zhongguo tesejiaoyan zhidu fazhan yanjiu [A place to move the basic education in China: ­Research on the development of Chinese teaching research system]. Educational Science Publishing House. Liang, W., Lu, L., Huang, D., & Jin, L. (2014). Hangshi jichu: Zhongguo tese jiaoyanzu ­jianshe [Laying a solid foundation: The building of teaching research groups with ­Chinese characteristics]. Educational Science Publishing House.

The Development of TRGs in China 45 Liu, M., & Wang, B. (2008). Jiaoyanzu jianshe xianzhuang ji gongneng sikao [Thoughts on the current situations and functions of the teaching research group]. Shanghai Research on Education, (4), 47–48. Liu, Q. (2007). Woguo zhongxiaoxue jiaoyanzu yanjiu: Cong lishi fazhan de jiaodu [A study on the teaching research group in China’s primary and secondary schools: In the perspective of history] [Master’s thesis, East China Normal University]. China Academic Journal Network Publishing Database. https://kns.cnki.net/kcms/detail/detail.aspx?dbcode= CMFD&dbname=CMFD2007&filename=2007080838.nh&uniplatform=NZKPT&v= a68o2qA3dpJ5h2skF5ghD0QVR7vcK5HpADYot2LXle8_0t6PNfwJnWbzWU4YvJ2B Liu, Y. (2021). Zhuigen suyuan: “Jiaoyan” yuanzi zhongguo bentu shijian [Tracing back to the root: Teaching research originated from the local practice in China]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 39(5), 85–98. Ma, L. (1992). Discussing teacher induction in China and relevant debates in the United States with a Chinese teacher: A conversation with Yu Yi (Report No.353250). National Centre for Research on Teacher Learning. Ministry of Education. (1952a). Zhongxue zanxing guicheng [Secondary school provisional regulation]. In D. He (Ed.), Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhongyao jiaoyu wenxian(1949-1997) [Important education documents in People’ Republic of China (1949-1997)] (pp. 139–142). Hainan Press. Ministry of Education. (1952b). Xiaoxue zanxing guicheng [Primary school provisional regulation]. In D. He (Ed.), Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhongyao jiaoyu wenxian (1949-1997) [Important education documents in People’ Republic of China (1949-1997)] (pp.142–144). Hainan Press. Ministry of Education. (1957). Zhongxue jiaoyanzu gongzuo tiaoli (cao an) [Work regulation on teaching research groups in secondary schools (draft)]. In D. He (Ed.), Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhongyao jiaoyu wenxian (1949-1997) [Important education documents in People’ Republic of China (1949-1997)] (pp. 720). Hainan Press. Ministry of Education. (1978). Guanyu shixing Quanrizhi zhongxue zanxing gongzuo tiaoli (shixing caoan), Quanrizhi xiaoxue zanxing gongzuo tiaoli (shixing caoan) [Notice on trial implementation of the provisional work regulations for full-time secondary and primary schools (Protocol draft)]. In D. He (Ed.), Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhongyao jiaoyu wenxian (1949-1997) [Important education documents in People’ Republic of China (1949-1997)] (pp. 1630–1639). Hainan Press. Ministry of Education. (2001). Jichu jiaoyu gaige gangyao (shixing) [Outline of basic education curriculum reform (trial)]. http://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2002/content_61386. htm Ministry of Education. (2002). Guanyu jiji tuijin zhongxiaoxue pingjia yu kaoshi zhidu gaige de tongzhi [Notice on promoting the reform of evaluation and examination system in primary and secondary schools]. http://www.moe.edu.cn/srcsite/A26/s7054/200212/ t20021218_78509.html Ministry of Education. (2018). Jiaoshi jiaoyu zhenxing xingdong jihua (2018-2022) [Teacher education revitalisation action plan (2018-2022)]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A10/ s7034/201803/t20180323_331063.html Ministry of Education. (2019). Guanyu jiaqiang he gaijin xinshidai jichu jiaoyu jiaoyan gongzuo deyijian [Suggestions on strengthening and improving the work of teaching research in basic education in the new era]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/srcsite/A06/ s3321/201911/t20191128_409950.html Pepper, S. (1996). Radicalism and education reform in 20th-century China: The search for an ideal development model. Cambridge University Press.

46  The Development of TRGs in China Ryan, J., Kang, C., Mitchell, I., & Erickson, G. (2009). China’s basic education reform: An account of an international collaborative research and development project. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(4), 427–441. Sargent, T. C. (2015). Professional learning communities and the diffusion of pedagogical innovation in the Chinese education system. Comparative Education Review, 59(1), 102–132. Sargent, T. C., & Hannum, E. (2009). Doing more with less teacher professional learning communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural china. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 258–276. Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. (2016). Shanghaishi “Shisanwu” zhongxiaoxue youeryuan zhongdeng zhiye xuexiao jiaoshi peixun gongzuo shishi jianyi [Recommendations on the training of teachers in primary and secondary schools, kindergartens, and secondary vocational schools in the “Thirteenth Five-Year” in Shanghai]. http://www. shmec.gov.cn/html/xxgk/201606/406112016014.php Song, E., & Zhang, X. (Eds.). (2005). Zhonghua minguo jiaoyu fagui xuanbian [Selection of education laws and regulations in Republic of China] (2nd ed.). Jiangsu Education Press. State Education Commission. (1990). Guanyu gaijin he jiaqiang jiaoxue yanjiushi gongzuo de ruogan yijian [Suggestions on improving and strengthening the work of teaching research offices]. In D. He (Ed.), Zhonghua renmin gongheguo zhongyao jiaoyu wenxian (1949-1997) [Important education documents in People’ Republic of China (1949-1997)] (p. 2984). Hainan Press. Tan, C. (2013). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on achieving educational success. Springer. Wang, D., Wang, J., Li, H., & Li, L. (2017). School context and instructional capacity: A comparative study of professional learning communities in rural and urban schools in China. International Journal of Educational Development, 52, 1–9. Wang, M. (2013). Minguo shiqi jiaoshi de jiaoxue yanjiu chutan [On teachers’ participation in teaching research in the Republican Era]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 31(1), 89–95. Wang, T. (2015). Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: Demystifying professional learning communities in Chinese schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(6), 908–930. Wu, H., & Clarke, A. (2018). The Chinese “Open Class”: A conceptual rendering and historical account. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(2), 214–228. Yin, H. (2013). Societal cultural and teachers’ responses to curriculum reform: Experience from China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 391–401. Zhang, X., & Ng, H. M. (2011). A case study of teacher appraisal in Shanghai, China: In relation to teacher professional development. Asia Pacific Education Review, 12(4), 569–580. Zhou, B. (2005). Yu “jiaoxue yanjiu” jianxing jianyuan de “jiaoyanzu” [“Teaching research groups” going far away from “teaching research”]. Shanghai Research on Education, (4), 8–9. Zhou, J. (2014). Teacher education changes in China: 1974–2014. Journal of Education for Teaching, 40(5), 507–523.

4

Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School

Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School in Shanghai was chosen as the research site for this study. This chapter introduces the general picture of Shanghai’s education and teacher professional learning, along with a detailed description of the school context in which the TRGs were organised and the school-based teacher professional learning took place. It begins with a brief introduction to Shanghai’s educational context and then presents the well-established teacher professional learning system, including initiatives promoting teacher professional learning, teacher career promotion system as incentives for professional learning, and the teaching research system in Shanghai. Following that are descriptions of the organisational structure, teachers, and teaching in the school where TRGs are located. 4.1  The Education System and Development in Shanghai Shanghai is the largest metropolis in China, with a population of more than 24.88 million at the end of 2020 (Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Statistics, 2021a). As one of China’s four municipal cities (the other three are Beijing, Tianjin, and Chongqing), Shanghai is administratively equivalent to a province and has 16 county-level districts distributed in its core urban, suburban areas, and even rural areas far from the main city. Since the reform and opening up policy in the late 1970s, Shanghai seized opportunities to develop its economy rapidly and now plays a leading role in modernising the national economy. For example, Shanghai launched China’s first free-trade zone as “a testing ground” to further open up the market and upgrade its economic structure. In 2020, the per capita disposable income of Shanghai residents was 72232 Yuan, ranked the top among all municipalities and provinces across China (National Bureau of Statistics of China, 2021). In 2021, Shanghai’s gross domestic product (GDP) reached 4321.485 billion, topping all the cities in China (Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Statistics, 2022). It has become one of mainland China’s most international and developed cities and has a strong global influence. Shanghai has adopted a “5-4” structure of compulsory schooling in basic education. That is, students spend five and four years studying in primary and junior secondary schools, respectively, slightly different from the “6-3” model—six years DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583-4

48  Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School of primary education and three years of junior secondary education run in most regions in the country. The “5-4” model in Shanghai has been in place since the 1980s, due to the limited capacity of Shanghai’s primary schools to absorb the growing numbers of new students at the enrollment peak (Pang & Tian, 2007). ­Accordingly, primary schooling was reduced to five years, and students in their sixth year of study were sent to junior secondary schools. After completing their compulsory education, students must take selective examinations (zhongkao) for promotion to the next level of schooling. Based on their examination scores, they are stratified into either general senior secondary education (like grammar school education in English-speaking systems) or other (specialised, vocational, and crafts) types of education. General senior secondary education is a top choice for future admission to universities. Similar to other counterparts in China, the competition among Shanghai students to attend senior secondary schools of high quality, which tend to have the highest portion of graduates to enter the elite universities in China and aboard, is rather intense. In China, governments administer basic education at each level (i.e., provincial/ municipal, city, county/district) under the overall leadership of the State Council. The Ministry of Education (MOE), under the direct leadership of the State Council, manages the overall educational work in China by formulating national education policies, guiding principles, and plans. The government at each level (i.e., the municipal and district levels in Shanghai) is responsible for administering educational work within its jurisdiction. Educational authorities are empowered by governments to manage educational affairs, including making and implementing policies, schemes, and plans, as well as leading and inspecting the primary and secondary schools in their localities (Wang, 2002). As a municipality in China, Shanghai’s educational administrative system follows the national framework. Under the leadership of Shanghai’s government, the Municipal Education Commission (MEC) and District Education Bureau (DEB) are the two tiers of educational authorities in charge of Shanghai’s educational undertakings. The MEC is mainly responsible for Shanghai’s educational policies and planning, while the DEB is responsible for school affairs under its jurisdiction. Normally, public schools are overseen closely by the DEB. As a pioneer of China’s education reforms, Shanghai is often given the flexibility to carry out experiments yet to receive national endorsement (OECD, 2011; Zhang et al., 2016). For example, the Stage-2 curriculum reform (erqi kegai) was introduced in Shanghai in 1998 to transform school education before the launch of national curriculum reform in 2001. More recently, Shanghai has been a pilot city in China’s “Comprehensive Education Reform” aimed at promoting high-­quality education and fostering students’ all-round development (Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, 2014). Basic education in Shanghai has made great achievements in access and quality (Liang et al., 2016). According to the Shanghai Education Statistics in 2020, enrolment at the age of compulsory education was above 99.9%, and 99.7% of the age cohort attended senior secondary schools ­(general schools are 62%) (Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Statistics, 2021b). Shanghai’s educational development has also attracted researchers’ attention internationally, especially

Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School 49 when Shanghai students participated in Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) tests and ranked firmly at the top of every league table in 2009, 2012, and 2018 (OECD, 2011, 2014a, 2019). There is growing research interest in understanding the reasons behind the top performance of Shanghai education, particularly in promoting teachers’ continuous professional learning (e.g., Hairon & Tan, 2017; Tan, 2013; Tucker, 2011). 4.2  Teacher Professional Learning System in Shanghai Shanghai’s leading role in educational reform and development has facilitated its emphasis on improving teacher quality. Teaching is a well-regard profession in Shanghai. It has a large teaching workforce of about 170 thousand teachers in basic education, including more than 44 thousand junior secondary school teachers (Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, 2021). A teacher professional learning system—in particular, school-based TRGs—was established to facilitate teacher professional learning and improve the teaching workforce’s quality, and is considered an important factor in Shanghai students’ high PISA performance (Cheng, 2011, 2014; Jensen et al., 2016). This has been echoed by many Shanghai Municipal Education Commission officials, including Houqing Yin, who stressed school-based teaching research’s significant role in teacher professional growth in Shanghai: “The quality of school education cannot exceed the quality of teachers and school principal. All high-performing systems [in the world] have developed policies to improve the quality of teachers… For Shanghai, it was the school-based teaching research that played a role to ensure the professional growth of teachers” (Yin, 2014, p. 9). The following subsections present the teacher professional learning initiatives and strategies, the teacher career ladder system, and the teaching research system in Shanghai. 4.2.1  Initiatives of Promoting Teacher Professional Learning

After entering the teaching profession, teachers in Shanghai and across China must take in-service “360” training throughout their careers. That is, all teachers must take formal continuing education by participating in 360 course hours of professional development every five years. The training project was first promulgated in Shanghai in 1989 (Zhang et al., 2016) and required teachers to take 240 course hours at that time. When the reform was later launched nationally, the minimum learning hours requirement increased (Ministry of Education, 2011). For senior teachers, the learning hours are much higher (i.e., 540 hours) to play a better leadership role in teaching. Following the national requirement for in-service teacher training (i.e., 360 hours every five years), Shanghai was the first to distribute 50% of learning credits to schools (i.e., 180 hours) and empower and encourage them to develop a range of learning activities for their teachers (Hu, 2013), including school-based teaching research activities, which will be described later. In addition to the “360” project, Shanghai has developed various learning opportunities for teachers at different stages. For example, Shanghai launched a

50  Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School one-year induction programme for new teachers and established teacher professional development schools to train these novices. During the first year, teachers receive standardised training in professional development schools covering almost every aspect of teachers’ work at school, including professional ethics and values, classroom teaching practices, classroom management, students’ moral education, and teacher professional development (Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, 2015). Only after completing the training can they be certified as teachers in Shanghai. The induction programme helps novices transition from student teachers to qualified teachers competent in classroom teaching. For experienced teachers, Shanghai initiated the “Two Famous Programme” (shuangming gongcheng) in 2005 (Shanghai Teacher Training Centre, 2019). The programme was designed to cultivate a leading teaching force and school leadership by cultivating “Famous Principals” and “Famous Teachers”. In terms of the “Famous Teachers” programme, teachers admitted into the programme are usually expert teachers. They receive general training and subject-based training. Teachers take a 140-hour general training module developed by East China Normal University, a top university in the education field, covering professional ethics and values, comprehensive literacy, educational philosophy, and up-to-date pedagogical theories (Zhang et al., 2016). In addition, teachers are organised into different base schools and receive practical guidance from a famous teacher or school administrator in that school. Experts from other schools or universities are invited as mentors to support teachers’ professional growth in each base school. It takes teachers two to five years to complete the training, depending on the design of each programme cycle. Shanghai’s teacher professional learning efforts have been recognised worldwide. According to the results of the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS), teachers in Shanghai reported higher participation rates in professional development activities—including courses and workshops, education conferences, observation visits to other schools, networks of teachers and individual, or collaborative research—than teachers in average OECD countries (OECD, 2016). 4.2.2  Teacher Career Promotion System in Shanghai

Incentives have also been created to motivate Shanghai teachers’ professional learning, the most important two being the teachers’ professional title system and teacher honour system for teachers’ career advancement. China’s teacher professional title system, also known as the career ladder for Chinese teachers, has been under reform in recent years. In 2015, Teachers’ professional titles were changed from five grades (i.e., the third, second, first, senior, and full senior) to three general categories (junior, middle, and senior), with five specific ranks for teachers to climb in their career paths. The junior title includes third and second grade, while middle refers to first grade. The senior-level title is divided into senior and full senior, equivalent to associate and full professorships in universities or colleges. Teachers are ranked as having a junior (third grade), middle (second and first grade), or senior title. Teachers with senior titles are regarded as the most competent teachers.

Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School 51 The full senior title, newly introduced to the career ladder system in Shanghai in 2016 (Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, 2016), can be awarded to only a few teachers; by the end of 2016, only 11 teachers had been ranked as full senior teachers (Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, 2016). Teachers from primary and secondary schools are ranked in the same professional title system, which follows the principle of “good work deserves good pay” (Zhang et al., 2016, p. 22). This means that teachers with different titles on the career ladder are rewarded with different pay levels; the higher their title level, the higher their pay. For each professional title, detailed grading requirements are set; teachers who meet all these requirements may apply for promotion. An applicant’s professional title promotion is based on their qualifications and professional performance, including several crucial criteria—work ethic, educational qualifications, teaching experiences at lower levels, teaching competence, educational research, mentoring teachers at lower levels, and working experiences in disadvantaged areas, among others (Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security & Ministry of Education, 2015). Individual provinces and municipals may also raise requirements based on national criteria. In Shanghai, some criteria were adjusted and made explicitly; for example, in terms of educational research, applicants are expected to “have mastered a sound theory of teaching and to publish high-level professional papers or other research results in publications at the district level and above” (Zhang et al., 2016, p. 13). In-service training is a compulsory criterion for career promotion, and all applicants must “complete required in-service training programmes with good results” (Zhang et al., 2016, p. 13). However, professional promotion is not only an individual matter but also related to quotas in the schools where teachers work; specifically, there is a “title structure ratio” (zhiwu jiegou bili) range within which each school may promote teachers to higher-level professional titles. According to the regulation on the structure ratio of professional titles in junior secondary schools in Shanghai, the population of senior teachers should be 15–25%, and the population of first-grade teachers should be 50–60% (Shanghai Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau, 2004). Schools recommend and encourage teachers to apply for higher-level titles within the ratio, as the number of high-level teachers in a school is an important indicator of its reputation. In parallel with the teacher professional title system, a teacher honour system was built as an important means to identify prominent teachers, cultivate societal respect for teachers, and enhance teachers’ sense of being valued in China (Song et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2016). The “backbone teachers” title comes from a longstanding and grassroots system. Four levels of teacher commendation have been established to award excellent teachers—the national, municipal, district, and individual school levels. Teachers are expected to go from receiving school-level honours to receiving district- and municipal-level honours. Winners of municipal awards are recommended for national-level honours—the highest honour afforded a Chinese teacher (Zhang et al., 2016). In Shanghai, various honorary titles are issued by educational authorities at different levels. One of the most prestigious of these, “Master Teacher” or “SpecialGrade Teacher” (teji jiaoshi), was set up at the municipal level. It is a permanent

52  Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School title granted to teachers for distinguished achievement in moral ethics, teaching effectiveness, educational research, and reputation (Shanghai Municipal Education Commission et al., 1997). Accordingly, each district created additional non-­ permanent honorary titles, including “subject leader” (xueke daitouren), and “backbone teachers” (gugan jiaoshi) at the district level. The titles of “subject leader” and “backbone teacher” are reviewed every three years. Only a few teachers with strong subject-teaching expertise could be selected as district-level subject leaders, such as district teaching researchers. The district-level backbone teacher award is slightly less prestigious than the subject leader honour. Backbone teachers were first nationally selected to receive additional training that would allow them to take the initiative and lead changes in local educational reforms and pedagogical innovations (Ministry of Education, 1998). The backbone teacher system still exists, and these teachers are expected to play a leadership role in promoting educational reforms and demonstrating classroom teaching. Despite the slight difference in the criteria for selecting backbone teachers at each district, teachers are generally selected based on their achievements in areas similar to those in the professional title system. Several key points should be made about the teacher honour system. First, the teacher honour system is different from, but closely linked to, the professional title system. Those teachers with high professional titles are likely to receive high-level honours; for example, only a teacher with a senior title is eligible to be named a “master teacher”. Winners of various honours are more easily promoted. Second, teachers with different honours enjoy extra allowances and are expected to take on certain added responsibilities. For example, backbone teachers at Yangshan are assigned certain leadership duties, including one-to-one mentoring, peer coaching, and other obligations assigned by the school, and are expected to play a role in facilitating other colleagues’ professional learning and development. Third, the identification of teaching excellence—through either the professional title or honour system—makes the teaching workforce openly hierarchical. Teachers are well aware of the distinctions in their professional rankings and honours within the school (Paine, 1990). Ordinary teachers were expected to learn from those honoured teachers. 4.2.3  Teaching Research System in Shanghai

Shanghai was one of the first cities in China to establish a teaching research system. In 1949, on the same day as the foundation of the PRC, a municipal-level teaching research office (TRO) was founded in Shanghai (Zhao, 2011). The key task of municipal TROs is to study teaching improvement and edit and review textbooks and teaching manuals. As reviewed in Chapter 3, the national policy on TRGs was launched in 1952. After two years of development, TRGs could be found in almost every Shanghai public or junior secondary school (X. Lü, 1994; Zhao, 2011). Thus, teaching research activities (e.g., teaching experience sharing, lesson observation, learning educational theories) were well organised at different levels in the 1950s in Shanghai.

Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School 53 Similar to the national structure (see Figure 3.1), the teaching research system in Shanghai is highly centralised and parallels the educational administrative ­system. Under the leadership of Shanghai MEC, TROs are set as affiliated units (shiye ­danwei) under educational authorities at both the municipal and district ­levels. TROs do not directly play an inspectorial or administrative role in schools. In Shanghai, the major responsibility of TROs is to support curriculum and instruction on a subject basis at the primary, secondary, and other schooling levels (e.g., preschools). The lowest level of TRO—the district TRO—is responsible for guiding and supporting subject teaching in schools within a given district. Teaching researchers in the TROs, usually selected from those excellent teachers, are regarded as teacher educators in China and continuously support teachers’ subject teaching (Gu & Gu, 2016). They combine the research rationality of university researchers, the practical wisdom of frontline teachers, and the executive authority of education administrators (L. Lu et al., 2013). In junior secondary education, one to three teaching researchers are in charge of teaching and learning in subject teaching within the district. Specifically, one teaching researcher is usually in charge of one to two grades in their subject teaching. At the district level, teaching researchers conduct regular teaching research activities (e.g., public lessons and sharing meetings) to support teachers’ teaching practices in classrooms. Apart from the district-led teaching research activities, the teaching researchers are sometimes invited to visit the individual school to support teachers’ subject teaching. TRGs are set up at the school level, connected to county/district TRO, and are regarded as a part of China’s overall teaching research system (Cong, 2011). 4.3  Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School was selected as the case school in this book. It is a public school in a central urban district that is home to around 40 junior secondary schools. Its founding followed an influx of relocated people; in the early 2000s, a factory was torn down and a school was built on its site to meet the population’s educational needs. The facilities were originally designed as a primary school but were turned into a middle school to satisfy the district’s local demand for junior secondary education. Yangshan is a relatively small-scale district school with limited space (less than 6000 square meters), around 500 students in grades 6–9, and about 60 teaching staff. As a public school, Yangshan admitted students from neighbouring communities. It maintained good education standards despite not being in an affluent community. Overall, Yangshan ranked at the top among district public junior secondary schools. I did roughly six months of fieldwork at Yangshan between 2016 and 2017. How I accessed the school, collected data, analysed data, and dealt with ethical issues is described in the Appendix A. During my fieldwork, the school principal periodically highlighted the school’s development vision: “keeping school development high-level and stable (gaowei, wending)”. Like other junior secondary school teachers, teachers at Yangshan are under constant pressure to prepare students for the Secondary School Entrance Examination (zhongkao).

54  Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School The following section presents the school’s organisational structure and its teachers’ qualifications, professional competency, working conditions, teaching schedules, and workload to offer a general understanding of management, teachers, and teaching in the school. 4.3.1  The Organisational Structure of the School

The principal is the school’s legal representative and the key leader in charge of the school under China’s “principal responsibility system” (Walker & Qian, 2012). Mr. Shi has been working at Yangshan since the school was founded, beginning as the director of the Teaching Affairs Office (jiaodao chu, TAO) before becoming principal in 2007. Besides Principal Shi, the school leadership committee consists of a CCP secretary and two vice-principals. The Party secretary takes responsibility for political affairs, oversees political ideology and Party affairs, and nurtures new generations of Party members. The two vice-principals manage different areas of school affairs. Vice-Principal Guo was mainly responsible for teaching and learning affairs (e.g., curriculum and instruction, teaching research activities, teacher training, students’ academic examinations, etc.), while Vice-Principal Yu managed moral education affairs (e.g., pastoral care, students’ safety and health, home-school connection, etc.). Under the committee, several departments fulfilled different functions (see ­Figure 4.1). In the teaching and learning line, the TAO and its two directors ­supervise the TRGs, under the leadership of Vice-Principal Guo. In the moral education line, the Moral Education Office (MEO) mainly supervises Year Groups (­nianjizu, YGs) and deals with student affairs, such as students’ moral values and

Figure 4.1  The organisation structure of Yangshan School.

Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School 55 social wellbeing, supervised by Vice-Principal Yu. It also assists the Party secretary in managing affairs in the Party’s youth branches—the Youth League (gongqingtuan) and the Young Pioneers (shaoxiandui). Other offices—such as the general office, personnel office, and teacher union—support school operations, and their officers are usually called mid-level cadres (zhongceng ganbu) or mid-level managers. Usually, important issues or decisions are discussed in the school leadership committee and passed on at weekly administration meetings attended by mid-level managers. The school leadership committee and the mid-level managers constitute the school management team. TRGs and YGs are important units for teachers. In TRGs, teachers exchange knowledge for subject teaching, while in YGs, teachers share knowledge and skills for dealing with a specific grade of students. Each teacher belongs to a TRG and a YG, but neither are administrative departments; the heads of TRGs and YGs are excluded from the school management team, and are selected as subject and pastoral leaders, instead. As the head of EN-TRG claimed, TRG heads were not “administrators” (guan) and “did not enjoy any privilege as administrators”. Thus, TRGs, the foci of this book, are part of the school organisational structure but are assumed to be without administrative responsibilities. Some leadership positions were replaced in the teaching affairs line in 2015, just before the fieldwork. One former vice-principal and a TAO director were transferred to other schools, and Vice-Principal Guo was transferred from a senior ­­secondary school to assist Principal Shi. One director and one vice-director of the TAO were promoted within the school. Director Pan, who oversaw most of the teaching affairs, was promoted from a vice-directorship, while Vice-Director Li was promoted from her former position as head of CH-TRG. Therefore, two directors (Director Pan and Vice-Director Li) and two principals (Principal Shi and VicePrincipal Guo) constitute the leadership team in charge of teaching and learning at Yangshan. These four leadership positions are important to the function of TRGs. It should be noted that these leaders, especially in the teaching and learning affairs line, were, on most occasions, named to leadership positions based on their excellent teaching performance. At Yangshan, Principal Shi and Vice-Principal Guo were senior teachers, and Director Pan was a first-grade geography teacher who had won first prize at a national teaching competition—a great honour and acknowledgement of her outstanding teaching competency. Other teachers also recognised her outstanding teaching performance: “The classroom teaching of our teaching affairs director is excellent. She is quite good at teaching” (EN-Zhu). A Mathematics teacher, MA-Lin, called observing Director Pan’s lesson an impressive experience. She is so young and already selected as a member of “famous teacher studio.” And she also won a national teaching competition. Therefore, I went to observe her lesson. She integrated the textbooks and teaching materials to [instruct the lesson]. It is surprising to me that a minor subject teacher without examination pressure could pay so much efforts on the adaption and integration of textbooks. She is really an excellent teacher.

56  Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School The newly appointed vice-director used to be the CH-TRG head. Her students achieved very good academic results in the zhongkao in the Chinese language (i.e., top one among public schools within the district), and her classroom teaching skills were recognised. A Chinese language teacher, Hu, stated, “Her classroom is very interesting. She would share many life experiences such as her life and games in childhood with her students. Therefore, students were attracted to her class”. However, expertise in teaching a specific subject does not guarantee expertise in all subject groups in the school; as such, TRGs may be led by administrators who are not experts in their subject. Additionally, although school leaders acted as administrators supervising the TRGs, they were also subject teachers and members of their own subject groups. For example, the newly appointed Vice-Director Li still taught the Chinese language after her promotion and thus participated in CH-TRG activities as a subject teacher. Principal Shi taught Mathematics until his promotion; however, although his duties as principal kept him away from classroom teaching, he still participated in MA-TRG activities as a Mathematics teacher. Other school leaders were also members of their own subject TRGs. 4.3.2  Teaching Staff

Principal Shi admitted that it had been difficult to attract highly qualified teachers when the school was newly established. In a welcoming speech to visiting teachers from Guizhou Province, a less developed province in Southwest China, the school principal asserted that the school was neither equipped with advanced facilities—in fact, it was even worse off than some schools in Guizhou—nor located in a highincome residential community. He said the school was originally only to be opened temporarily and closed after enrolment peaked, according to the DEB. Thus, in Principal Shi’s eyes, the school did not initially recruit the most competent teachers. The basic information on the present teachers’ professional titles, ages, and educational levels is summarised in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1  Teachers’ basic information at Yangshan (by June 2017) Items

Number (Percentage)

Total number of teachers Professional title Senior level Middle level Junior level Age

Educational level

20–30 31–40 41–50 51 and above Bachelor Master/M.Phil.

Full senior Senior First grade Second grade Third grade

59 0 6 (10.2%) 39 (66.1%) 14 (23.7%) 0 5 (8.5%) 19 (32.2%) 29 (49.2%) 6 (10.2%) 54 (91.5%) 5 (8.5%)

Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School 57 Not surprisingly, more than 60% of Yangshan’s teachers held a first-grade title, while only six teachers (10.2%) held a senior title. The percentage of teachers with a senior title was much lower than the regulated standard in Shanghai (i.e., 15–25%). A few Yangshan teachers did earn the district-level subject leader honour and were named district-level backbone teachers. Second, almost 60% of teachers were over 40 years old, which Yangshan considered a concern for school development, as the ageing teachers were likely to lose the motivation for teaching improvement. According to the Yangshan teacher professional development plan, it was necessary to make more efforts to motivate school teachers to break through their professional development bottlenecks and improve their professional competency. Third, according to the statistical data, the teachers’ educational levels were relatively high. However, Vice-Principal Guo explained that many teachers had upgraded their education levels by attending diploma programmes after working at school, and that only a few had majored in the subject they were teaching at their colleges or universities, indicating Yangshan teachers had insufficient knowledge and lacked formal training when they first entered the teaching profession. In sum, for historical reasons, Yangshan teachers’ professional competency was disadvantaged when they were first recruited. Although the DEB had no school development expectations, the school has nonetheless made great progress in terms of teaching quality in recent years, despite its short history and its teachers’ initial lack of professional competency. The school has shown its strength relative to other public schools within the district, especially in subject areas such as ­Chinese, English, and Physics, and has received many honours from the MEC and DEB. Its good reputation has also attracted outstanding postgraduates to work at the schools in recent years. Principal Shi attributed the school’s progress to its continuous efforts to improve teacher professional development; “In my eyes, the growth of teachers is as much important as the growth of students”. The MEC has recognised the school’s efforts at teacher professional development, and, in 2012, Yangshan was named a Shanghai Municipal Teacher Professional Development School (TPDS)—the only junior secondary school in the district to receiving the honour—and was expected to play a leading role in developing school-based teacher professional development. 4.3.3  Teaching Workload

Teachers’ daily workload at Yangshan is demanding but is no heavier than in other schools. Normally, a Chinese secondary school teacher teaches only a single subject; for example, an English teacher only teaches English. Teachers at Yangshan teach around 12~16 standard 40-minute lesson periods per week (8~11 teaching hours), which aligns with national workload standards for junior secondary school teachers (Ding, 2010). By international standards, the teaching workload of Yangshan teachers is much lighter than the OECD average of 19 teaching hours (28.5 standard 40-minute lessons periods) per week (OECD, 2014b). Table 4.2 presents a typical Mathematics teacher who teaches two classes at the same grade, 12 periods a week. On average, teachers taught fewer than three

58  Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School Table 4.2  A weekly teaching schedule for a Yangshan teacher Monday Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Period 6 Period 7 Period 8

Tuesday Class 2

Class 4 Class 2

Class 4

Wednesday Class 4 Class 2

Lunch break

Thursday

Friday

Class 2

Class 4 Class 2

Class 4 Level 1a Level 2

Notes: a At Yangshan, students in the same grade (i.e., grade 6 and grade 7) were stratified into two levels based on their Mathematics academic performances. Students at level 1 were top students. The rest of the students would be level 2. Students would walk to other classrooms to attend the Mathematics class. The streaming was only used for one lesson every week. The teacher taught level 1 and level 2 students in two lesson periods, respectively. It was a strategy used at Yangshan to cope with learner diversity.

lessons to two classes each day; obviously, their teaching schedules were not full, suggesting they had much free time for professional work, such as lesson preparations, assignment marking, etc. However, their hidden workload was heavier than what was formally scheduled. Although teachers were supposed to be off duty at 4:40 p.m. (after starting at 7:30 a.m.), most had to work overtime. I was told that ending the workday on time was “an impossible wish”. Besides teaching, there were many other affairs teachers had to cope with every day. Many teachers reported that they had no time for lesson preparations at school and usually did that at night at home (e.g., EN-Jiang, EN-Liang, MA-Ye, MA-Xue). “Busy” was the main word teachers in Yangshan used to depict their work. EN-Liang described what she did at school in a day. I usually come to school around 7 a.m. Today, I arrived at school at 7:20 a.m. and finished my breakfast around 7:30 a.m. Then I went to my class, as there was a morning session for self-study [before the first lesson period] … I usually asked students to do some dictation or recite a full English text… In Period 1, I taught a lesson. After class, I collected assignments from all students and walked to my office. I spent the whole second lesson period marking assignments. During this time, there were also some other affairs to be dealt with. The next two lesson periods were our TRG activities… After that, it was time for lunch. I went to my class to check the students’ lunch, and then had my lunch. I went back to my class and asked students to keep the classroom clean and had some chats with students. Until the first period in the afternoon, I came back to my office and continued marking students’ assignments… I also talked to a boy in my class to ask him to get a haircut, as his hair was too long… As there will be one more lesson period in the ­afternoon today, I need to check my lesson plan and teaching materials

Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School 59 before class… Usually, when it is time for students to leave school, I would ask the students on duty to clean the classroom. I would stay in the office for a while to mark assignment and sometimes to prepare lessons for the next day. Normally, I would go back home at 5:30 p.m. … But it was impossible to prepare lessons fully at school. I had to continue to do it at home. EN-Liang’s detailed description of her routine in the school was consistent with my observations. Despite not having a heavy teaching schedule, teachers were tied up with various work duties. EN-Liang’s and other teachers’ routines revealed three main areas in their daily work. The first was teaching affairs, such as assignment marking and one-to-one tutoring (including assignment revision, textbook recitation). I frequently observed cohorts of students squeezing into a teacher’s office in turns to recite a full English text to their English teacher. Students in other subjects would also seek teachers’ help correcting their assignments at break time. The second area was “homeroom teacher (banzhuren)” affairs, including classroom discipline, student management, preparations for and organisations of class activities, communication with parents, and some emergency incidents. As a homeroom teacher, EN-Liang had to take care of her class and her students in v­ arious ways, including overseeing students’ haircuts. The third area involved meetings and other school affairs, including teaching research activities, weekly plenary meetings, morning physical activities, and other school events and activities. The hectic pace and intensity of their teaching workload at school left teachers little time for lesson preparation, let alone free time for individual professional learning and self-reflection. Even with the lighter teaching workload, it was necessary to structure a collective timetable to enable teachers to work and learn collaboratively in China; otherwise, teachers would be occupied with different teaching affairs not necessarily linked to professional learning. 4.4 Summary This chapter has introduced the general context of Shanghai and the specific ­context of Yangshan. It shows that Shanghai has become a national leader on a­ lmost all fronts, including the economy and education. As a municipality, Shanghai generally follows the national framework of education management but has some ­autonomy to pioneer education reforms to develop world-class basic education in the nation. To maintain its leading role in basic education in the country, Shanghai MEC has stressed developing teachers to provide high-quality classroom teaching, and now Shanghai has been recognised as one of the high-performing systems in the world. It has established a comprehensive teacher professional learning system covering every teacher in general, such as the “360” training project, and teachers at different development stages, such as the induction programme and the “Two Famous Programme”. Further, it motivates teacher professional learning by creating career ladders and honorary titles. Therefore, Shanghai can be a “showpiece” in investigating the role of school-based teaching research in facilitating teacher professional learning.

60  Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School Yangshan, the case school, is a public school. Despite its disadvantaged location and lack of competent teachers when founded, Yangshan now enjoys a good reputation for education quality. Its strong emphasis on school-based TRGs in promoting teacher professional learning has been well recognised, serving the interests of this study. The introduction to the macro (Shanghai) educational context and micro (school) context offers a basic understanding of how a junior secondary school ­operates in Shanghai’s education system, which is fundamental to understanding how TRGs facilitate teachers’ professional learning in school-based settings. ­Chapters 5 and 6 will analyse how the school arranged teachers in TRGs and how teachers learn and work together, respectively. References Cheng, K. M. (2011). Shanghai: How a big city in a developing country leaped to the head of the class. In M. S. Tucker (Ed.), Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems (pp. 21–50). Harvard Education Press. Cheng, K. M. (2014). Shanghai de PISA ceshi quanqiu diyi daodi shuoming le shenme [What does it mean when Shanghai rank the top in PISA]. Explorations and Free View (1), 74–77. Cong, L. (2011). Chenmo de quanwei: zhongguo jichu jiaoyu jiaoyan zuzhi [The silent authority: The teaching research system in China’s basic education ]. Beijing Normal University Publishing House. Ding, G. (Ed.). (2010). Zhongguo zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi zhuanyefazhan zhuangkuang diaocha yu zhengce fenxi baogao [National survey and policy analysis for teacher professional development in primary and secondary schools]. East China Normal University Press. Gu, F., & Gu, L. (2016). Characterising mathematics teaching research specialists’ mentoring in the context of Chinese lesson study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(4), 441–454. Hairon, S., & Tan, C. (2017). Professional learning communities in Singapore and Shanghai: Implications for teacher collaboration. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(1), 91–104. Hu, Q. (2013). Shanghaishi zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi zhuanye fazhan xuexiao de gongneng dingwei ji shijian tese [Function positioning and the characteristics in the practice of Shanghai primary and middle teachers’ professional development schools]. Theory and Practice of Education, 33(4), 25–28. Jensen, B., Sonnemann, J., Roberts-Hull, K., & Hunter, A. (2016). Beyond PD: Teacher professional learning in high-performing systems. National Centre on Education and the Economy. Liang, X. Y., Kidwai, H., & Zhang, M. X. (2016). How Shanghai does it: Insights and lessons from the highest-ranking education system in the world. The World Bank. Lu, L., Liang, W., & Shen, Q. (2013). Woguo zhongxiaoxue jiaoyanyuan yanjiu de jiben taishi fenxi [The basic situation-analysis of teaching and research staff of primary and secondary schools in China]. Teacher Education Research, 25(6), 68–73. Lü, X. (1994). Shanghai putong jiaoyu shi (1949-1989) [The history of Shanghai general education (1949–1989)]. Shanghai Education Press. Ministry of Education. (1998). Mianxiang 21shiji jiaoyu zhenxing xingdong jihua [Action plan to revitalise the education in the 21st century]. http://www.moe.gov.cn/jyb_sjzl/ moe_177/tnull_2487.html

Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School 61 Ministry of Education. (2011). Guanyu dali jiaqiang zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi peixun gongzuo de yijian [Recommendations on greatly strengthening primary and secondary teacher training]. http://old.moe.gov.cn//publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/s7034/201212/xxgk_ 146073.html Ministry of Human Resources and Social Security, & Ministry of Education. (2015). Guanyu shenhua zhongxiaoxue jiaoshi zhicheng zhidu gaige de zhidao yijian [Guiding opinions on deepening the reform of teachers’ professional titles in primary and secondary schools]. http://www.moe.edu.cn/jyb_xxgk/moe_1777/moe_1779/201509/t20150902_205165.html National Bureau of Statistics of China. (2021). Ge shengshi jinshinian renjun kezhipei shouru shuju [The per capita disposable income in ten years in each province and municipality]. https://data.stats.gov.cn/easyquery.htm?cn=E0103 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States, strong performers and successful reformers in education. OECD Publishing. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014a). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can do with what they know. http://www. oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014b). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning. OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/9789264196261-en Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). Shanghai: Key findings from the Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS). OECD Publishing. http:// www.oecd.org/edu/school/TALIS-2014-country-note-Shanghai.pdf Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2019). PISA 2018: Insights and interpretations. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%20PDF.pdf Paine, L. (1990). The teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. The Teachers College Record, 92(1), 49–81. Pang, N. S.-K., & Tian, A. (2007). Zhongguo Shanghai jichu jiaoyu gaige de qushi he tiaozhan [Trends and challenges in the reform of basic education in Shanghai, China]. Hong Kong Institute of Educational Research. Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Statistics. (2021a). Shanghai statistical yearbook 2021. China Statistics Press. http://tjj.sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nj21.htm?d1=2021tjnj/C0201.htm Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Statistics. (2021b). Shanghai statistical yearbook 2021. China Statistics Press. http://tjj.sh.gov.cn/tjnj/nj21.htm?d1=2021tjnj/C2004.htm Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Statistics. (2022). 2021nian Shanghaishi shengchan zongzhi [Shanghai’s gross domestic product in 2021]. http://tjj.sh.gov.cn/ydsj2/20220121/ c36f904afc2d4fe6b805ff5888085a03.html Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. (2014). Quanmian shenhua shanghai jiaoyu zonghe gaige [Comprehensively deepening the comprehensive education reform in Shanghai]. https://edu.sh.gov.cn/jyzt_qmshzhgg/ Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. (2015). Quanmian shishi zhongxiaoxue(youer yuan) jianxi jiaoshi guifanhua peixun zhidu rang xinjiaoshi maihao aigangjingye shanjiao “diyibu” [Fully implementing the standardized induction program in primary and secondary schools (kindergartens) to let the novice teachers take the “first step” of loving teaching]. https://edu.sh.gov.cn/xxgk2_zdgz_jyxx_02/20201110/222b451f09ee4bfb9c47 287b634dd7ff.html Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. (2016). Shanghaishi jiaoshi duiwu jianshe “shi san wu” guihua [The notice of “Thirteenth Five-Year” plan for building a teaching force

62  Teacher Professional Learning in Shanghai and the Case School in Shanghai]. http://www.shanghai.gov.cn/nw2/nw2314/nw39309/nw39385/nw40603/ u26aw50205.html Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. (2021). 2020nian Shanghaishi jiaoyu gongzuo nianbao [The annual report of Shanghai education in 2020]. https://edu.sh.gov.cn/cmsres/ 5a/5a7c53adc2a94b2d894625fd7817fdb6/89bcbe91b75aaa1c53afafe433c21bb8.pdf Shanghai Municipal Education Commission, Shanghai Municipal Personnel Bureau, & Shanghai Municipal Finance Bureau. (1997). The interim measures for the selection and management of master teachers in Shanghai [Shanghaishi teji jiaoshi pingxuan guanli de zanxing banfa]. https://www.shmec.gov.cn/attach/xxgk/531.htm Shanghai Municipal Human Resources and Social Security Bureau. (2004). Shanghaishi pujiao xitong jiaoshi zhiwu jiegou bili he gangwei shezhi de yijian [Notice on Shanghai Municipal professional title structure ratios and post settings of teachers in basic education system]. http://www.12333sh.gov.cn/201412333/xxgk/flfg/gfxwj/rsrc/zyry/201405/ t20140506_1181915.shtml Shanghai Teacher Training Centre. (2019). “Shuangming gongcheng”: Shanghai jiaoyu xiandaihua de dongli yinqing [“Two Famous Program”: The engine for Shanghai education modernisation]. Elementary and Secondary School Management, (1), 913. Song, H., Zhu, X. D., & Liu, L. B. (2015). The honourable road and its impact on teacher practice: An analysis of China’s national honour system in cultivating professional development. In Q. Gu (Ed.), The work and lives of teachers in China (pp. 63–84). Routledge. Tan, C. (2013). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on achieving educational success. Springer. Tucker, M. S. (2011). Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on the world’s leading systems. Harvard Education Press. Walker, A., & Qian, H. (2012). Successful school leadership in China. In C. Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development (pp. 446–457). Routledge. Wang, X. (2002). Education in China since 1976. McFarland. Yin, H. (2014). You PISA yinfa de sikao: dui zhuanxing zhong de jichu jiaoyu de shendu shenshi he fansi [Thoughts evoked by PISA: a deep review and reflection on basic education in transition]. Modern Teaching, (5), 7–9. Zhang, M. X., Ding, X. J., & Xu, J. J. (2016). Developing Shanghai’s teachers. National Centre on Education and the Economy. Zhao, C. (2011). Bilu lanlü yijiazi fengyu jiancheng liushi qiu: Shanghaishi jichu jiaoyu jiaoxue yanjiu de fazhan jiancheng [The pioneering and development history of Shanghai basic education teaching research in sixty years]. In W. Liang (Ed.), Chumo zhongguo jichu jiaoyu de maidong: Zhongguo tese jiaoyan zhidu quyu fazhan de huigu yu zhanwang [Touching the pulse of basic education: Review and prospect of the regional development of teaching research system with Chinese characteristics] (pp. 76–85). Educational Science Publishing House.

5

The Organisation of TRGs An Institutionalised and Systematic Design

This chapter presents the organisation of TRGs for teacher professional learning at Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School. Unlike the voluntary and emergent nature of PLCs in the Western contexts, TRGs are well-structured and ­deliberately designed in terms of their logistical arrangements, leadership structure, collective activities, and learning goals for teacher professional learning. Attending TRG activities is an integral part of teachers’ routine work and duty, suggesting work and learning are not mutually exclusive in TRGs. The chapter begins with a brief introduction of subject-based TRGs, then ­elaborates on the school requirements for teacher professional learning in TRGs, including the selection of TRG leaders, the timetables and physical environment for teachers working together, day-to-day activities and tasks, and the uniform learning goals set for all TRGs and teachers. Teachers’ general perceptions of and recognitions and confusions regarding TRG activities are also analysed. 5.1  The Subject-based Nature of TRGs All teachers at Yangshan were organised into six TRGs—Chinese language (CH), Mathematics (MA), English (EN), Social Science (SS), Science (SC), and Arts (AR). The three main subject groups—CH-TRG, MA-TRG, and EN-TRG—­ comprised teachers teaching the same subject; however, the other three TRGs— SS-TRG, SC-TRG, and AR-TRG—were made up of teachers teaching similar subjects. The SC-TRG, e.g., consisted of teachers teaching physics, chemistry, biology, and computer science. Under each TRG, LPGs were set that grouped all teachers teaching the same subject in the same grade (e.g., English Grade 6, Mathematics Grade 7). Due to the small size of the school, there were no LPGs for some subjects—e.g., Arts, History, and Psychology—as only one teacher was teaching the subject. As not all subjects were taught at all grade levels—e.g., Chemistry was taught only in Grade 9—it was unrealistic to establish LPGs for all subjects by grade level. Only CH-TRG, EN-TRG, and MA-TRG established LPGs for all four grades. Three TRGs—Chinese language, Mathematics, and English—were selected as the units of analysis in this study. These three TRGs included 11 teachers, while other TRGs consisted of fewer. In addition to the number of teachers, the three DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583-5

64  The Organisation of TRGs TRGs were also selected based on the diversity of members’ teaching experiences and variations in peer collaboration, as explained in Appendix A. CH-TRG was quite a young group. Five teachers were under 35 and at an early stage of their teaching career. None of the teachers possessed a senior title; eight held a first-grade title, and the remaining three were second-grade teachers. The lack of senior teachers did not hamper students’ academic achievement in the Chinese language. In most standardised examinations organised by the district or municipal educational departments, including the zhongkao, Yangshan students consistently outperformed other public schools within the district. Additionally, CH-TRG won the district’s Excellent Teaching Research Group (youxiu jiaoyanzu) title in 2016. The average age of English teachers was 39.4 in 2017, with only three young teachers in the TRG. There were two senior-titled teachers within the group; however, one, newly transferred to the school in 2016, had earned their senior teacher title for Moral Education rather than English. Thus, only one teacher held a senior teacher title for English teaching. English was also a distinguished subject at Yangshan, in that students outperformed their counterparts within the district. EN-TRG earned the district’s honourary title—Exemplary Teaching Research Group (shifan jiaoyanu).1 The average age of the Mathematics teachers was 41, the highest among the three TRGs. There were two senior teachers in the TRG (including the school principal) and only three teachers under 35. In terms of academic achievement, ­students scored in the middle of all district public schools. The Mathematics teachers regarded Mathematics as a comparatively weak subject at Yangshan. As the head of MA-TRG, MA-Xue, acknowledged in a sharing meeting introducing the current work of MA-TRG, “we are ashamed that MA-TRG is still quite weak in terms of student academic achievement in our school”. The demographic information shows a general picture of three TRGs at Yangshan. First, teachers were distributed evenly among the three TRGs and shared generally similar workloads. Second, CH-TRG had more young teachers, while MA-TRG and EN-TRG had fewer. Third, CH-TRG was short of senior teachers, whereas the other two TRGs had at least one senior teacher specialised in the subject being taught. Finally, in terms of student academic achievement, Chinese and English languages were strong, while Mathematics was considered a moderate subject. The DEB recognised the group work of CH-TRG and EN-TRG, granting both honourary titles at the district level. 5.2  The Leadership Structure within TRGs In each TRG, a group head is appointed to organise regular weekly or bi-weekly collective activities to promote teacher collaboration and professional learning. TRG heads take charge of the overall team development and teachers’ subject teaching. While Wang (2016) reported that other group members elected TRG heads, all TRG heads at Yangshan were directly appointed by the school principal and were backbone teachers. Principal Shi believed that either means of s­ election—­appointment or election—would lead to the same person being TRG head. He suggested a

The Organisation of TRGs 65 common Chinese mindset for being selected as leaders, including TRG heads: “We Chinese people are introverts. We hope that our [leadership] position is appointed by [upper-level] leaders rather than us personally striving for it”. In terms of selection criteria, Principal Shi explained that “Teachers appointed as TRG heads must be outstanding in terms of professional competency, professional title and experiences. Meanwhile, they are widely recognised (renke) by teachers”. The school principal was confident about identifying “the best teacher leader” and naming them the TRG head. Professional competency was not the only consideration when selecting a TRG head; peer recognition was also desirable. In addition to the TRG head, there were LPG heads selected to lead teacher professional learning at each grade. Normally, teachers would be arranged into the same LPG based on expertise differences—juniors and seniors, experienced and masters. Most LPG heads were also backbone teachers in the school. Due to the school’s small size, an LPG was usually made up of only two or three teachers. Compared with TRG heads, LPG heads were less stable, as there might be an annual rearrangement of teachers teaching the same level. The selection of TRG leaders was part of the formal school organisational structure; thus, TRG leaders may have greater legitimacy when exercising their leadership (Bush, 2015). However, none of the leaders acknowledged their administrative roles. For example, Zhu, the English TRG head, speaking at a crossschool TRG head meeting where she shared her leadership experiences with TRG heads and school leaders from another school, stressed that her role was not that of an “administrator”. She believed her fellow TRG heads would agree as they did not enjoy “the privileges of being an administrator” (e.g., lighter teaching workload, better office conditions, higher duty allowances, etc.). Despite their non-administrative positions, Zhu believed teachers should be proud of being TRG heads as they had earned the position based on their competitive professional teaching performance and expertise. In her eyes, she was the “first” among all TRG members. Although we are not administrators, we are chairpersons of TRG activities. We should be proud to find ourselves in a professional position. That is, we are “first among equals”. School leaders and teachers did not recognise them as administrative leaders either. After EN-Zhu’s sharing, Principal Shi commented that TRG leaders were professional leaders with “cohesion, charisma, and influence” rather than administrative leaders. No teachers considered their TRG head an administrator; rather, they were perceived as “a bridge” connecting school leaders and teachers (e.g., MA-Lin). Professional competency was considered the obvious prerequisite for teacher leadership positions in TRGs. Although TRG leaders were formally appointed and delegated by the school principal, they did not perceive themselves as administrators, nor did the school leaders or teachers perceive them as such. Rather, they were identified and expected to leverage their expertise rather than perform administrative duties.

66  The Organisation of TRGs 5.3  Time and Space Arrangement of TRGs As in many other schools in China, teachers at Yangshan were organised to interact with one another regularly in either TRGs or LPGs. Specifically, TRGs and LPGs took turns, with teachers alternating between participating in LPG and TRG activities weekly. There were around eight LPG activities and eight TRG activities every semester (The weekly schedule of TRG activities in a semester can be found in Appendix C). In other words, if teachers were expected to participate in TRG activities one week, they would not do LPG activities until the next. Two timeslots were scheduled for TRG and LPG meetings, respectively (see Table 5.1). All school teachers in a TRG met for one lesson period on alternating ­Friday afternoons after all students had left the school. All TRGs held their meetings simultaneously in separate designated places (normally a classroom). However, the Friday TRG periods often clashed with other school activities or holidays. To ensure the frequency of TRG activities, all teachers in any of the three TRG would be free from lessons for at least two 40-minute periods for collective activities (designed for LPG activities). The LPG time arrangements varied among subjects. For example, no Chinese language teachers had teaching duties in Periods 5 and 6 on Monday afternoons; instead of lessons, they conducted LPG activities in a large meeting room for all four LPGs. English teachers’ collective activity periods were scheduled on Monday mornings, while Mathematics teachers held theirs on Thursday mornings. Although the LPG activities were biweekly, subject teachers were free of teaching duties during the scheduled LPG timeslots every week. Because the common timeslots were free for all teachers teaching the same subject, it was uncommon for LPG timeslots to be used for TRG activities. Teachers could use LPG time for TRG meetings, especially when teachers conducted open lessons. Two lesson periods were appropriate for teachers’ lesson observation and post-lesson discussion. To recap, teachers of the same subject met once weekly for at least one lesson period, either for TRG or LPG activities. In addition to a scheduled time and designated venue, teachers in the same LPG also shared the same office. Teachers (e.g., EN-Tao, SC-Gong, MA-Xue, Table 5.1  Timetable for TRG and LPG activities (2016) TRG

LPG time periods

TRG time periods

CH-TRG MA-TRG EN-TRG Remarks

Periods 5 and 6 on Mondays Period 6 on Fridays Periods 3 and 4 on Thursdays (Classrooms on the second floor Periods 3 and 4 on Mondays simultaneously) 1 TRG activities should be conducted on Fridays at even weeks.a During the same week, TRG head meetings would be organised on Tuesdays. 2 LPG activities should be conducted at odd weeks. 3 If TRG activities could not be arranged on Friday, then the activities should be conducted on other weekdays (time for LPG).

Note a Even and odd weeks are calculated based on the school calendar. For example, the first school week would be calculated as an odd week. Usually, there would be around 20 weeks for each semester.

The Organisation of TRGs 67 CH-Chen) said that the common physical working environment allowed them to exchange ideas with colleagues promptly through informal daily communication. One teacher elaborated on the value of daily interactions with colleagues in the office: “For example, if I did not instruct as good a lesson as I expected, I liked to discuss it with my peers to learn what they thought about the lesson. Such discussion was timely, practical, and helpful” (EN-Tao). Despite having a common office, teachers in an LPG were required to participate in LPG activities at specific times and in designated rooms. Director Pan explained, It is better to have another separate place [where] teachers would devote themselves to LPG activities wholeheartedly. But if they were in the office, it would be different. Teachers may mark assignments during their LPG time. Probably, some students or other teachers would pop into the office… Then [LPG activities] would be too loose and casual. During their scheduled LPG/TRG time, teachers were expected to collaborate seriously and dedicatedly with their peers in an exclusive space. The timetable and physical environment arrangements for teachers’ weekly interactions were hierarchically structured and clear-cut to foster teacher professional learning. This is common throughout China, from remote areas to urban centres (OECD, 2011; Paine & Ma, 1993; Sargent & Hannum, 2009), and provides formal and informal opportunities for teachers to collaborate and work on teaching with colleagues. 5.4  Routine Professional Activities in TRGs In many countries, professional learning activities are optional for teachers (Opfer & Pedder, 2011) and separate from their school work. In contrast, TRG activities in China are compulsory for all teachers and constitute an integral part of their work in the school. A wide array of mandated teaching research activities, including open lessons, collective lesson planning, reflective talk, mentoring, and action research, were designated pathways to teacher professional learning at Yangshan. 5.4.1  Open Lessons

Open lessons, or public lessons, are typical learning activities in China that have been reported in many studies (Han & Paine, 2010; Wu & Clarke, 2018). Open lessons can be conducted for various purposes—e.g., reception, inspection, competition, or demonstration of innovative teaching—and are an important way and platform for teachers to demonstrate instructional effectiveness and exchange ­experiences on classroom teaching. There were four general levels of open lessons—municipal, district, school, and group—organised for teachers at Yangshan. The audiences at each level differed; the higher the level of the open lesson, the larger the audience. Accordingly, the higher the level of the open lesson, the greater honour for the instructor. For open lessons at the municipal level, the lesson observers would be teachers across the

68  The Organisation of TRGs district in Shanghai city. District-level open lessons would be observed by teachers across schools within the district. Most open lessons by teachers at Yangshan were conducted at the school and group levels and would mainly be observed by teachers within the school. Mainly school leaders in charge of teaching and learning (and sometimes other school faculty) would observe school-level open lessons, while only teachers from the same TRG would observe group-level open lessons. Teachers usually follow several steps when conducting an open lesson: (1) lesson planning (beike), (2) lesson polishing (moke), (3) lesson demonstration (kaike), and (4) post-lesson discussion (pingke). First, once a teacher decides to conduct an open lesson, the first step is to plan the lesson by identifying a lesson/topic to teach—usually one that audiences regard as important and meaningful to demonstrate. Then, the instructor must write a lesson plan representing their lesson design thinking. In the planning process, the instructor may invite other teachers to discuss the lesson plan and ask for their suggestions on formal or informal occasions. Second, lesson polishing is a rehearsal process for the instructor before implementing the final and formal lesson. Teachers in the TRG and sometimes external experts are invited to observe the trial lesson and polish it for better teaching. Teachers may rehearse lessons many times if necessary. Third, lesson demonstration is a formal lesson teaching open to a wider audience, such as other teachers in the group, the school, the district, or even the municipality. After the open lesson, there is a follow-up discussion. Last but not least, a post-lesson discussion is usually held—a formal meeting at which people who observed the open lesson make comments and share their feelings. In the post-lesson discussion, the instructor first states their reason for choosing the lesson or topic as an open lesson, teaching objectives, and design logic; reviews the teaching process and key teaching tasks, including why the teaching activities were designed; and shares their initial reflections on the teaching. After the instructor’s statement, other teachers comment, pointing out the lesson’s strengths and making suggestions for improving its teaching. At Yangshan, every teacher was required to conduct an open lesson (at any level) annually. Normally, CH-TRG, MA-TRG, and EN-TRG would conduct more than ten open lessons per school year (five per school semester), based on the number of teachers in the group. Meanwhile, every semester, each TRG, no matter who was to be the instructor, had to conduct a school-level open lesson attended by school leaders. Each teacher’s attendance for lesson observation was also regulated at Yangshan. Every teacher was required to observe eight lessons within or outside the school each semester. Teachers could observe either open lessons at any level (group, school, district, municipal) or daily lessons (not for public demonstration) conducted by their peers. Teachers were also required to take notes to document their participation in learning activities and reflections on these lessons and then submit their notes to the TAO at the end of the semester. Unlike in many other countries, classroom instruction in China is assumed to be a deprivatisation of teaching practice and lesson design that makes teaching community property shared by all, not self-owned by one teacher (Paine et al., 2003). In some cases, a teacher’s teaching competency demonstrated in a competition lesson is open to public scrutiny and evaluation and can even be ranked

The Organisation of TRGs 69 against that of others teaching in different classrooms with different teaching contents or subject matters (Li & Li, 2013). Participation in open lessons brings professional development, monetary rewards, honours, and the potential for career promotion. Teachers recognised the value of conducting open lessons, and most (e.g., CH-Lei, CH-Chen, EN-Qian, EN-Yi, EN-Liang, MA-Ye, MA-Fu, Director Pan, SS-Ning) explicitly expressed that participating in open lessons, either as an instructor or observer, was critical for professional growth. Teachers, as instructors, would dedicatedly prepare and polish the lessons and try their best to demonstrate a “perfect” lesson to the audience within or beyond their TRG. Lesson polishing was particularly critical to their professional learning, as one young teacher shared: I did the trial lesson seven times. I conducted the trial lessons in Grades 6, 7 and 8 (she taught Grade 7). Preparing the lesson was painful, but I learned a lot. The first draft of the lesson plan and the final version were much different. I always found problems every time I conducted the trial lessons. Other teachers observed trial lessons and provided a lot of suggestions. So it was an extremely fine preparation on every detail for the formal lesson. (CH-Lei) She thought preparing and conducting an open lesson was “difficult” but “­helpful” to improve herself: “If you just listen to others’ reports of reflections and ­experiences, you never experience it. You may know the principles, but you don’t know how to do it by yourself” (CH-Lei). Another teacher echoed this, expressing the value of lesson polishing for personal growth and noting that an instructor needed to integrate different suggestions from other teachers and think deeply and comprehensively about classroom teaching. The most helpful part is lesson polishing. Other teachers came to observe the trial lesson and they offered many suggestions. You have to figure out how to integrate all these suggestions and think about every detail to prepare the ­lesson, design the activities, engage students in class, etc. It is so different from daily lessons because it is an integration of collective efforts. (EN-Qian) Many teachers highlighted the significance of preparing a dedicated open lesson. Teachers (e.g., EN-Liang, MA-Fu, EN-Yi) also mentioned that it was inspiring to attend open lessons and post-lesson discussions as observers, as they could learn from the instructor and other teachers. As MA-Fu said, Many ideas and much information would emerge in lesson observation and post-lesson discussion. When observing and critiquing others’ lessons, I would compare my design plan with the instructor’s and think about the ­rationale behind different designs. It made me think further.

70  The Organisation of TRGs 5.4.2  Collective Lesson Planning

Collective lesson planning was mainly conducted during LPG time, with teachers of the same subject and grade discussing how they could be more effective in their daily teaching. Teachers were required to take turns chairing collective lesson planning, acting as the main preparation person, and tabling a personal lesson plan for collective discussion. The discussion of content and process at each collective lesson planning meeting was documented and submitted to the TAO at the end of the semester. Collective lesson planning was a common TRG activity that teachers used to collaboratively design lesson plans, prepare teaching materials, exchange pedagogical experiences, and discuss student learning to improve the quality of classroom instruction. It was perceived as an important means of improving classroom teaching effectiveness (e.g., SC-Ma, SC-Gong, MA-Su, EN-Ming). SC-Gong stated the arrangement of a common teacher office facilitated their collective lesson planning, which might occur “whenever and wherever possible, at break time or when both of us were free of class in the office”. She also narrated what they would discuss in their collective lesson planning. [We would discuss] issues like the teaching pace and the assignment’s a­ rrangement; for example, what we should do at the final stage before the zhongkao, and how we could prepare. We have discussed our teaching plans several times. When we decided what to do next, we would design worksheets and find additional materials. We need to adjust our plans and discuss them with each other from time to time. (SC-Gong) Such kinds of discussion supplemented teachers’ lesson preparation experiences and contributed to their sharing of teaching resources. Another teacher claimed discussions of “what we should do at the current stage, and what our progress should be made” helped teachers plan the pace of instruction (EN-Tao). 5.4.3  Reflective Talk

Reflective talk was another TRG activity mode at Yangshan. Although seldom mentioned in the literature, it is not new to Chinese schools. A reflective talk is a sharing activity delivered by a teacher (as the main speaker) to enable other teachers to exchange their reflections on, experiences in, and understandings of classroom teaching directly. Each semester, some TRG teachers were assigned to conduct open lessons, while the remaining teachers would deliver reflective talks in regular group meetings. In other words, each semester, every teacher took turns either conducting an open lesson or delivering a talk in the group; every teacher would conduct an open lesson and a talk each academic year. A reflective talk can follow two forms. The first focuses more on teachers’ lesson-­based reflections. Teachers can talk about their feelings and reflections

The Organisation of TRGs 71 after conducting or observing a lesson, how they designed it, how effective it was, the problems they encountered (and why), and how to improve the teaching. The second form is not necessarily linked to a specific lesson, but teachers are still encouraged to share personal ideas and understandings about a given theme (usually prescribed by the school, which will be introduced later), such as how they perceived a common topic and how it could be implemented in specific classroom teaching. For school leaders, reflective talk was a way to enhance teachers’ understanding of a common topic. As stated by Principal Shi, It would be meaningless if you just let teachers talk freely. It should be focused on a topic. If ten teachers sitting there took turns to speak, it would be unfocused. So we need a main speaker, and other teachers could join the discussion. We hope teachers could discuss the theme. No matter [their talks are] right or wrong, comprehensive or one-sided. More discussions, more possibly they would generate in-depth understandings. Then teachers might change [their teaching]. Reflective talk is required to be treated seriously. The format must be written down, and teachers must be prepared before delivering the talk to other group members. Before the talk, the main speaker usually distributes a hard copy of the ­­personal feelings, ideas, or reflections they will share with every TRG member. ­After the talk, other colleagues offer feedback and suggestions based on the speaker’s talk. The school awards excellent reflections or lesson instruction cases developed from reflective talks, even recommending them for publication. For some teachers, like EN-Tao, reflective talk pushed them to “think further about daily teaching”; “It is helpful and it depends on your attitudes to connect your teaching experiences with the research theme. If you put a lot of effort into it, you will definitely learn” (EN-Tao). However, for some other teachers, reflective talks were perceived as redundant and ineffective in promoting their learning (e.g., CH-Chen, CH-Huang, EN-Qian). CH-Chen considered reflective talks to be a check on their collective work, as a written form was required. She confirmed that “teachers have put a lot of effort into open lessons, the most beneficial way of learning”. Other teachers regarded it ineffective due to the lack of mutual classroom teaching experience on that specific lesson and the limited time for personal sharing. As one English teacher claimed: Sometimes you share your reflections based on a daily lesson that other teachers did not go to observe. So they would not understand your sharing. Their suggestions provided may not be practical or helpful. In addition, the reflective talk was sometimes arranged after other teaching research activities for instance, post-lesson discussion. Time was very limited for reflective talk, say ten minutes remaining. How do you expect to learn much within ten minutes? (EN-Qian)

72  The Organisation of TRGs 5.4.4  Mentoring Scheme

Mentoring was also practised to support beginning teachers at Yangshan. The TAO would generally assign mentors to guide beginning teachers by observing their teaching and giving practical suggestions for improvement. In addition, mentees would observe the mentors’ teaching as a model practice. The school stipulated that each mentor/mentee had to conduct ten lesson observations each semester. In addition, they were usually assigned to a common LPG for collaborative lesson planning. The school’s mentoring scheme involved four mentorship pairs in three TRGs during the research period. In CH-TRG, two mentorship pairs were assigned to teach the same grade. Specifically, the head of CH-TRG, CH-Huang, mentored CH-Lei, who started her ­career in 2014; CH-Chen, a backbone teacher, mentored beginning teacher CH-Qi, who came to the school in 2015, her first year of teaching. In MA-TRG, the mentorship pair comprised MA-Ye (a new teacher recruited in 2015) and MA-Xue (the head of MA-TRG), who taught two different grades. In EN-TRG, the mentorship pairing of EN-Yi and EN-Jiang was assigned to teach the same grade. EN-Jiang was the youngest teacher in the group, having come to school in 2014 as a new teacher just starting his teaching career, while EN-Yi was a backbone teacher with 20 years of teaching experience. Mentors were designated for novice teachers and were officially responsible for them, although mentees could consult with other teachers in the school. Regarding other school learning activities, such as mentoring, all mentees reported they always consulted their mentors if they had questions about or ­ ­encountered problems in classroom teaching. Mentorship supported beginning teachers in many ways. For example, EN-Jiang, a novice English teacher, was grateful for the assistance of his mentor, EN-Yi, who put a lot of effort into helping him prepare open lessons and his daily teaching. [My mentor] helped me a lot. What impressed me most was one preparation of an open lesson. Yi had a bad cough at that time. She observed my trial lesson. It was almost time to leave school. She helped to polish it for more than two hours while coughing. I felt very touched. She also helped me with daily teaching. Without her, I would have no idea about such difficult points for students. (EN-Jiang) 5.4.5  Action Research

Doing action research projects is not uncommon for Chinese primary and secondary school teachers, who are encouraged to reflect on their professional practices mainly through action research (Gao et al., 2011; Gu & Wang, 2006). Shanghai’s MEC and each DEB provided funding for research projects into school and teaching improvement, for which schools and teachers could apply. Doing research projects was highly promoted at Yangshan. In addition to the MEC and DEB, Yangshan provided teachers with research funding to support

The Organisation of TRGs 73 school-level projects. Conducting a research project at the district level generally follows a fixed procedure. First, teachers are informed by the TAO when it is time to submit a research proposal to the DEB. If approved by the DEB, it then becomes a district-level research project, sometimes with DEB funding support. If not approved, it becomes a school-level research project, with financial support from the school. After concluding their action research, teachers send their research report to the DEB for evaluation, which allocates awards to schools and teachers based on the quality of their research outputs. The procedure for applying for a municipal-level research project is similar. Usually, a research project lasts two to three years. Due to its emphasis on doing research projects as a means of school improvement and teacher professional learning, Yangshan adopted a collective approach to encouraging and requiring teachers to solve common practical problems in classroom teaching instead of an individual approach. Specifically, all teachers in a TRG were required to apply, as a research team, for a research project at Yangshan. Our purpose, in fact, is to lead TRG development through action research projects. By doing a group project, it forms a core topic to connect our routine teaching research activities. Similarly, teachers pointed out that it was difficult to cover every aspect of classroom teaching in limited group activities (e.g., SC-Wei, CH-Zhao, CH-Lei, EN-Qian, CH-Chen, MA-Lin). Teachers can concentrate on and solve common problems using collective efforts by doing action research, and strongly agreed that action research with a clear focus was appropriate for their collaborative learning. As SC-Wei remarked, Classroom teaching involves a lot of things. If we don’t have a focus, the activities will be scattered. But now we have a focus, then we can concentrate on the focus when we deliver a reflective talk or conduct a public lesson. In addition, teachers confirmed the importance of producing research outputs for teachers’ title promotion through action research (e.g., MA-Lin, MA-Su, ­SS-Jin, SC-Xiao, CH-Chen, CH-Zhang, EN-Zhu). As one teacher, MA-Lin, stated, From the perspective of professional career development, you need to write [and publish] research papers if you want to get promoted. Furthermore, you need [to know] theory when you write papers. We frontline teachers do a lot of practical work, but we don’t know the theory. Doing research projects supplements our theoretical knowledge to some extent. I read many studies when writing papers, which pushes me to learn something theoretical. Collaborative action research allowed TRG members to inquire into a specific topic while helping them to focus on their collective concerns. Each TRG conducted group action research projects for collective inquiry and learning.

74  The Organisation of TRGs In interviews, teachers admitted (e.g., EN-Zhu, Vice-Director Li, CH-Zhang) they found it challenging to identify a research problem that was “generally common, real, and researchable”. They attributed this difficulty to their lack of research training in the past. Particularly, teachers who had worked for more than 20 years acknowledged that they “did not receive any systematic training about doing research in their teacher education programme as an undergraduate student” (EN-Zhu). In sum, teachers generally recognise the value of professional activities in the TRG, and agree such a regulated and collaborative arrangement of TRG activities could facilitate their professional learning and career development. The challenges of doing research for teachers to address common disciplinary interests should not be ignored. 5.5  Regulating Teacher Professional Learning Goal Who led teacher professional learning, what, when, and where they would learn, and how to achieve professional learning were all regulated for teachers in TRGs. 5.5.1  “String Pearls onto a Necklace”: Setting Overarching Goals for Teacher Professional Learning

With these various collective activities in the school, the school principal highlighted the importance of connecting different school-based learning activities by a common research theme (yanxiu zhuti) to make teacher professional learning in the school consistent and coherent. He assumed that connecting teachers’ learning experiences with a research theme could help teachers to gain a deeper understanding of a specific topic and thus contribute to their professional development. There are many learning activities organised for teachers in the school. For i­nstance, mentoring, lesson observation, open lesson, action research, etc. They are all valuable to promote teacher professional development. But they are usually independent and disconnected for teachers… To use a metaphor, these activities are just like pearls. If you find a focus to organise all the activities, we can string these pearls into a necklace, which will be more useful to us. (Principal Shi) Accordingly, Principal Shi developed a common research theme to connect all the professional learning activities and address school-wide teacher professional development. It should be noted that setting a common theme for teacher professional learning was not unique to Yangshan. One teacher mentioned it was a common strategy by which schools addressed school-based teacher professional development in Shanghai and gave an example of another school whose research theme was “creative thinking and brain science” (EN-Qian). This was confirmed by Liang et al. (2016), who found 84% of 153 surveyed schools in Shanghai had established an overarching research topic for their teachers.

The Organisation of TRGs 75 Principal Shi claimed the school had finished several cycles of explorations into improving teachers and teaching, using research themes as a common topic to ­develop Yangshan teachers in a given period. In recent years, the school ­expanded the inquiry duration for specific research themes from one semester to several years to realise greater changes in its teachers. He also confirmed that the research themes generally fit every subject taught to ensure they are applied to every ­teacher’s practice. Different themes were developed based on different school development stages and related issues. Principal Shi claimed the school shifted its attention from improving teaching behaviours for “qualified” teaching to facilitating student learning in classrooms in recent years. When I did my fieldwork in 2016 and 2017, the school was promoting a theme—“Improving classroom teaching based on curriculum standards and students” (jiyu kecheng biaozhun he xuesheng de ketang jiaoxue gaijin)—aimed at improving teachers’ teaching by adhering to a standardised curriculum and catering to learner diversity. The theme was divided into steps for teachers to follow and inquire into, the first of which, “Stratified instruction objective setting” (mubiao fencing), was implemented during the fieldwork. Specifically, the school principal is expected to increase teachers’ awareness of the need to align classroom instruction objectives to curriculum standards and cater to their students’ abilities and needs. The next steps to be developed concerned the selection of teaching contents and resources, and the use of multiple curriculum evaluation methods. The school research theme was mainly developed based on local school conditions and external reform requirements advocating curriculum standard-based instruction and student-oriented teaching. Principal Shi explained such a theme was developed mainly because current teachers did not pay attention to the context in which the instructional objectives were set, nor to the school’s mission to “provide an appropriate education for every student”. Other school leaders, including Vice-Principal Guo and Director Pan, directly acknowledged that determining this theme was highly related to external reform requirements, which stressed the curriculum standard-based instruction and student-oriented learning. Their strategy was to develop a theme that addressed local school development needs and matched the reform trend promoted in the education system. Developing a common research theme was a school strategy for regulating what needed to be improved among the school’s teachers. The school principal identified some general instructional problems that needed to be addressed for overall teaching quality improvement, but external reform requirements inevitably influenced the main school-based teaching improvement concerns. School leaders neither ­focused on local needs alone nor followed the reform requirements blindly; rather, they integrated external reform requirements with school conditions. The common research theme represented a uniform collective blueprint to direct teachers’ school-based professional learning process. It served as a common topic to discuss in school-based learning activities and a common goal for teachers to improve themselves. All teachers were required to focus on the school research theme when conducting their routine learning activities.

76  The Organisation of TRGs 5.5.2  Room for Disciplinary Concerns in TRG Activities

Under the uniform school requirement of working towards a common theme, disciplinary variations were allowed and encouraged in each TRG to address group interests. In other words, the specific topic of what to focus on depended on the teachers in a TRG. Principal Shi explained, “What we are doing is leading with vision (jiazhi yinling) rather than using a specific frame to circumscribe teachers’ collective efforts in each TRG”. According to Principal Shi, the school research theme was a vision and a general direction for teachers in each TRG to follow: “All topics could be integrated with the school research theme. At least it [the school research theme] provides a new perspective for each TRG”. The nature of the school research theme seemed a key element in classroom instruction. It allowed each TRG to integrate their specific group concerns within a “broad” school research theme. In Principal Shi’s opinion, whatever teachers would like to address in their TRG, they needed to combine with the “Stratified instruction objective setting”. Specifically, Principal Shi explained that TRGs could also address their subject teaching concerns through action research projects, as each TRG was required to initiate a research project to address group instructional concerns. What Principal Shi initially said surprised me, as working towards the uniform school research theme and addressing disciplinary interests for teachers in each TRG seemed like two different things. Then I realised the overall topic set by the school was not necessarily contradictory to, but complementary with, any other subject topics based on Principal Shi’s idea. Therefore, how each subject group addressed or implemented “Stratified instruction objective setting” could vary based on their subject features. 5.6 Teachers’ General Perceptions of TRG Activities: Recognitions and Confusions When I attended routine teaching research activities with teachers, I did not sense any excitement; they were accustomed to attending TRG activities at a fixed time and doing fixed things. As a teacher said in an interview, “Teaching research activities have been so fixed that you have already known what you will do today before you attend the meeting” (EN-Qian), implying TRG activities were no longer fresh to teachers. Nor did any teachers complain about their mandatory attendance; it seemed that attending TRG activities week by week had become a part of teachers’ familiar schoolwork routine. Attending TRG activities for teachers is not just for fulfilling their school work. Although the tasks and activities were set uniformly, all these activities (open lessons, collective lesson planning, reflective talk, mentoring, action research, etc.) were instruction focused and related to teachers’ daily teaching, thus crucial for teacher professional learning. As aforementioned, teachers generally recognised the value of teaching research activities, as attending these activities is closely related to one’s professional growth and career development. However, teachers hold ambivalent attitudes towards the uniform school research theme. Despite the significance of the school research theme in improving

The Organisation of TRGs 77 teacher professional learning and student learning, teachers reported that it was difficult to adapt the school research theme to their subject teaching issues. When interviewed, teachers did not deny the value of the school research theme or disagree with its significance in their classroom teaching practices. The common research theme set by the school was generally considered as “a deliberate decision” by the school principal (CH-Chen, MA-Lin), intended to avoid situations in which teachers had no idea what to discuss in their own TRG (SS-Jin) and to suggest a direction for teachers to improve themselves collectively. For example, the theme “Stratified instruction objective setting” was considered a “meaningful” topic (e.g., SS-Jin, CH-Huang, EN-Yi). Teachers widely agreed learner diversity existed in the school and should be paid more attention (e.g., MA-Fu, CH-Huang, EN-Tao, EN-Du, MA-Xue, EN-Zhu); “It is a big challenge for teachers to deliver lessons in a classroom with huge learner diversity” (MA-Xue). In addition, teachers admitted they had to consider instruction objectives more carefully and systematically, in alignment with curriculum standards. As one teacher described, I think it (the research theme) is meaningful. We need to write down instruction objectives in lesson plans. We used to teach the textbook and design the instructional objectives based on the teaching reference book without thinking about it carefully. Now the school required us to think about objectives carefully and systematically. We have to think about the general learning requirements for students [in English teaching]. That’s what we are trying to do now. (EN-Yi) Nevertheless, some other teachers reported they had no idea why they had to inquire about such a research theme as it “was determined by school leaders, and they informed us to implement it” (EN-Ming). EN-Zhu echoed, “It is usually the principal who proposes an idea and then he let us explore how to achieve it by ourselves”. Teachers were not consulted about what to explore in the school development process. One teacher expressed that “catering to learner diversity” and “­instruction objective setting” was nothing new; this kind of reform idea was ­already stressed about 20 years ago, when she was a new teacher (CH-Zhao). She continued to complain about these assigned research themes to them. I have been working at this school for many years. Previously, we had done themes like questioning techniques for one or two years. Later, we moved to the design of learning guides and another research theme for several years. Now we jump to “Stratified instruction objective setting”. To be honest, we have no ideas about these themes and their connections…We are just ­assigned to do 1,2,3,4 tasks to follow their directions. (CH-Zhao) On the one hand, teachers’ wide recognition of the common theme indicated that it was not meaningless for the school to propose a uniform direction to improve

78  The Organisation of TRGs their teachers. On the other, excluding teachers from the decision-making process in identifying the school research theme caused some confusion, as teachers might not understand school leaders’ purposes or intentions. Moreover, the school research theme was more “a requirement” than “an option”. When teachers participated in teaching research activities—such as school-level open lessons or reflective talk—they were required to demonstrate their inquiry efforts on the uniform school research theme. 5.7 Summary This chapter has mainly explored how TRGs were organised at Yangshan. It has shown that teachers were arranged to learn collaboratively through logistical arrangements, selected teacher leadership, modes of activities, and collective learning goals. First, teachers were arranged to meet weekly at a predetermined time and in a predetermined space. Second, TRG leaders were appointed to lead teacher professional learning based on their subject-based expertise. Third, various activities—such as open lessons, reflective talks, collective lesson planning, mentoring, and action research—were structured to help teachers to work collaboratively. Fourth, a uniform school research theme was set by school leaders to address schoolwide teacher professional development. Accordingly, with some flexibility, each TRG was required to generate a common theme to address disciplinary and collective concerns, generally within the bounds of the school research theme. This chapter shows that teachers’ learning opportunities were well-structured and integrated with their work duties in the school setting. Yangshan teachers generally agreed that the prescribed tasks and activities benefited their professional learning and development. However, the uniform school research theme set by the principal also posed challenges to teacher professional learning in each TRG. Addressing their specific subject concerns under the uniform school requirement remained a difficult task, as will be reported in the coming chapter. Note 1 Only TRGs twice entitled “Excellent Teaching Research Group” can be recommended to apply for “Exemplary Teaching Research Group” status.

References Bush, T. (2015). Teacher leadership: Construct and practice. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 43(5), 671–672. Gao, X., Barkhuizen, G., & Chow, A. (2011). ‘Nowadays, teachers are relatively obedient’: Understanding primary school English teachers’ conceptions of and drives for research in China. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 61–81. Gu, L., & Wang, J. (2006). School-based research and professional learning: An innovative model to promote teacher professional development in China. Teaching Education, 17(1), 59–73.

The Organisation of TRGs 79 Han, X., & Paine, L. (2010). Teaching mathematics as deliberate practice through public lessons. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 519–541. Li, J., & Li, Y. P. (2013). The teaching contest as a professional development activity to promote classroom instruction excellence in China. In Y. Li & R. Huang (Eds.), How Chinese teach mathematics and improve teaching (pp. 204–220). Routledge. Liang, X. Y., Kidwai, H., & Zhang, M. X. (2016). How Shanghai does it: Insights and lessons from the highest-ranking education system in the world. The World Bank. https:// openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/24000/9781464807909.pdf Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). The lost promise of teacher professional development in England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 3–24. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States, strong performers and successful reformers in education. http://dx.doi. org/10.1787/9789264096660-en Paine, L., Fang, Y., & Wilson, S. (2003). Entering a culture of teaching: Teacher induction in Shanghai. In E. Britton, L. Paine, D. Pimm, & S. Raizen (Eds.), Comprehensive teacher induction: System for early career learning (pp. 20–82). Springer. Paine, L., & Ma, L. (1993). Teachers working together: A dialogue on organisational and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 675–697. Sargent, T. C., & Hannum, E. (2009). Doing more with less teacher professional learning communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 258–276. Wang, T. (2016). School leadership and professional learning community: Case study of two senior high schools in Northeast China. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 36(2), 202–216. Wu, H., & Clarke, A. (2018). The Chinese “Open Class”: A conceptual rendering and historical account. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 38(2), 214–228.

6

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs Three Illustrative Cases

This chapter will explore how teachers’ professional learning experiences and interactions varied in the three TRGs, under the same school’s uniform policies and regulations. In this chapter, teachers’ learning experiences in the three TRGs will be reported case by case to illustrate the complexities and dynamics of the PLC process at the group level. Within each TRG, the narration follows a storyline to present teachers’ choices of how to balance the uniform requirements and disciplinary interests, the support received from the school, their collaboration dynamics in the group, as well as their perceived learning outcomes and experiences in the TRG. 6.1  The Case of CH-TRG: Learning through Collective Inquiry1 6.1.1 Seeking Endorsement from Professional Authority for Collective Learning

As aforementioned, topics such as “developing stratified instruction objectives” were promoted to address teacher professional learning issues at Yangshan. D ­ espite being provided with schoolwide topics, CH-Huang noted that teachers could generate other research topics as “the school leaders were not that strict”. This space for teachers’ collective inquiry in their TRG was largely due to disciplinary differences that prevented the school principal from regulating each TRG’s specific research topics (CH-Huang). Teachers had room, albeit limited, to decide what to do for their collective inquiry. Despite having the space to address their disciplinary interests, the teachers ­reported having no idea how to identify a “common”, “authentic”, and “researchable” problem for inquiry due to their lack of research training (CH-Huang, CH-Li). Therefore, they chose to develop their group-based project by drawing on ­information sources from educational authorities at the municipal level. According to CH-Li, a former TRG head who was promoted to a middle leadership position in the school, their project about the teaching of narrative writing was inspired by a municipal teaching researcher, a well-known expert in Chinese

DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583-6

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs 81 language teaching. CH-Li detailed the decision-making process for selecting the topic: A few LPG heads went to listen to a municipal teaching researcher. He mentioned that the teaching of writing is still a “gap” to be addressed. We [five of us] on the spot reached an agreement that we may have a try on this topic. Therefore, we did an exploration of teaching writing. According to CH-Li, they initially did a demonstration lesson about teaching writing after the sharing for an educational inspection attended by the municipal teaching researcher who “confirmed our direction of exploration was worthwhile and encouraged us to work on the topic further”. The teachers claimed that they chose the writing topic to “cater to the municipal teaching researcher’s pleasure” (touqisuohao) (CH-Huang). The teachers (e.g., CH-Huang, CH-Chen, CH-Li) also felt the topic addressed their practical Chinese language teaching concerns. As CH-Huang reflected, it was “quite practical and fit their teaching”. Subsequently, they decided to work on teaching narrative writing by forming a collaborative research project entitled “Developing self-assessment forms for student narrative essay writing in a junior secondary school”. It should be noted that Chinese language teachers did not normally have an opportunity to seek support from higher educational authorities. In some cases, teachers would determine group-based research projects based on schoolwide topics to reduce their workload and receive more school support (e.g., resources, ­bonuses) (CH-Huang). Therefore, sometimes their previous research projects (e.g., designing school-based exercise books) were aligned with the school’s prescribed topics. In sum, teachers seldom self-identified common problems by reflecting on their teaching practices. They generally followed either school- or higher-level educational authorities. Teachers tended to draw on authoritative information to steer their collaborative action research, even when given disciplinary space. In doing so, they knew what to do but expected to “receive some professional support” from experts to face the challenges of action research (CH-Li). 6.1.2  Implementing the Research Project by Classroom Teaching

Incorporating research ideas and experimenting with new practices can place extra pressure on teachers. After the municipal teaching researcher confirmed the value of their explorations, the teachers created a model of teaching practice with professional support from the teaching researchers at the municipal and district levels; they then modified their teaching based on the model. When executing their project, the teachers reported that their first exploration in an open lesson was critical for understanding how to put their research project into practice. The lesson, open to their teacher cohorts in Shanghai, was supported by teaching researchers and well-prepared by the group’s teachers. CH-Zhang, a

82  Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs young and capable teacher, was chosen to teach the high-level lesson. She recalled her experiences preparing the lesson. We prepared for that open lesson for almost half a year. First, we rehearsed the lesson based on our initial design. Then a district-level teaching researcher came [to observe the lesson] and changed the lesson [design]. She came twice, and we adjusted the lesson twice accordingly. Then the municipal teaching researcher came [to observe the lesson], and the rehearsal lesson was changed again. In rounds of revision, we finally demonstrated that lesson openly. (CH-Zhang) CH-Zhang and her TRG received much support from the teaching researchers at the district and municipal levels whose professional expertise facilitated the group-based action research project. CH-Zhang emphasised that having such an experience under the teaching researchers’ guidance, particularly the municipallevel teaching researcher, was a “precious learning opportunity”: He supported me on how to conduct a lesson. He was not only teaching me how to conduct the lesson but also broadening my ways of teaching. We teachers are like frogs in the well (jindi zhiwa)2. We don’t know how teachers in other schools conduct lessons. But teaching researchers are different. They observe tons of school lessons and have the most advanced teaching methods. They teach you the best way to teach. But this opportunity was not ready for everyone. Probably that was the unique experience of my whole teaching career. It was too rare. (CH-Zhang) With their support, the research idea was solidified and contextualised. As the teachers reported, the crafting process of the first lesson helped them to develop clear teaching assessment criteria and provided a new way of teaching narratives. Specifically, teachers developed assessment forms containing narrative essay writing criteria (e.g., clarity of the central idea, relevancy between the central idea and the key stories or events, and language) that were subsequently implemented into their classroom teaching at different levels: “With such a form, we could adopt it in our daily lessons” (CH-Zhang). Qi further commented on the role of the lesson taught by Zhang: “In the past, we did not have a systematic way to teach narrative writing [until Zhang’s lesson]. We were not very clear about the assessment criteria to evaluate the quality of student writing” (CH-Qi). Zhang joked that she felt like “an executor” by preparing a lesson strictly based on district- and municipal-level teaching researchers’ support rather than her own ideas. The open lesson she finally presented to the audience was completely different from what she originally designed, leading her to say, “in the end, I did not have any feeling for this lesson. The only task [for teaching the open lesson] was to execute [the teaching researchers’] design and not to disgrace them” (CH-Zhang).

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs 83 To summarise, the open lesson taught by Zhang provided a feasible model for teachers to incorporate innovative research-related ideas into their daily practice; that is, it taught them “how” to conduct a writing lesson by using an assessment form (e.g., CH-Lei, CH-Feng, CH-Qi, CH-Huang, CH-Chen, CH-Li). However, the teachers’ perspectives and ideas were largely underestimated in the process. 6.1.3  Experiencing a Collaborative Culture

In China, it is not uncommon for teachers to deprivatise their teaching practices and engage in reflective professional dialogues in collective activities. As a result, Chinese language TRG members’ main resource for evaluating and adjusting their practices is their peers, some of whom were district-level teaching researchers. Based on this model, TRG teachers took turns conducting open lessons or reflective sharing to experience research-based practice as a research community. In the process, they adapted their lessons according to their students’ characteristics, triggering them to explore further how to conduct such lessons in specific grades and classrooms. For example, CH-Lei, a young teacher, shared how she modified her narrative writing lesson with the support of peers and a district-level teaching researcher: Last year, Zhang conducted a municipal-level open lesson [about narrative writing]. I followed her model at the beginning. But later, we [with the help of colleagues and the teaching researcher] found that what her lesson provided was a framework, which was broad to implement in the classroom. We were thinking about how to deepen her framework and decided to focus on one element, that is the relationship between the central idea and the events, according to the characteristics of students in Grade 7. We improved our teaching through trial lessons again and again. (CH-Lei) Similarly, CH-Feng conducted open lessons in Grade 6 on understanding and constructing the central idea in a piece of narrative writing. CH-Hu focused on the relevance of materials and the motif of writing in a Grade 8 lesson. Both received extensive support from their colleagues, whose constructive comments helped them to revise lesson plans and polish trial lessons. CH-Feng commented: In our group, no matter who prepares the [open] lesson, other teachers are willing to come to help [to polish the trial lesson]. It takes them a lot of time, including at least a lesson period to observe, and maybe several lesson periods to give suggestions and think about how to improve the lesson together. (CH-Feng) Besides providing collegial support for preparing open lessons, the post-­lesson conferences helped teachers to reflect on the teaching process and identify areas

84  Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs for further improvement. For instance, in the post-lesson discussion of CH-Zhao’s school-level open lesson describing scenery (chaired by the TRG head, ­CH-Huang), when Huang invited teachers to comment on this writing lesson, every Chinese language teacher took turns critiquing the lesson. Taking CH-Qi’s (the youngest teacher in the group) comments as an example, CH-Qi: I think it was too difficult for students to depict an object without any context given. When Teacher Zhao asked, “what are the characteristics of a magnolia?” I could not come up with the answers in the first place. I agree with other teachers that the scenery description should serve the purpose of writing. I also conducted a writing lesson describing scenery last semester, which served as the basis for what happened next. We would have different feelings when we see a scene in different contexts. Therefore, students would feel confused and lost if the scene was detached from the context. (Observation of a CH-TRG activity) Regardless of their teaching experiences, all teachers in the group evaluated the specific lesson in relation to their research project from different aspects. With their straightforward and honest comments, teachers were “critical friends” discussing how to best present a writing lesson and support their fellow teachers to improve their teaching (Curry, 2008). Every teacher in the group said they liked their TRG and felt their colleagues were constructive and helpful in improving their peers’ classroom instruction. Their collaborative culture strengthened the teachers’ social bonds and fostered trust so they could freely exchange experiences, knowledge, and skills toward a common goal. As CH-Lei said, “we do not pursue harmony for the sake of harmony. Teachers in our group make substantive and constructive comments”. Peer feedback stimulated teachers’ thinking by sharing experiences, raising questions, and developing constructive solutions about adapting and applying research-based ideas in a specific context. In addition, the connection between the TRG and district-level teaching researchers deepened the research project’s implementation. 6.1.4  Generating Innovative Teaching Practices and Critical Reflections

After nearly two years of experimentation, the teachers reported that they benefited greatly by conducting a theoretical and practical research project. Regarding the theoretical reflections, teachers claimed that producing research outputs and disseminating their research experiences was a critical but challenging pathway towards theorising their research-based practices. As a routine task every semester, every teacher in the school was required to submit a teaching case focusing on their implementation strategies or reflecting on their researchbased teaching. For teachers, writing was arduous, as it required theoretical reflections on the “how” and “why” of their practice. The TRG head, Huang,

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs 85 recounted that “the theory part [of writing] was quite difficult for us frontline teachers. We needed literature reviews and theories to theorise our practical research” (CH-Huang). Noting the importance of producing research outputs for teacher professional learning, career development, and school evaluation, most teachers would write teaching cases based on open lessons that they carefully designed, implemented, and submitted for publication. In the process, school leaders also provided opportunities for teachers to publish and disseminate their research outcomes (e.g., introducing journals to teachers, selecting excellent cases for book publication, or organising research-based sharing). In addition, research experts (e.g., university researchers and those in charge of educational research in the district education bureau) were invited to polish the research articles for publication. Unsurprisingly, many teachers, including CH-Zhang, CH-Feng, and CH-Lei, published articles based on their writings during or after implementing the project in provincial journals. As a collective research output, some excellent teaching cases were also selected and recommended for publication in a book edited by the school principal. The published papers and selected teaching cases mentioned the role of “teacher assessment” and “student assessment” as theoretical reflections on classroom teaching (CH-Zhang, CH-Feng, and CH-Lei’s journal publications). The final research report also revealed teachers’ reflections regarding the functions of the designed writing assessment forms as noted here: The design of the writing assessment forms must consider the following three functions. The first is the evaluation function, meaning whether it can accurately evaluate students’ writing capacity. The second is the diagnostic function, which involves analysing students’ writing problems and their causes. The third is the strategic function, which concerns providing ways and means to solve problems. Reflecting on our practices, the third function is the most difficult to achieve. (CH-TRG’s research report) The theoretical reflections further stimulated teachers to learn more about theory and how to apply it in their practice. Teachers such as CH-Feng saw writing as a process of “rethinking” practices to “strengthen professionalism”. CH-Qi also remarked: Writing for publication is not only about practical reflection, but also about learning educational theory. Doing such a project, we have to search more literature to learn some theories and understand how the theories can be applied to our practice. The process is quite challenging but helps to improve our teaching. In addition to the research outputs, the teachers developed an alternative way of teaching narrative essay writing, as mentioned above. Some teachers (CH-Zhang, CH-Feng, CH-Chen, CH-Qi) would extend their research-based practices into their

86  Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs daily teaching. For example, CH-Zhang said all teachers teaching her grade would attach a form for students to self-evaluate their writing, while CH-Chen claimed she would use it for almost every writing lesson. Teachers reported that through implementing the research project, they developed critical reflections on the limitations of the project, a better understanding of how to foster students’ writing skills, and a clearer direction for expanding students’ reading in the next round of action research. The teachers claimed that using assessment forms might restrict students’ creativity. Some teachers (e.g., CH-Huang, CH-Qi) reflected that although the criteria provided scaffolding for some students, the specific writing guidelines were likely to teach students how to write “an eightlegged essay” (baguwen). From their perspective, following a specific procedure could restrict the creativity of students who were good at writing. The teachers (e.g., CH-Zhao, CH-Chen, CH-Hu) also observed that while the assessment forms facilitated student writing, writing involves more than mastering “techniques” and requires more sophisticated “inputs”, such as extensive reading and students’ observations of and reflections about their daily life (CH-Zhao). As illustrated by CH-Chen, “we cannot promote students’ writing merely by these techniques. Contents matter. If they do not have enough reading or deep feelings about daily life, they cannot write fascinating narrative essays” (CH-Chen). Based on their practical reflections, the teachers initiated a new action research project promoting reading, aiming to teach students how to read a book while encouraging them to read more often. 6.2  The Case of EN-TRG: Learning through Expertise-leveraging 6.2.1  Drawing on District Education Authority for Collective Learning

Teachers in the EN-TRG were required to learn together while doing a project entitled “Improving students’ thinking under the idea of ‘wisdom-inspiring classroom’” at the time of my investigation. The proposal of such a research topic was in response to the district-level idea “wisdom-inspiring classroom” (chuangzhi ketang), which was a student-centred, inquiry-oriented, and innovation-directed approach to teaching. The idea came from a handout distributed by the district education bureau. The EN-TRG head shared her thoughts about determining such a research topic. We mainly rely on what is promoted at a higher level. We teachers are at the bottom. For example, what our district is promoting, what are the hot research topics of our subject, and sometimes what our school is promoting [are the sources of topic selection]. We would have to figure out what we can integrate into our practice. Similarly, English teachers liked to draw on authoritative information from the school or higher levels. English teachers confirmed that it was clear the group’s only senior teacher, TRG head EN-Zhu, who decided their research topic. However,

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs 87 EN-Zhu left some space for teachers to decide what they could do in their LPGs. She explained, Because I proposed the overall topic, if I did not allow flexibility, teachers would have no choice but to follow me blindly. So I think it is better for them to learn such a reform idea and they could decide something practical and actionable to do at the LPG level. (EN-Zhu) Within EN-TRG, four small topics were thus proposed, based on each LPG’s concerns and their students’ cognition levels and learning situations. Specifically, the Grade 6 project was entitled “Designing more opportunities for student participation and organising self-directed and collaborative learning activities” (sheji jiaoduo de canyu jihui, kaizhan zizhu de, hezuo de xuexi huodong), while Grades 7 and 8 addressed “Designing learning environments/conditions based on authentic problems” (chuangshe jiyu zhenshi wenti de xuexi qingjing) and “Providing effective learning resources in paper” (tigong youxiao de zhizhi de xuexi ziyuan), respectively. Grade 9 teachers were doing “Research on the zhongkao examination questions and putting forward comprehensive and thinking-stimulating questions” (jiyu dui zhongkao tixing de yanjiu, neng tichu juyou yiding siwei hanliang de zonghexing wenti). All these topics were adapted from the district innovation project’s specific guidelines, based on each LPG’s concerns. 6.2.2  The TRG Head Interpreting the Research Project

Even following the guideline of the district education bureau, teachers reported that they received limited support from the district level. Neither did they receive direct instructional support from school leaders as they were not teaching English. English teachers claimed that, due to the language issue, EN-TRG’s professional activities were too demanding for school leaders to audit and comment on (EN-Qian, EN-Zhu). Using English as the medium of instruction made it “difficult for school leaders to understand the lesson” and “even more difficult to make comments” (EN-Zhu). Thus, school leaders’ limited subject content knowledge distanced them from teachers’ subject pedagogical concerns. Teachers in EN-TRG did not approach the English teaching researchers for professional support. When asked why she could not ask for assistance, EN-Zhu said that the English teaching researchers did not necessarily support their choices. As she recalled of their last research project, We previously did a text preview, which was considered a good topic at the school level. We did try to seek professional advice from a district teaching researcher. But what they did most was to question us why we needed to explore such a topic in English teaching. Particularly in reading lessons, sometimes lesson preview would destroy the suspense of stories in advance. [Once we did lesson preview,] we may not be able to attract students’ interest in class.

88  Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs District teaching researcher Ying, who expected teachers in TRGs to do collective activities in alignment with the proposed reform ideas in English teaching, also described that sometimes their suggestions were not supported by school principals. In recent years, we mainly focus on chain questions when teaching reading. We also suggested that English teachers may follow our topic in their own teaching research activities. Some TRGs would like to follow our suggestions but encounter obstructions from their school principals because they may be promoting other schoolwide projects [requiring teachers to implement]. (District teaching researcher Ying) Given the possible conflicting opinions between the district teaching researchers and school leaders, English teachers found it difficult to seek direct support from teaching researchers in charge of their subject teaching when implementing their school-based research projects or it weakened English teachers’ willingness to seek active support from external experts. The lack of professional support from both school and district-level educational authorities made teachers rely mainly on their peers, especially their TRG head, for practising their group-based research project. EN-Zhu, the only senior teacher in the group, the head of the TRG, was usually the first to try innovative practices when facing challenging tasks. She was well aware of her role in and responsibility for leading teachers to implement new initiatives. She set herself as the first to deliver a reflective talk addressing the classroom activities and instructional objectives in teaching English writing. As EN-Zhu explained, If you cannot make [a new concept or task] clear, other teachers will not know how to do it. Only if I did it first could other teachers make sense of how to understand and practice it. Originally, it was another teacher’s turn to deliver the reflective sharing. I changed the schedule and I did the sharing first to let other teachers know how we could do it. (EN-Zhu) In the talk, she shared how she instructed a writing lesson based on her understanding of the “wisdom classroom”. She also linked her sharing to the schoolbased overarching research theme “developing stratified instruction objectives” by addressing how she designed instructional objectives. EN-Qian commented that her sharing provided “a clue” for her to understand the school-based and group-based projects. Some other teachers also reported that such a sharing was not specific enough for them to implement in their classroom teaching. For instance, “It is still very vague. It might be better until I have practised it for some time” (EN-Hong). It seemed that strong professional competency enabled EN-Zhu to share her understanding of those reform ideas, which benefited other teachers. However, ­EN-Zhu reported that it was great pressure for her to interpret innovative ideas merely by herself. “For TRG leaders, not every one of us has a lot of ideas and

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs 89 knows how to implement innovative ideas every time. I am also confused and do not feel supported when tasks are assigned to us” (EN-Zhu). 6.2.3  Experiencing a Critical yet Dominant Culture

Like their Chinese language subject counterparts, English teachers generally believed that they showed good collaboration, as they had collectively been honoured as an exemplary group. Likewise, the mutual support in EN-TRG was abundant. For example, when EN-Yi was preparing a school-level open lesson focusing on their project “Designing learning environments/conditions based on authentic problems”, four teachers from three LPGs went to observe her trial lesson and spent considerable time and effort on improving the lesson design. In particular, EN-Zhu claimed she spent extra time after work—from 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.—to help EN-Yi to improve the lesson design based on their observation of the trial lesson (EN-Zhu). After the demonstration of the public lesson, teachers took turns commenting on her lesson, chaired by EN-Zhu. Every teacher was encouraged to point out at least one strength and suggest at least one point for further improvement. In the English TRG, not only could veteran teachers critique others’ lessons but young teachers could also speak out in post-lesson discussions. Even the youngest English teacher, with only two years of teaching experience, shared his comments and even offered instructional advice (Observation of an EN-TRG activity). The young teacher added, In post-lesson discussions, we are truly expressing our ideas. Not praising superficially like other TRGs do. I am new in the school. But the veteran [English] teachers would not put on airs with me and show off their seniority in front of me. (EN-Jiang) They were quite comfortable with open, detailed, and even critical dialogue. Teachers embraced their peers’ critiques and suggestions as a type of knowledge sharing, rather than seeing it as others denying or degrading their teaching. Critical and in-depth discussions were believed to inspire colleagues’ teaching and thinking in different ways (EN-Qian, EN-Ming). They considered their purpose was to “offer alternative ways for teachers’ consideration” (EN-Qian). After the post-lesson discussion on EN-Yi’s lesson, EN-Zhu organised a small talk about the relationship between setting instruction objectives and designing classroom activities. Here, she explained her reasons for organising such a sharing. As a frontline teacher, I know their teaching problems. Through observing my colleagues’ lessons, I found a problem: many of our peers have no idea what their classroom activities are for and how they can link them to their teaching objectives. (EN-Zhu)

90  Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs EN-Zhu hoped her sharing would facilitate teachers’ further thinking about organising classroom activities in English classes. After her sharing, teachers felt inspired. (Her sharing) is very good. After her talk, wow, I think I have been upgraded to a higher level. Why can I not think of that? Her talk is quite insightful (gaowujianling). We stand here (pointing to the table). She is standing over there (pointing above her head). She stands higher and sees further ahead [than us]. (EN-Du) It should be noted that in the peer learning process, their TRG head played a dominant role. EN-Zhu recalled that in the lesson preparation of EN-Yi’ lesson, “although other teachers did observe her trial lesson, they could not help her redesign it. They can provide suggestions on how to revise one session, but not whether this session is necessary or not. I believe all the teachers who attended the trial and final demonstration lessons know that I helped her change her original lesson”. ­EN-Zhu further commented on their peer support in the interview, I believe you realised the problem as you have participated in our TRG ­activities. I am not exaggerating my own strength. I lack professional ­partners with whom I can discuss and dialogue. In our group, most of the teachers think what they can do is follow me and learn from me. Other English teachers did appreciate the strong expertise of their TRG head, and most indicated that they would like to “follow her”. EN-Zhu was “admired” by her group members because of her excellent teaching competency (EN-Yi, ­EN-Du); many mentioned she was a distinguished expert at English teaching, and a good model to learn from (e.g., EN-Qian, EN-Liang, EN-Tao, EN-Jiang, ­EN-Wang, ­EN-Ming). Her subject expertise was recognised within the school and the district. As one teacher commented, She is quite capable. I heard she will be an interim teaching researcher in the district next semester. That she can reach this position means her teaching is quite excellent; otherwise, teachers from other schools would not follow her. (EN-Wang) Other experienced teachers seemed less active in contributing their suggestions and ideas to the whole group, and confirmed there was a large gap between the level of subject expertise and EN-Zhu’s. As such, they perceived themselves as followers, learning from EN-Zhu (Interview, EN-Liang). Both Chinese and English language teachers generally could express themselves freely and without fear, and young teachers were invited to comment on lessons conducted by more experienced teachers and even to offer critiques and advice. However, the EN-TRG head was dominant in leading their professional learning or creating a critical and supportive culture among colleagues.

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs 91 6.2.4  Generating General Understandings of Teaching Practice

English teachers’ participation in their TRG did facilitate their reflections on English teaching activities. As suggested earlier, English teachers reported that they learned from their colleagues, especially from their TRG head. Although they reported a positive learning experience in peer interaction and collaboration, teachers (e.g., EN-Hong) claimed that their interactions mainly helped them to improve their “routine teaching” (e.g., English textbooks, classroom teaching) rather than on their regulated topics. EN-Hong further commented, “I did not feel a focused topic in our discussion. We may discuss many aspects of classroom teaching”. Moreover, English teachers were still confused about their group-based projects. It seemed that they were unclear about their group-based topics (EN-Ming, EN-Du, EN-Tao, EN-Hong). Teachers who attended their teaching research activities cared more about teaching improvement in general rather than specific groupbased research topics. A teacher acknowledged, “I don’t really care what is being advocated. The most important thing is to do what I think right” (EN-Tao). EN-Du echoed that, when they were required to submit reflections or teaching cases, “I am so confused…To be honest, I feel like we are trying to accomplish a task”. EN-Zhu reflected that although they had been doing the project for more than one year, they were still unclear about combining such a topic in their English teaching. Because I feel that this topic is relatively broad and not clear. We merely emphasise “wisdom classroom”, which aims to improve the quality of students’ thinking. However, [how to address] the English subject’s characteristics is unclear. Therefore, it might be difficult for us frontline teachers to implement such a topic. 6.3  The Case of MA-TRG: Learning through Task Implementation 6.3.1  Aligning with Overarching School Learning Goal

In contrast to seeking educational authorities at the district and municipal level, Mathematics teachers mainly relied on the school principal, a former Mathematics teacher. Although his duties as principal kept him from classroom teaching, he still participated in the TRG activities as a Mathematics teacher. He was considered “an ordinary Mathematics teacher” and “not a principal anymore” when he attended MA-TRG activities (MA-Xue). However, Principal Shi was not that “ordinary” in their TRG. He acted as a key decision-maker, identifying common research topics for all group members. He stated, “Because I was teaching Mathematics, I would help them (Mathematics teachers) identify a research topic for the whole group”. Given this context, Principal Shi developed a group research project—“Developing diagnostic tools for Mathematics learning based on curriculum standards”—that aimed to improve teaching effectiveness by enhancing teachers’ ability to design Mathematics test

92  Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs papers based on their careful study of the Mathematics curriculum standard. To be specific, Mathematics teachers were not merely designing test papers; they needed to compare the exam questions with the learning requirements specified in the Mathematics curriculum standard to know whether the design of exam questions was appropriate and neither too easy nor too difficult. In addition, students’ test results on each question would be calculated by teachers to judge their teaching effectiveness. Mathematics teachers (e.g., MA-Xue, MA-Fu, MA-Song) acknowledged Principal Shi’s active support as a group member in initiating the group-based research project. “Thanks to our principal. Every time, he spent a lot of effort on thinking about topics for collective inquiry. His ideas are always great” (MA-Xue). Another teacher also noted Principal Shi possessed excellent research capabilities and always decided what to do in the group. “To be honest, implementing the group action research project is usually decided by the principal and TRG head…Our principal is quite good at doing research projects, while the TRG head is an expert at classroom instruction” (MA-Fu). Generally, it is obvious that in the MA-TRG, teachers mainly followed the direction of the school principal to generate a collective focus for professional learning. 6.3.2  Implementing the Research Project with Reflective Sharing

When implementing such a research project, Mathematics teachers also needed a model of practice to understand “how” to develop and utilise diagnostic tools for students’ Mathematics learning. Then Principal Shi invented a template for teachers to analyse their examination papers and students’ learning achievement. He acknowledged the importance of building a model of practice and explained that “teachers would not know how to do it [without the model]. Of course, I also raised questions about the strengths and limitations of the template and how we could improve it” (Principal Shi). With such a template, teachers could align their designed test questions to the learning requirements specified in the Mathematics curriculum and reflect on their students’ actual learning progresses. Based on the model devised by Principal Shi, teachers mainly took turns conducting reflective sharing based on their analyses of their examination papers. Some teachers (e.g., MA-Lin, MA-Fu) applied such a template when conducting their reflective sharing. For example, MA-Fu modified the template in Grade 7 and presented his sharing. I made the template more specific and fit our practical classroom teaching, particularly about what level our students can achieve at and the points they might make mistakes…I also added a section about the analysis of the test questions. Because I found that when I designed a test paper last time, I assumed one test question was difficult for students. But many of them accidentally answered it correctly, not because they had mastered the knowledge points to be tested but because they had guessed right. MA-Fu’s reflection on the problem of setting test questions pushed him to propose future improvements to test design accuracy. MA-Ye echoed that, with such

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs 93 a template, “we can see what our learning goals are supposed to achieve, what the expected value is, what the actual score rate is, where is the gap, you can think about it” (MA-Ye). However, for some other teachers, such a task was not practical enough to be applied in classroom teaching. For example, MA-Lin reported, “I didn’t think [filling such a template] was very practical for me to focus on that in every lesson design or classroom teaching”. To recap, the template designed by Principal Shi provided a feasible model for Mathematics teachers to reflect on their mastery of learning requirements and mainly followed the model to conduct reflective sharing. Such a model, however, was restricted to teachers’ reflections on their test paper design. There was no feasible or specific model for them to incorporate such a template in classroom teaching. 6.3.3  Experiencing Contrived Collaborative Culture

In the Mathematics TRG, however, many teachers reported that they did not feel sufficient support from their peers. As one Mathematics teacher, MA-Su, remarked, “In general, our TRG lacks the collaborative climate. Sometimes, teachers work by themselves (gezi weizheng). They (other teachers) only take care of their own teaching”. Similarly, MA-Lin commented, “a TRG should have its own soul… I always feel that our group lacks such [collaborative] team climate, like a team without team spirit”. Some teachers (e.g., MA-Fu, MA-Su, MA-Xue, and MA-Mei) reported some positive aspects of professional activities. For instance, some liked their group, as they could point out the lesson’s strengths and make suggestions for improvement in a frank and open manner. As MA-Mei commented in the interview, “We usually make honest comments based on the lesson observed. We would speak out strengths and problems directly”. Nevertheless, some teachers commented that their collaboration was far from satisfactory. In the TRG, Mathematics teachers expected support from their peers to improve their teaching but usually received little, particularly in preparing their lessons. One Mathematics teacher recalled that, when preparing her open lessons, she expected teachers to willingly observe her trial lessons and provide suggestions on her teaching. Instead, she had begged her colleagues to participate. I remember that when I did my open lessons, I went to their (colleagues’) o­ ffices one by one and begged them to come to my classroom [to observe trial lessons]. It happened several times. They don’t have this kind of consciousness [of teamwork]. At least we don’t put much effort into polishing lessons, but other TRGs like Chinese and English do [lesson polishing]. (MA-Lin) MA-Lin further attributed the “poor” Mathematics teaching performance of the school to a lack of active support from colleagues in lesson polishing, which was of great importance to teachers’ professional learning and teaching improvement.

94  Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs The lack [of effort on lesson polishing] was probably a reason our Mathematics teaching was not good. It was so important to our teaching. We can learn a lot from lesson polishing. But we did much poorly at this aspect… If you do not polish the trial lesson, the quality of the open lesson won’t be high. Then conducting an open lesson is less meaningful. (MA-Lin) MA-Lin was not alone in complaining about the limited support received from colleagues in lesson preparations. The youngest teacher in MA-TRG, MA-Ye, ­echoed that “the preparations of open lessons were not discussed within the whole TRG” (MA-Ye). Some other teachers stated that they prepared their open lessons mainly with teachers in their LPG or with whom they had good personal relationships (e.g., MA-Su, MA-Fu, MA-Song). Teachers in MA-TRG showed a limited willingness to support other teachers actively. Sometimes they did squeeze observing others’ trial lessons into their schedule, but suggestions and discussions were insufficient for teachers (MA-Ye). In addition, some teachers (e.g., MA-Song) complained that Mathematics teachers had shared teaching materials several years ago, but since then teachers would not update the group’s shared resources and materials. As a result, he found the test papers unsatisfactory, and left them aside, while other group members used them as usual. He continued, “from personal perspective, I would not use any materials from our group if it is not a must. If I need some teaching materials, I would prepare and keep them for myself” (MA-Song). He added that other Mathematics teachers would delete and reserve things for themselves, even if they sometimes shared teaching materials. Although sharing seemed a crucial way to reflect on their practice, it was obvious that Mathematics teachers did not show reciprocal collaboration. They did not generate in-depth collaboration among professional activities or show a strong “sense of community” (Bolam et al., 2005), which school requirements cannot regulate. 6.3.4  Strengthening Teachers’ Awareness of Standard-based Teaching

When implementing such a research project, some teachers felt they had a more conscious awareness of standard-based teaching. For instance, teachers commented, I tested one knowledge point based on my personal feeling before, but I don’t know why should I test this knowledge point. But now, through those activities, I know we have to rely on curriculum standards and learning objectives to design our exam papers. It is more scientific, I like this…This is a pretty big gain. (MA-Ye) Such a project could evoke some consciousness in me. I would pay more attention [to learning requirements] when I design examination questions…. (MA-Lin)

Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs 95 Mathematics teachers were also required to write down all the experiences or case sharing they did in collective TRG activities and submit them to the school. For MA-Su, such a writing process was an important way to theorise about p­ ersonal experiences. We need to submit a teaching case every year. Most cases are based on our actual teaching practices. If you want to try your best to write such a case, first you must prepare the lesson carefully. But it is about more than teaching. After teaching, you also must theorise your thinking, then add a summary and your own reflections about the limitations [of the case]. This is very important for teacher professional growth. MA-Su’s account indicates that the requirement of writing up cases of teaching experiences was a good opportunity for her to link “theory” and “practice” and further reflect on the strengths and limitations of her current teaching. Moreover, all the submissions shared among the group members and the good ones were selected and recommended for publication in educational journals, thus helping teachers to theorise their local knowledge and disseminate it to the wider community. In addition, all the test papers and teaching cases created by teachers for their group research project entitled “Developing Diagnostic Tools for Mathematics Learning based on Curriculum Standards” were shared within the group as communal property. MA-Mei further pointed out that their sharing of produced materials reduced their workload and improved their teaching effectiveness. However, it was obvious that their professional learning was mainly through implementing tasks rather than their collective activities. For teachers, their “contrived collegiality” (Hargreaves, 2013) may have affected those eager to learn from their peers, influencing their commitment to their group and teaching. In particular, passive collaboration might not be good for young teachers’ learning, as they need active support at their early career stage (MA-Song, MA-Lin). In general, it found that administrative enforcement ensured teachers interacted with each other, meaning at least some necessary mutual support was available. Despite being forced together by administrative fiat, Mathematics teachers made connections with others and benefited from working together when doing their collaborative research project. However, their professional learning was constrained as teachers learned from doing tasks rather than their collective wisdom. As VicePrincipal Guo commented, The Mathematics TRG merely implemented the regulations. Its teachers did not have such a [collaborative] culture. It is hard to say that [Mathematics teachers] had done a good job. But it was also hard to say that the group was ineffective [because they complied with the school regulations]. 6.4 Summary This chapter demonstrated the lived learning experiences of teachers in three different TRGs in the same school setting. It found different dynamics and patterns of

96  Teacher Professional Learning Experiences in TRGs teachers’ learning experiences exist. In the CH-TRG, teachers learned through doing a collaborative action research project. While driven by external pressures and facing difficulties conducting research, teachers reached a consensus on the need for collective inquiry, sought the endorsement of professional authorities to initiate a project, experimented with the project with support from teaching researchers, adjusted their teaching through peer observation, developed theoretical and practical reflections on their project, sustained their research-based practice, and initiated a new round of action research. In the EN-TRG, teachers also had difficulties identifying a collective focus on how to experiment with the new reform idea in their English teaching. They mainly drew on the district education authority for collective learning. However, they did not receive sufficient support from both the district and school levels and heavily relied on their TRG head to interpret and implement such a project, which was demanding for their TRG head. As a result, attending professional activities in the EN-TRG contributed to teachers’ learning about their teaching in general rather than an in-depth understanding of their research project. In the Mathematics TRG, teachers mainly relied on their principal to initiate new research projects and experiments. Due to the contrived culture, teachers generated some but limited professional learning from their professional learning. To summarise, even in the same school structure, teachers’ learning experiences have different dynamics. For the CH-TRG, teachers learned through collective inquiry. In the EN-TRG, teachers learned mainly through sharing expertise with their TRG head. While in the Mathematics TRG, teachers mainly learned by implementing collective tasks without generating sufficient collaboration. It further suggests that teachers did learn from the structure of TRGs but in different patterns, and their learning experiences varied. The next chapter will explore the influencing factors that support or hinder TRG practices and teacher collaborative learning. Notes 1 The case of CH-TRG has been published in Chen (2022). 2 A Chinese idiom describing a person with a very limited outlook and little experience.

References Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities (Report No. RR637). The University of Bristol. Chen, L. (2022). Facilitating teacher learning in professional learning communities through action research: A qualitative case study in China. Teaching and Teacher Education.119 (Nov). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate. 2022.103875 Curry, M. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations embedded in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement and school reform. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 733–774. Hargreaves, A. (2013). Push, pull and nudge: The future of teaching and educational change. In X. Zhu & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st century, new frontiers of educational research (pp. 217–236). Springer.

7

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs

Within the same school structure, teachers’ learning experiences in the three TRGs showed some similarities and differences, indicating that teacher professional learning in TRGs is a complex process facilitated or hindered by various factors. This chapter identifies the factors at four levels—cultural, institutional, group, and individual—that intertwine to influence teachers’ professional learning in TRGs to offer some possible explanations for the complexities of the effectiveness of TRG development and teachers’ learning experiences within each TRG. Specifically, cultural roots and institutional features explain the common foundations impacting the development of TRGs. Meanwhile, each TRG’s functioning and effectiveness for teacher professional learning at the micro level is shaped by the factors at the individual and group levels. 7.1  Influence of the Chinese Traditional Cultures The function of TRGs and teachers’ engagement in professional learning activities in the school can hardly be separated from their cultural and contextual characteristics. Three cultural factors were decisive in developing TRGs and teachers’ professional learning therein. 7.1.1  Valuing a Collaborative and Critical Working Ethos

In Western cultures, the classroom teaching process is highly personalised—even though collaboration has been proven conducive to teacher professional development (Hargreaves, 1994)—and teacher professional learning and development is considered as an individual matter (Opfer & Pedder, 2011). The isolation of teaching and teachers in “egg-crate structures” (Lortie, 2002) protects teachers’ privacy and professional autonomy; however, it prevents teachers from communicating and collaborating. In China, the culture of collectivism is pervasive (Hofstede et al., 2010). Collaboration has long been a part of the educational ethos in China. The teachers in the school generally recognised the value of collaboration and were used to joining collective activities (Bush & Qiang, 2000; Lam & Lidstone, 2007; Yin, 2013). This collaborative spirit is deeply rooted in teachers’ beliefs and minds; as the old Chinese saying DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583-7

98  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs goes, “two heads are better than one” (sange choupijiang, dingge zhugeliang). The study found teachers believed in the power of teamwork. Director Pan stated that “collective efforts were necessary for some work. The power of an individual was limited”, a sentiment shared by MA-Gu: Fighting alone and teaching on one’s own (danda dudou) definitely does not work. It is impossible. It is tiring for an individual teacher to do all the work. If we do not have a team, the outlook of individual professional development should be worrying. Teachers believed collaboration within TRGs strengthened them and saw working with colleagues as a win-win strategy. However, their actual collaboration might be influenced by other factors, which will be discussed later. Moreover, Chinese teachers in general, not just those at Yangshan, seem to ­accept straightforward criticism from their peers or experts in TRG activities (Ryan et al., 2009). Peer- and self-critiques have a long tradition in China. Confucian ­culture considers being urgent and critical to aid another’s improvement to be the mark of a true friend. Social movements in the new China also encouraged people to be critical of others and themselves. According to communism-oriented ideology, straightforward criticism can change one’s attitudes, cultivate learning, and promote social values. Criticising others is found in teacher professional ­development and early childhood education. In their renowned book, Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States, Tobin et al. (2009) described a “story-telling king” activity in a kindergarten in Shanghai—in which children gave critical feedback to a classmate who had just shared a story with them—and revealed that criticism “does not carry as harsh a feel in China as it does in the US, Japan, and many other cultures” (p. 68). With the acceptance and encouragement of critiques, teachers questioned, critiqued, and even developed solutions for other teachers at post-lesson conferences. In sum, valuing constructive instructional advice from colleagues and e­ xperts is what teachers are supposed and expected to do in their TRG, which greatly facilitates Chinese teachers’ mutual learning in the school-based working environment. 7.1.2  Closely Knitted Personal and Professional Relationships

While Western educators value individualism and independence, Chinese teachers stress tight rather than loose connections among colleagues. There is no clearcut boundary between Chinese teachers’ work and their personal life. To Chinese people, it is unacceptable that business is business (Sun, 2004). In the workplace, colleagueship is about both professional and personal relationships, with the latter extending into the former to maintain teachers’ pleasant collaboration. Schools, as danweis, are characterised by tight government control (Walker & Qian, 2012). In the danwei approach, Yangshan, as an organisation, was expected to be actively involved in many aspects of its teaching staff’s personal lives, including

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 99 celebrating traditional Chinese holidays and festivals, sending gifts to teachers’ children on Children’s Day, visiting ill staff members, organising sports meetings to enrich teachers’ life in the school and to strengthen them through physical exercise, and organising vacations to allow teachers to recuperate from their work. In this way, teachers’ sense of belonging to the school was fostered, and strong emotional bonds formed among colleagues in the school. This culture of fostering strong emotional ties is prevalent in the school and its TRGs. The collaborations between colleagues in their designated TRGs reveal the importance of interpersonal relationships in mutual professional learning. As mentioned earlier, two or three LPG teachers would share a single office in which they prepared lessons, marked students’ assignments, discussed classroom teaching issues, and reviewed students’ behaviours; at the same time, they also chatted over cups of tea or coffee, talked about their plans for summer break, and updated each other on personal matters. Their communication extended beyond their office in the school. For example, teachers would go to the staff canteen for lunch daily at around 11:45 a.m., and teachers teaching the same subject—sometimes mixed with teachers teaching the same grade—commonly shared a long table for lunch. During lunch, they would talk about the day’s happenings, their kids, the pricing of housing, or even films they had watched recently. Thus, private and public spaces were intertwined in the school, and teachers socialised as they worked. Teachers had their personal likes and dislikes when making friends, as in any other social interaction. As such, when involved in professional relationships in the school, teachers’ personal relationships mattered. Some teachers reported that they developed good personal relationships with their colleagues (e.g., CH-Huang, ­SS-Jin, EN-Yi, MA-Lin); they could talk about hobbies, share concerns from their personal life, or even develop loving relationships leading to marriage. Colleagues in TRGs not only established working relationships but they were also friends outside of work. More important, their personal relationships influenced teachers’ mutual support and trust during work. As the district teaching researcher Ying, in charge of English teaching, remarked, The relationships beyond work are quite important. If you maintain good and harmonious relationships [with colleagues] beyond work, then that will transfer to work. Just like our office (in the DTRO), we have good relationships beyond work. If I ever encounter any difficulties at work, they would come to help me if I wished. They would give their hands sincerely rather than artificially. Suggestions and solutions would come up, as two heads are better than one. In the end, the problem would be solved. This is not related to work, to some extent. It is because of our personal relationships that they would like to help me get the work done. They don’t want me to be bothered by work any longer. This integration of personal and professional relationships to some extent prevented collaborations from being contrived and superficial. With positive personal

100  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs relationships, teachers were likely to establish sincere mutual trust among their colleagues and support colleagues, which greatly facilitated teachers’ in-depth interactions. For example, the close personal relationships among CH-TRG teachers reinforced their professional relationships and strengthened trust and rapport among colleagues. As stated by the head, “Generally, Chinese language teachers are all in good relationships. So much work can be solved easily, no matter public affairs or personal affairs” (CH-Huang). Integrating personal and professional aspects of collegial relationships created interdependent, inclusive, and close bonds among teachers, enabling them to collaborate beyond their organisational obligations. This offers an alternative explanation of why the teachers shared their teaching resources and wholeheartedly supported their colleagues’ efforts at improving their teaching. However, integrating personal and professional relationships might be challenging for some tasks. For example, the head of SC-TRG reported it was difficult to maintain personal relationships with peers in her group, because they had few “common hobbies”; “I personally do not have any hobbies. I am not interested in their hobbies either …. As such, I did not communicate with my team members a lot [about our personal lives]” (SC-Xiao). As in the case of MA-TRG, teachers’ attitudes towards their peers tended to be negative, so that they reserved their knowledge rather than share it. Teachers would not provide sincere, active support, nor seek assistance from teachers with whom they had personal conflicts; at best, they maintained a superficially harmonious interpersonal relationship. Unless the personal conflicts could be resolved, it was difficult to form in-depth collaborations and establish rapport. In Chinese culture, maintaining personal and professional relationships is important. Schoolbased teacher professional learning is inseparable from the personal aspects of colleagueship. 7.1.3  Deference to Power

In China’s hierarchical educational administration system, lower educational authorities must comply with the policies and requirements of higher-level authorities (Moyles & Liu, 1998). In this study, teaching researchers, who worked at the district or municipal level, possessed significant professional authority. Within the school, school leaders were perceived as authorities responsible for teacher performance evaluation and career promotion and were deemed superior to teachers. Teachers were differentiated by their professional ranks, honourary titles, positions, and teaching experiences within each TRG. These rankings were somewhat related to teacher professional competency in that they indicated the different stages of teachers’ teaching careers. The hierarchy among teachers revealed hidden, unequal collegial relationships in TRGs, which resulted in teachers showing strong respect for their leaders due to the combination of professional and positional authority (Zhang et al., 2022). In general, teachers felt comfortable with the unequal relationships and perceived themselves as natural followers of their leaders. When asked about action

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 101 research projects and shared learning goals in TRGs, they accepted that they should follow the top-down instructions of school and group leaders. [Regarding the school research theme,] I don’t have any ideas. Really, I personally don’t have any …. We just work hard (sigan) … towards the teaching research group [tasks] … I did not think too much about the projects neither. Usually [the projects] come from the school level, then to the group, and we just follow it. (EN-Ming) It is the group leaders who determine the direction [for us to learn from]. They are under more pressure. We mainly follow [them] and do the tasks assigned to us. All we need is to have some specific tasks to do. (CH-Lei) Teachers without leadership positions assumed that school and TRG leaders, and especially TRG heads, would be the people who made group decisions. Teachers rarely questioned or challenged their decisions, even though they sometimes did not understand how to implement them in their classroom teaching practices. Their obedience to their leaders was seen as quite natural, and considered conformity to lawful authority (Bush & Qiang, 2000; Wong, 2010). Their considerations of their leaders’ professional expertise, not just compliance with administrative directives, also help to explain their conformity to the authorities. First, teachers believed in the professional judgement of leaders who were superior to them. They preferred to be followers, believing their school or group leaders were teaching experts and persons worth learning from. In addition, all teachers recognised the professional competency of TRG heads. In short, leaders, especially TRG heads’ past or present outstanding teaching performance persuaded teachers to believe in and accept their professional judgement. Having both a leadership position and professional expertise is common in most cases in Chinese schools (Ng, 2002). Second, teachers generally believe that those in leadership positions have more access to professional resources, meaning their educational ideas and professional stances are more advanced than those of teachers on the ground floor. Therefore, it is natural for teachers to accept unequal working relationships in contexts where an expertise difference is acknowledged. The distance from power informs the submission of less-powerful teachers to their superiors and their official mandates (Hofstede et al., 2010) and may explain why teachers in the study so readily accepted their superiors’ decisions or directions regarding common work goals. Teachers’ conformity made it easier for school leaders to build common goals for them to pursue but may have limited their innovations and creativity. In sum, teachers accepted the unequal relationships between subordinates and superiors and between junior and senior teachers. Challenges to, conflicts with, and confrontations against authority were seldom found among teachers at Yangshan. Cultural characteristics influenced teachers’ professional autonomy.

102  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 7.2  Institutional Design and School Management 7.2.1  A Strong Emphasis on Teacher Professional Learning

There is a strong emphasis on teacher professional learning at the school and education system levels. The teacher professional learning initiatives in Shanghai’s education system were introduced in Chapter 4. As a municipal professional development school, Yangshan prioritised fostering teacher professional growth and paid considerable attention to developing school strategies to promote teacher professional learning. The school designed a planned and coherent system to promote teacher professional learning and promoted many learning activities—e.g., action research projects, school-based training programmes, mentoring schemes, and open lessons—in the school. The school invested considerable time and financial resources in teacher professional learning, and teachers recognised the school’s efforts at designing and promoting school-based learning activities (e.g., MA-Lin, CH-Chen, MA-Gu). As one teacher claimed, “I have to boast about our school-based teacher training system. Our school did put a lot of effort into that. They (school leaders) are trying to find desired experts and training programmes that fit our practical situations” (MA-Lin). In addition to the designed systems and conditions in the school, individual teachers were encouraged to attend diploma programmes or training courses to update their professional qualifications and address individual professional interests. Not only has Yangshan focused on teacher professional learning but educational authorities at different levels have also provided rich learning opportunities for teachers, as mentioned earlier in previous chapters. A supportive external environment positively influences teachers’ attitudes and beliefs towards professional learning (Opfer et al., 2011). Not one interviewee denied the importance of professional learning; teachers considered professional learning and continuous development necessary in their teaching career (e.g., EN-Ming, EN-Wang). This strong emphasis on teacher professional learning has fostered in teachers a ready-to-learn mindset and triggered their intrinsic professional pursuit of “virtuosity” (Paine, 1990). Especially in TRGs—where they were presented with ample learning activities to interact with colleagues—most teachers did not see the designated TRG activities and duties as a burden in their professional development. 7.2.2  The Advocacy of Collective Efforts

Interrelated with teachers’ beliefs in collectivist values, teamwork among subject teachers was stressed to build collaboration and leverage the school’s human resources in the schools. That being said, the collective efforts among teachers in TRGs were highly valued in the school, and various school policies promoted teacher collaboration—e.g., arranging fixed times and venues for collective research tasks. Principal Shi highlighted that all TRG members were organised into research teams to make collective inquiries into teaching. Vice-Principal Guo strongly agreed with the collaborative approach to school improvement and claimed that

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 103 “without the emphasis on the collaboration, the school could not achieve such good performance”. The school leaders’ opinions indicated the importance of TRGs as a way of grouping teachers in the school and informed how they conceived the roles of TRGs in facilitating teacher professional learning. Thus, TRGs were important for teachers to discuss and perform collective tasks at Yangshan. Team honours or awards were set up at the district and school levels to promote teachers’ collaboration within TRGs and build their collective responsibility, including Excellent TRG and Exemplary TRG—district-level honorary titles given to TRGs showing outstanding performance in organising TRG activities. According to the district-level honours’ evaluation criteria, team collaboration was one of the five key dimensions. The other four dimensions were “teaching research achievements, subject teaching performance, featured innovation, and documentation”. The Excellent LPG was a school-level honour given to LPGs that had made remarkable progress in student academic performance and the organisation of LPG activities. In addition, teachers in LPGs were rewarded financially based on their students’ academic performances in standardised examinations organised by the DEB. If students from the same grade all pass the examinations, the whole LPG would receive some rewards. If students in your class passed the examinations, but students in other classes taught by other teachers did not, you cannot receive the rewards neither. (EN-Qian) When all students reach a pass rate set by the school, subject teachers in the same LPG are rewarded collectively. LPG teachers are rewarded much more if their students’ average scores rank in the top five or ten compared to other district schools. However, individual teachers who achieve instructional excellence and good examination results are not rewarded individually. These policies reflect the prioritisation of the group over the individual and are intended to foster teacher collaboration and “avoid competition among teachers” (Director Pan). Collective responsibility rather than individual competitiveness was stressed in the school. Moreover, the school advocated teachers’ reciprocal critique of peers’ work and stipulated in the school regulations governing TRG work that teachers should voice constructive opinions and demonstrate collaboration and participation to create a challenging, discursive, and mutually supportive learning climate. The policy reflected what was encouraged and desired when teachers participated in TRG activities; specifically, a supportive colleague was expected to be frank with and critical of their peers. In this environment, teachers considered frank exchange a symbol of in-depth collaboration. They commented on TRG activities in other schools, claiming their low quality and poor organisations were due to a lack of reciprocal critique (e.g., EN-Zhu, CH-Huang). CH-Huang, e.g., attended what she considered a poorly delivered Chinese language lesson at the commissioned school and was surprised when, at the post-lesson conference, that school’s leaders and the instructor’s

104  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs colleagues spoke highly of the lesson, without offering any critique. She commented that this “lack of critical comments” differed greatly from the post-lesson discussions at Yangshan. English teachers who had observed an open lesson at that commissioned school expressed similar concerns, with EN-Qian going so far as to say she was lucky that she was not working at that school, as she would not learn much from that kind of peer discussion. This indicates Yangshan teachers expected honest and critical peer feedback. 7.2.3 The Systematic Design and Alignment of Work, Learning, and Promotion

TRGs’ organisational arrangement and activities are not just an independent system for teacher professional learning; rather, they are closely linked to the teacher performance evaluation and career ladder systems (including the teacher professional title and honour systems) to motivate teachers’ participation in TRG activities. Work, learning, and promotion are highly integrated. First, teachers’ participation in TRG activities—including their attendance, ­engagement, and outputs (e.g., documents, materials) produced—is a part of teachers’ performance evaluation in the school and directly linked to their bonuses and rewards. At the end of each semester, teachers at Yangshan had to submit “five pieces of work” (wugeyi) to the TAO—copies of eight LPG meeting records, a personal lesson observation notebook covering at least eight lessons, self-made examination papers and analyses of consequential examination results, an elaborated open lesson plan (or a written reflective sharing, depending on the task the teacher had undertaken that semester), and a lesson instruction case, including teaching practice and reflection. Although not all pieces were related to teachers’ participation in TRG activities, some—e.g., lesson observation notebooks, open lesson plans/written reflections, and teaching cases—were considered relevant to their teaching research activity efforts and performances. Taking the submission of lesson observation notebooks as an example, Director Pan explained the evaluation was a way to promote teacher professional learning: We require teachers to submit lesson observation notes. Lesson observation per se is a learning process …. Sometimes we observed a lesson, you may find some problems, but the ideas or feelings would lapse if you did not take notes. Therefore, lesson observation notes are records of how you observe others’ lessons …. With the notes, it also helps teachers comment lessons after observation. Administrative “nudging” creates some pressure for teachers to participate in TRG activities but is often necessary when teachers’ self-impetus for improvement is not great (Guskey, 2002). In one teacher’s words, “If there are no such tasks on our head, we may not consciously take the initiative to learn more. No push, no motivation” (CH-Lei). Thus, it permits and requires teachers to publicise their own practices and take collective responsibility for others’ work.

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 105 Second, the close link between teachers’ experiences of attending TRG activities and requirements for teacher career promotion enhances the effectiveness of these activities for teacher professional learning and development. In this study, teacher professional learning activities were not merely for completing school tasks. ­Instead, they created abundant learning opportunities for teachers to attain professional development and career progression. For teachers to move up their career ladder, they had to improve their professional profile, fulfil some requirements for professional title advancement, and gain teacher honour awards. For example, teachers in the district seeking promotion to first grade were expected to satisfy two criteria closely related to teachers’ TRG experience: (1) conduct two school- or higher-level open lessons and submit detailed lesson plans and lesson evaluations and (2) submit a subject-related research paper published or shared publicly at the school level or higher. The criteria were important to demonstrate teachers’ instructional skills and research capacity. Most teachers seeking career advancement must engage in teaching research activities and produce some competitive outputs (e.g., winning awards in open lessons, publication of research papers, or teaching cases). TRG activities’ link to teacher professional career promotion enhanced teachers’ motivation to participate actively. Thus, teaching research work, teacher performance evaluation, and teacher career development are directed to teacher professional learning and are all important means of motivating teachers to learn continuously. Moreover, they are interrelated to ensure teachers’ participation in learning activities. The integration and alignment of the three systems guarantee teachers’ active participation in TRG activities and the pursuit of teaching excellence. Generally, teachers are supported with designed school-based learning activities through TRGs, and their performance is evaluated accordingly and linked to bonuses and progression in the career ladder. The close integration of work duties and mutual learning opportunities made teachers’ interaction out of obligation, as they were collectively responsible for each other’s professional development. Teachers in TRGs had to perform their work duties as a form of mutual learning, the evaluation of which was directly linked to their rewards and bonuses. 7.2.4  Professional Support from the Teaching Research System

As we have noted, TRGs operate in a network of teaching research systems. In District Z, teachers must participate in district teaching research activities—some every two weeks, others once per month. For every subject, half a day from the weekly teaching schedule was scheduled for district teaching research activities. Chinese language teachers were all free from teaching on Thursday afternoons, while Mathematics and English teachers were scheduled to participate in district teaching research activities on Wednesday afternoons. District-level subject teaching researchers organised the activities; all teaching researchers interviewed in this study were senior teachers in charge of activities for the three subjects. For each main subject, there were two to three full-time teaching researchers in charge of subject teaching affairs in different grades in District Z.

106  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs Based on the interviews, teachers considered teaching researchers to have extremely good subject knowledge. They had good reputations as professional authorities in subject teaching because they had updated their educational thoughts and methods and knew how to practise them in classrooms (e.g., EN-Liang, ­EN-Hong, CH-Zhang, MA-Gu). As MA-Gu stated, The teaching competency of teaching researchers is definitely greater than ours. Otherwise, how can they lead us? Their educational thoughts are more advanced than ours. They transfer some [updated] information and thoughts to us through organised teaching research activities. Teaching researchers were recognised as cosmopolites with unique and influential positions in the teaching research system. For the Chinese language TRG, seeking professional support from teaching researchers ensured the successful implementation of their action research projects. By contrast, the lack of sufficient and specific support from teaching researchers limited productive learning in both EN-TRG and MA-TRG. This could be explained by the fact that regular district teaching research activities targeted the development of teachers within the whole district; teaching researchers did not pay special attention to teachers from a single school or a single TRG when they organised the district teaching research activities. The teaching researchers interviewed stressed that they cared about all district teachers’ professional learning and development. District Z had around 40 junior secondary schools. As each district teaching researcher cared for all teachers teaching a given subject in one or two specific grades, it was unlikely they could provide active support to a single teacher or specific group of teachers (Teaching Researchers Xu, Zhou, and Ying). Moreover, it is important to note that teaching researchers “had no say in how TRGs functioned in schools” and that their operation “totally depends on their school principal”, who can determine the frequency, timetable, and specific modes of activities (Teaching Researcher Ying). The design and organisation of TRG activities were separate from teaching researchers’ work duties. Their professional support to teachers was for the districtwide development of teachers rather than individuals or TRGs, despite their great professional influence. However, they acknowledged that they could visit schools and support their teachers if invited (Teaching Researcher Zhou). In sum, teaching researchers were “knowledgeable others” who maintained stable connections with subject teachers. How they could be approached and their professional expertise utilised were crucial to teachers’ learning at the TRG level. 7.3  Group Dynamics in TRGs 7.3.1  Teacher Leadership Practices

The leadership of TRG heads greatly influenced the effectiveness of TRGs and their norms of collegiality. The study showed that the heads of TRGs acted mainly as professional leaders. All were selected based on their excellent teaching performance,

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 107 significant teaching experience, and frequent interactions with other teachers. By putting them into formal leadership positions or assigning them more obligations, the school created role models from which other teachers could learn. Other teachers (e.g., SC-Ma) addressed the necessity of having a role model to follow to improve teaching: If everyone [in a TRG] is a radish, how could we transform ourselves into ginseng (a valuable Chinese herb that looks like a radish)? We will never get the chance. We need a ginseng to tell us how they became a ginseng from a radish. Then we know how to head there. Teacher leaders with outstanding performance records could share real, exemplary experiences with their peers to help them to refine their teaching practices. Teachers with similar professional competency working together were referred to as “radish stewed with radish” (luobo hui luobo), meaning none added anything to the others, and it was highly unlikely the group would make much progress (VicePrincipal Guo, EN-Zhu). However, the leadership capacities, strategies, and styles of each TRG head differ, which may determine the culture of a community in a high power distance society (Zheng et al., 2021). For the Chinese language TRG, a more distributed leadership was found as the other experienced teachers became involved in the TRG process as informal leaders. For example, CH-Huang acknowledged the active support from some group members in fulfilling school requirements and would ask experienced teachers for suggestions. There are several active experienced teachers in our group. They will express their ideas. Like Teacher Chen, she is always passionate about teaching. She is always willing to provide some guidance and suggestions to our group. The experienced teachers she referred to were backbone teachers in CH-TRG, actively contributing their suggestions and ideas to the group. Other teachers agreed the TRG head gave teachers’ views “comprehensive consideration” (CH-Hu) and that TRG members were encouraged to have joint discussions to find ways to fulfil tasks collectively (CH-Feng). In EN-TRG, brainstorming and bouncing ideas off each other was difficult, leading to their TRG head’s dominant role. EN-Zhu missed the days when she could discuss things with the former TAO director, a senior English teacher who had transferred to another school after being promoted. In the past, we had an English teacher who was the former director of TAO. She was also very competent in English teaching. At least I feel not alone with her. We can dialogue with each other. When she was here, we had a very good collaboration. We would discuss with each other, like brainstorming. Then we learned how to implement the tasks in our group and communicate with teachers. (EN-Zhu)

108  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs Discussions with professional partners greatly helped TRG heads translate the tasks collectively. When the former director left the school, EN-Zhu felt alone and had to rely on herself to promote teacher professional learning in EN-TRG due to a lack of professional partners within the group with whom she could consult and get advice. Other experienced teachers seemed less active in contributing their suggestions and ideas to the whole group and confirmed there was a large gap between the level of subject expertise and EN-Zhu’s. As such, they perceived themselves as followers, learning from EN-Zhu (EN-Liang). In MA-TRG, the school principal was mainly relied on in group decisions, as suggested earlier. However, the principal’s busy schedule and his long (ten-year) absence from frontline Mathematics teaching prevented him from participating in group activities regularly or making useful Mathematics teaching suggestions (MA-Lin, MA-Xue). First, he is not always participating in our group activities as he is very busy. Second, it’s a pity that the school principal does not teach Mathematics at the frontline anymore. He cannot grasp the changes of students as deeply [as frontline teachers]. His feelings stayed stagnant at the time when he taught Mathematics …. If you don’t teach, you won’t have new suggestions for dealing with the teaching materials, to solve the critical and difficult points. The suggestions may be fit for the students in the past, not necessarily fit for the current students. (MA-Xue) Lacking updated frontline teaching experiences weakened the principal’s disciplinary support for group members. Moreover, other experienced teachers were not very involved in supporting the TRG head and did not contribute much to the group. Several group members expressed clearly that he was unsatisfied with the group’s head and should be responsible for the Mathematics TRG’s weak performance. For example, MA-Song reflected, We maintain our harmony on the surface. I know how many times she has said some bad things about me. I won’t get angry with her on the surface. I won’t do that. Both of us know that well (xinzhi duming). (MA-Song) The weak social bonds and interpersonal conflicts led to mistrust among Mathematics colleagues. As the teacher said, “If I conduct an open lesson, I don’t expect the head to come to support me. She won’t help me sincerely anyway” (MA-Song). 7.3.2  Teachers’ Collaborative Cultures

Related to teacher leadership in TRGs, building a culture of trust and fostering genuine collaboration among colleagues was crucial to the well due to the designated nature of TRGs. This study shows that teachers in all three TRGs generally formed

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 109 a culture of sharing instead of observing the norms of privacy, autonomy, and noninterference developed in schools in other systems (Levine & Marcus, 2010). Chinese language teachers showed a strong sense of unity and characterised their collegial environment as “relaxed, easy and harmonious”, with teachers showing great care for one another (e.g., CH-Huang, CH-Qi, CH-Chen, CH-Lei). They felt that they could get strong emotional support from other group members. As one teacher remarked, We have mutual care and support among colleagues. If anyone has any difficulties (problems) with her family, our colleagues will show understanding and sympathy. We would help teachers in need. So, I think our group climate is good overall. (CH-Zhao) Given harmonious social bonding, Chinese language teachers showed great commitment to the TRG and were likely to generate genuine collegiality. Similarly, despite the dominant role of the TRG head, English teachers established strong emotional ties among group members. Sometimes, individual teachers voluntarily prepared snacks, fruits, or cakes and shared them with colleagues during TRG activities, which helped to create an easy and relaxed climate for discussion. Their good social bonds led them to be collaborative and supportive. Both groups of teachers showed strong social bonds, which helped to establish mutual trust for their collaborative learning within TRGs. By contrast, the emotional ties among Mathematics colleagues were relatively weaker. Teachers were well aware of their isolated relationships and weak social bonds and commented on them, explicitly or implicitly. As MA-Song claimed, “[The group climate of] our group is loose. We are the weakest among the three TRGs”. Although some Mathematics teachers maintained harmonious relationships on the surface, there were severe interpersonal conflicts among some teachers, which resulted in their mistrust of and even resentment toward their colleagues. The interpersonal conflicts and misunderstandings among teachers hampered teachers’ collaboration and the effective functioning of the TRG. Although conflicts are not necessarily negative, as they can stretch peoples’ ideas and enhance collaboration (Vangrieken et al., 2017), conflicts and disagreements are more valuable when they occur in a safe and open environment full of trust. In sum, teachers were loath to engage in collaborative, in-depth collegial relationships or participate actively in the mutual learning process. Consequently, they marginalised themselves, saw little benefit to their professional growth, and limited their contributions to their peers’ professional development. However, it was difficult for every group member to form intimate and close collegial relationships, as teachers have diverse personalities, communication styles, and professional pursuits. As Vice-Principal Guo stated, To be close and intimate [among all colleagues] is an ideal [hard to realise]. Even family members like siblings may fight with each other, not to mention

110  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs colleagues. So, it is normal to have conflicts among colleagues. But if teachers cannot form intimate relationships, like a family, then seeking common points while reserving the differences (qiutong cunyi) might be a good solution. (Vice-Principal Guo) Conflicts may limit trust, as the case of MA-TRG suggests. Trust is vulnerable to many factors and can dissipate quickly when colleagues misunderstand each other. Collaboration must be built on relational trust to attain its greatest strengths. 7.3.3  Group Tradition

Group tradition was important in establishing cultures and norms in the TRGs, particularly EN-TRG. Nearly all teachers mentioned their former TRG head’s efforts and that their group climate had been formed before EN-Zhu joined the school (e.g., EN-Yi, EN-Zhu, EN-Du, EN-Hong, EN-Wang, EN-Ming). As one English teacher, EN-Yi, commented, I think we have a good tradition. The climate of our group is almost the same as before when Liu was here. In addition, we do not have many changes in terms of our group members, except the coming of some new teachers. So, it is like a tradition [for every of us]. English teachers continued that tradition of being open, critical, and collaborative in TRG activities, even though the former TRG head had left the school. ­EN-Zhu also expressed being “shocked” by the group’s critical, honest, and indepth climate when she joined the school several years earlier. When I first attended the TRG activity, the meeting was chaired by Liu. Her style was more aggressive than mine. She was strict and did not take care of “face”. Generally, we were used to saying something positive and then making suggestions that sometimes were not that straightforward. She was not. She would direct you to [skip the positive comments and] then make suggestions. Because of that tradition, English teachers were unafraid to ask questions and even “criticised” their colleagues. They did not take the challenges raised by their peers as personal criticism. Similarly, teachers in CH-TRG also acknowledged the efforts of their former TRG head, Vice-Director Li, who played an important role in establishing a trusting and open atmosphere for sharing within the group; “Both heads are very considerate. They try to create easy and less-pressuring for us” (CH-Hu). ViceDirector Li was still a member of the TRG, and its good group climate generally remained, while MA-TRG had no big difference as MA-Xue had been the head for almost ten years. The group tradition served as the basis for teachers to work together and took time, patience, and commitment to establish. Teachers were used to and shaped by

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 111 the norms of collegiality in their TRGs. It was not difficult to see that the traditions of the TRGs were closely related to the leadership of their former TRG heads. 7.4  Individual Teachers’ Characteristics A TRG comprises individual teachers from different backgrounds, with different professional pursuits and personalities, and at different career stages. Inevitably, teachers’ characteristics, such as their learning motivation and career stage, influence their participation in TRG activities and professional interactions with colleagues. 7.4.1  Teachers’ Motivation Towards Learning

Stoll et al. (2006) suggested that attending to teachers’ priorities and lives is necessary when considering any form of teacher professional learning, as teachers’ will and professional pursuit of teaching improvement are important factors in their participation in TRG practices. At Yangshan, most teachers—novice or experienced—always felt a sense of inadequacy and a need for further improvement due to the high work demand placed on their shoulders. Moreover, seeking instructional excellence is a common wish for almost every teacher. Their strong motivation for learning has facilitated their participation in professional activities actively. As said in Chapter 4, many teachers at Yangshan started teaching with qualifications from specialised schools or junior colleges. They admitted their “poor foundation” in subject teaching and that they had to rely on continuous learning to develop themselves and improve their teaching competency (e.g., EN-Ming) and attended diploma courses to upgrade their professional qualifications. Although they had been equipped with basic subject knowledge and teaching skills, they found that they needed to improve themselves continuously, largely due to insufficient professional training in the past and the high demands placed on teachers due to the development of society. For instance, teachers felt that they lacked the capacity to conduct research projects in their classrooms. On the other hand, doing research was a newly-developed requirement for every teacher to promote their teaching career, but teachers did not receive training about teacher research in their teacher education programme (EN-Zhu, CH-Zhang, Vice-Director Li). This sense of inadequacy is an important consideration driving Chinese teachers to pursue continuous career advancement, as other researchers have observed (e.g., Ng & Chow, 1999). In addition, teachers highlighted their intrinsic motivation for instructional ­excellence, believing that “every teacher would like to teach better and be a better teacher from the bottom of the heart” (Vice-Principal Guo). The following quote from E ­ N-Tao is illustrative: “I want to be a better teacher. No matter in classroom instruction or [moral] education, I want to upgrade to a higher level”. MA-Fu e­ xplicitly expressed that teachers should be learners first, to promote student learning. As a teacher, we must stick to learning. If you want your students like learning, first, you should be a teacher who likes learning. The changes in society require us

112  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs to pay more attention to learning about teaching methods, and other skills relevant to teaching to promote student learning and achieve self-realisation. He further explained his understanding of “self-realisation”, saying, “Sometimes we are growing with students. I feel many thoughts and teaching methods are more developed than previously. I can see myself improving in the process. It is a kind of realisation of my own value” (MA-Fu). In his eyes, the purpose of learning goes far beyond teaching itself and includes realising one’s value—also called being “inner-directed” (Lee, 1996). This sort of self-motivation kept teachers enthusiastic inquiring after “best” teaching practices—for instance, lesson polishing. Teachers believed that they could continually make their teaching better through their efforts. As EN-Hong recounted, Improving a good lesson is endless. We will never say a lesson has already been perfect …. The class is not fixed. We will teach two classes differently, even with the same lesson plan, because the students are different. When you prepare a “perfect” lesson plan, you may find many problems when trying it out in the classroom. Next, you make revisions and try the lesson plan out again. You still will find problems. Again and again, we will learn and grow in the process. 7.4.2  Teachers’ Career Development Needs

Although teachers were arranged to work together, some were likely to stay passive and collaborate superficially by following assigned tasks because they had little desire or personal will to learn. Interrelated to the personal learning motivation factor, some teachers could likely lose their professional drive in their teaching career, especially in the middle or late stages of their careers. TRG heads reported younger teachers at an earlier career stage were usually more active in TRGs as they were willing to participate in TRG activities and take opportunities to showcase their efforts in teaching improvement (CH-Huang). The CH-TRG teachers attributed their easy and united atmosphere to their young peers’ generous and easy-going personalities. As remarked by CH-Huang, The biggest advantage in our TRG is that we have young teachers. They don’t haggle over every nuance (jijiao). They do not mind a lot about losses (chikui) …. Our harmonious relationships also depend on the personalities of teachers. Some experienced teachers, for example, Chen, she was passionate about teaching. She is ready to make suggestions. According to CH-Huang’s accounts, the young teachers in CH-TRG generally did not mind doing more assigned work and taking on more duties, such as paying visits to support the commissioned school. In addition, the subsidy they earned by supporting the commissioned school was spent collectively to purchase food and share it among group members in TRG activities rather than treating it as

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 113 additional personal income. In addition, the experienced teachers in CH-TRG were friendly and approachable, so they maintained an open and collaborative spirit within the TRG. However, experienced teachers approaching retirement who faced fatigue and burning out were a tough issue for TRG heads and the school management team to tackle. As Director Pan acknowledged, “if those old teachers are not self-­motived, it is difficult for anyone to push him/her to learn from others”. All heads of TRGs acknowledged the difficulty in managing experienced teachers who lacked a passion for teaching. The English and Mathematics TRGs had more experienced teachers. For those teachers, perhaps they are tired of teaching. They do not necessary want to learn more and teach better. (EN-Zhu) For those experienced teachers, it is difficult to change their ideas. (MA-Xue) In TRG activities, if those low-motivated and experienced teachers were reluctant or felt it unnecessary to conduct trial lessons and avoided providing active support to their colleagues. In other words, if a late-career-stage teacher with limited professional teaching pursuits did not seek active assistance from their colleagues, those colleagues would not actively support them. However, when teachers wanted to learn from others, they were more approachable, active, and collaborative, which may have generated in-depth collaboration with colleagues. 7.5  Summary This chapter has shown how the interplay of the factors at these four levels offers some possible explanations for the complexities of how TRGs can work to facilitate and sometimes impede teachers’ continuous learning. It has been argued that cultural and institutional factors played an important role in shaping TRGs’ effectiveness for teacher professional learning. Four cultural factors—a collaborative and critical working ethos, the culture of closely knitted personal and professional relationships, and the culture of deference to power—played important roles in shaping TRGs as mechanisms for fostering teacher professional learning. In addition, the institutional design—a strong emphasis on teacher professional learning, the advocacy of collective efforts, the systematic design and alignment of work, learning, and promotion, and the professional support from the teaching research system—ensured teachers learned from participating in teaching research activities. Within the same school structure, group-level (e.g., teacher leadership practices, teachers’ collaborative cultures, and group traditions) and individual-level factors (teachers’ motivations for learning, and personal career development needs) shaped the TRGs’ actual functioning.

114  Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs References Bush, T., & Qiang, H. (2000). Leadership and culture in Chinese education. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 20(2), 58–67. Guskey, T. R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3), 381–391. Hargreaves, A. (1994). Changing teachers, changing times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern age. Cassell. Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and organisations: Software of the mind (3rd ed.). McGaw-Hill. Lam, C. C., & Lidstone, J. (2007). Teachers’ cultural differences: Case studies of geography teachers in Brisbane, Changchun and Hong Kong. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(2), 178–193. Lee, W. O. (1996). The cultural context for Chinese learners: Conceptions of learning in the Confucian tradition. In D. A. Watkins & J. B. Biggs (Eds.), The Chinese learners: Cultural, psychological and contextual influences (pp. 25–41). Comparative Education Research Centre. Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 389–398. Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (2nd ed.). The University of ­Chicago Press. Moyles, J., & Liu, H. (1998). Kindergarten education in China: Reflections on a qualitative comparison of management processes. Compare: A Journal of Comparative Education, 28(2), 155–169. Ng, H. M. (2002). Xianggang yu dalu jiaoshi wenhua chayi yanjiu [Research on differences of teacher culture between Hong Kong and Mainland China]. Journal of East China Normal University (Educational Sciences), 20(1), 71–82. Ng, H. M., & Chow, P. Y. (1999). School-based teacher development in Guangzhou, China. International Studies in Educational Administration, 27(2), 32–42. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). The lost promise of teacher professional development in England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 3–24. Opfer, V. D., Pedder, D. J., & Lavicza, Z. (2011). The influence of school orientation to learning on teachers’ professional learning change. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 22(2), 193–214. Paine, L. (1990). The teacher as virtuoso: A Chinese model for teaching. The Teachers College Record, 92(1), 49–81. Ryan, J., Kang, C., Mitchell, I., & Erickson, G. (2009). China’s basic education reform: An account of an international collaborative research and development project. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 29(4), 427–441. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Sun, L. (2004). Zhongguo wenhua de shenceng jiegou [The deep structure of Chinese culture]. Guangxi Normal University Press. Tobin, J., Hsueh, Y., & Karasawa, M. (2009). Preschool in three cultures revisited: China, Japan, and the United States. University of Chicago Press. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59.

Factors Impacting Teacher Professional Learning in TRGs 115 Walker, A., & Qian, H. (2012). Successful school leadership in China. In C. Day (Ed.), The Routledge international handbook of teacher and school development (pp. 446–457). Routledge. Wong, J. L. N. (2010). Searching for good practice in teaching: A comparison of two subjectbased professional learning communities in a secondary school in Shanghai. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(5), 623–639. Yin, H. B. (2013). Societal culture and teachers’ responses to curriculum reform: Experiences from China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 391–401. Zhang, X., Wong, J. L. N., & Wang, X. (2022). How do the leadership strategies of middle leaders affect teachers’ learning in schools? A case study from China. Professional Development in Education, 48(3), 444–461. Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Wang, X. (2021). “Doing authentic research” with artifacts to facilitate teacher learning across multiple communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103394.

8

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning The Balancing Act

With specific reference to China, this study unveils PLC practices in action in the Chinese school context and probes teacher professional learning experiences therein to enrich the global understanding of PLC practices across different social and cultural contexts. Three questions are addressed in this study: (1) How do TRGs, as PLCs, operate in school settings? (2) Can teachers learn by participating in TRG professional learning activities, and how? and (3) What factors support or impede teacher professional learning in TRGs? Through qualitative analysis of three TRGs in Yangshan junior secondary school, this book endeavours to understand how and why subject-based PLCs achieved teacher professional learning within school settings. This concluding chapter begins by summarising the findings from the previous chapters. Next, a balancing act is suggested to explain the function of PLCs for teacher professional learning in China, after which the structural and cultural challenges and barriers facing TRGs to facilitating teacher professional learning as a form of PLC are also identified. It then revisits the theories on PLCs and teacher professional learning, and discusses this study’s theoretical contributions and practical implications. Finally, it concludes this book by reviewing the limitations of this study and making suggestions for future research. 8.1  Overview of the Main Findings As Chapter 5 presented, teachers in China work in highly-structured PLCs that focus on teaching improvement and, thus, student learning improvement. In school settings, TRGs are designed to include specific logistical arrangements, goals/­ topics for learning, and joint activity modes. Teachers interact with their TRG peers at designated places on a fixed weekly schedule. In their joint activities, teachers in the same TRG are required to address an overarching research topic as a common learning goal to promote collaborative professional learning. Meanwhile, each TRG is given a certain amount of space to address group disciplinary concerns by developing collaborative action research projects. Different activities—including collaborative lesson planning, open lessons, reflective talks, and mentoring—are organised as specific formats for interaction. The organisational arrangements of TRGs shape what teachers learn, whom they learn from, and how they interact DOI: 10.4324/9781003347583-8

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning 117 uniformly in the group. TRGs, as a form of PLCs in a highly centralised education system, demonstrated their unique characteristics (Hairon & Tan, 2017). Chapter 6 found teachers could benefit from participation in collective activities in subject-based PLCs. However, teachers’ learning experiences differed in the three PLCs within the same school structure. The Chinese language teachers learned through collective inquiry. Although collaborative action research resulted from administrative mandates, the teachers approached “research” not merely as an administrative task to follow but also as a means to address common concerns in their daily teaching and for their professional learning and improvement. Through efforts mobilised at the teacher, school, and system levels, teachers achieved positive collaborative learning experiences. In the English group, teachers learned mainly through their group head’s sharing expertise. They followed the district educational bureau’s direction and initiated a collective learning project but received limited professional support from educational authorities at the school or higher levels. Despite their critical culture, other teachers acted as “followers” of their group head, who found the topic difficult to implement in their subject-based teaching. Teachers could not generate in-depth understanding or transform their teaching related to their group-based action research projects but reported that their ­participation in collective activities contributed to their general learning of teaching. In the Mathematics group, teachers demonstrated a task-implementation approach without generating sufficient in-depth collaboration among teachers. Despite the Mathematics teachers’ contrived collaboration, they could learn from implementing meaningful tasks for teachers to reflect on in their daily practice and enhance their awareness of standard-based teaching. This suggests that teachers learned from the structure of subject-based PLCs in different patterns, and their learning experiences varied. Chapter 7 explored the cultural, institutional, interpersonal, and individual factors shaping teachers’ professional learning. First, teacher professional learning is intrinsically bound to the characteristics of the socio-cultural and institutional contexts. Cultural factors—a collaborative and critical working ethos, closely knitted personal and professional relationships, and a culture of deference to power—shaped a joint effort to facilitate teacher professional learning in PLCs. In addition, the institutional design—a strong emphasis on teacher professional learning, the advocacy of collective efforts, the systematic design and alignment of work, learning, and promotion, and professional support from the teaching research system—ensured teachers learned from their participation in teaching research activities. However, teachers’ lived learning experiences were not necessarily the same within the same school structure. Group-level (e.g., teacher leadership practices, collaborative cultures, and group traditions) and individual (teachers’ learning motivations and personal career development needs) factors shaped the subject-based PLCs’ actual functions. 8.2  Balancing Dualities in Chinese PLC Practices How can TRG practices be explained as a form of PLCs through which teachers learn collaboratively? In this section, balancing the dualities or the intertwining of

118  Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning seemingly contradictory approaches might be useful to denote the Chinese characteristic of teacher professional learning in PLCs. This study confirms the social nature of teacher learning (Borko, 2004; Wenger, 1998) and that PLCs are useful social configurations of teachers to improve their practice (Vangrieken et al., 2017), but sees PLCs as existing in a broader institutional setting, influenced by school organisations (e.g., school leaders) and educational authorities (e.g., teaching researchers). By expanding Paine and Ma’s study (1993), this study proposes that the process of Chinese PLC practices to promote teacher professional learning mainly revolves around a series of tensions or paradoxes—i.e., commitment and control, collaboration and hierarchy, and collective and individual approaches—that make PLCs in China function effectively for teacher professional learning in school organisations, meaning that seemingly contradictory elements or oppositions in the Western contexts do not necessarily denote contradictions in PLC practices in the ­Chinese school setting. 1.  Commitment versus control The existing literature reveals that one of the biggest obstacles facing PLCs is bureaucratic school management (Admiraal et al., 2021; Hairon & Tan, 2017; Lieberman & Miller, 2011). Schools are embedded in larger educational policy settings that stress compliance to mandates with top-down control and external monitoring, which may constrain teachers’ innovative practices and professional learning in PLCs. The bureaucratic nature of school organisations is seen as a fundamental challenge to building PLCs, from a Western perspective (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Furman, 1998; Lieberman & Miller, 2011; Spillane et al., 2016). ­Researchers, therefore, have proposed the concept of “community”—defined as common interests and commitments—as a preferable social environment for learning to eliminate organisational control and top-down administration (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Harris, 2014; Sergiovanni, 1994). The characteristic dualities in PLC practices in China reveal how Chinese schools balance seemly incompatible aspects of commitment and control. It shows that organisational control or top-down administration seems necessary to make PLCs effective. In Chinese practice, PLCs are organised as formal units with systematic arrangements that facilitate every member’s learning and TRGs’ effective functioning with enabling conditions. For example, allocating sufficient time, space, and resources to teachers is necessary to support their interactions, and administrative measures and policies that achieve this are conducive to teacher collaborative learning. PLCs in China are well structured in that teachers’ daily lives are designed to facilitate participation and their workloads are relatively light to ensure regular teacher interactions (Sargent & Hannum, 2009; Tan, 2013). Such structural conditions also remove the ambiguities of PLC enactment (Hairon & Tan, 2017). In this study, TRGs had a specific collective focus and teachers had space to address professional needs related to subject teaching issues—although educational authorities influenced the focus to a large extent, and the space was limited. Teachers expressed that collaborative learning needed a focus or topic—an explicit

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning 119 and clear purpose that would define the scope and boundaries of the community in which they, as PLC members, would share their common interests, languages, practices, and concepts (Wenger, 1998). Such a focus would foster teachers’ sense of community and develop their professional commitment to that community. In addition, the findings also revealed that the culture of collaboration generated the teachers’ deep commitment to their peers’ learning. Influenced by China’s traditional collectivist culture, the teachers in China recognised the value of collaboration (the essence of PLCs (Hargreaves, 2013)) and were easily accustomed to collective activities. Teachers’ beliefs in the value of teamwork ensured their willing and active participation in collaborative activities, despite its mandatory nature (Wong, 2010; Zhang & Pang, 2016). Moreover, teachers might feel more supported and less stressed if they could do research collaboratively rather than alone, particularly if they are not good at it (Xu, 2015). To sum up, organisational control provided the logistical conditions and topdown administration necessary for teachers’ collective learning. The prevailing collaborative culture was conducive to generating teachers’ deep commitment to their colleagues’ learning. 2.  Collaboration versus Hierarchy Within specific group dynamics, the intertwining of teachers’ collaboration and authority leads to teacher professional learning. In constructing effective PLCs for teacher professional learning, it is debatable whether collegiality can or should be arranged (Hargreaves, 2013). On the one hand, researchers have suggested that a disciplined and coordinated approach to teacher collegiality and collaboration is necessary (Harris, 2014); on the other, pushing teachers into groups to foster collaboration may lead to “contrived collegiality” and its associated negative effects (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012). In this study, both forms of collegiality were identified in TRGs with the same school structure, confirming the existence of contrived collaboration in Chinese PLCs found in previous studies (e.g., Wong, 2010). Teachers may maintain contrived collaboration by providing only the required support to their colleagues (see the Mathematics group). Meanwhile, genuine collegiality could be found in Chinese TRGs, with teachers engaging in collaborative professional activities and providing instructional and emotional support to peers that went beyond mutual obligation and school requirements, consistent with the findings from case studies conducted in northeast China (T. Wang, 2015). Different from collaboration emerged based on teachers’ equal relationships or the egalitarian working ethos (Lortie, 2002), this study found that the hierarchical relationships among the teachers were fully acknowledged in the tiered professional rank system and accepted by teachers and school leaders (Cravens & Wang, 2017). Teacher leaders were identified in each PLC and selected based on their excellent teaching performance and significant levels of teaching experience. By putting them into formal leadership positions or assigning them more leadership obligations, the school created role models for other teachers to follow. Although the group heads had some administrative duties, neither they nor their peers saw

120  Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning them as administrators; instead, they were simply teachers in the group who had earned their positions and honours through their outstanding performance and expertise. Generally, the study showed that teacher leadership was a powerful internal source for positive change in PLCs. PLC leaders were expert teachers in subject groups, and their communication with regular teachers was crucial for in-depth collaboration (Hairon et al., 2015), contributing to the “infusion” of instructional expertise from expert to non-expert teachers (Cravens & Wang, 2017) and the “diffusion” of innovative top-down ideas to teachers in subject-based communities (Sargent, 2015). 3.  Collective versus individual approaches The dualities in TRG practices also reveal how the relationship between individual and collective approaches can be balanced in school settings. As mentioned previously, teacher professional learning and development is considered an individual matter in Western contexts (Opfer & Pedder, 2011b). On the one hand, promoting individualism protects teachers’ privacy and professional autonomy; on the other, it prevents them from communicating and collaborating. Conversely, collectivism requires a sense of common vision and might lead to decreased individual autonomy. A dichotomy between individual autonomy and collective interests has been suggested (Westheimer, 1998), and balancing individual and group needs to maximise the effects of collaboration and minimise the harm to personal and professional autonomy is a matter of concern (Johnson, 2003). Teachers’ collective and group interest are more stressed in Chinese schools than in their Western counterparts. Teachers in China generally develop a common topic/focus to guide their collaboration, but individual and collective interests are not necessarily incompatible or contradictory in the Chinese context. As suggested earlier, all the TRG research topics in this study derived from aspects of teachers’ work and were designed for instructional improvement and student learning. The research topic for collective inquiry in the CH-TRG focused on teaching writing, while student learning assessment directed the Mathematics teachers’ collaborative efforts, and the EN-TRG focused on different topics related to students’ learning. Concerns about student learning served as a common link between individual and collective interests and supported all teachers’ moves towards that goal. In such an environment, collaborative efforts provide meaningful context to the individual’s work (Stoll et al., 2012). Thus, group interests support individual professional growth in TRGs. As individual teachers believe that they can achieve professional growth and career advancement through collective learning activities (e.g., classroom observation and group discussions), integrating individual and collective goals is never considered problematic in Chinese PLCs. Examining the complexities and dynamics of Chinese teachers’ learning in TRGs provides a rich context for understanding the dialectical nature of their processes. While commitment and control, collaboration and hierarchy, and individual and collective are considered imbalanced dichotomies in the West, Chinese societies see them as existing in relation to one another and intertwined. The dualities in TRGs might be explained by the notion of “the doctrine of the mean”

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning 121 (zhongyong) in Chinese philosophy. The essence of the balancing act is to find a middle way between different approaches and achieve a balance by making seemingly contradictory elements appear as complementary rather than conflicting components. China’s PLC experiences reveal an intertwined and synergised approach to enabling subject-based PLCs to function effectively to promote teacher professional learning. It avoids a simplistic dichotomy in constructing effective PLCs for teacher professional learning. However, this is not to say that the Chinese approach has totally achieved its desired effects on teacher professional learning. The challenges and barriers revealed in Chinese PLC practices suggest that the balance is not always easy to maintain. In some cases, the dualities were well-balanced and formed the Chinese PLCs’ unique characteristics, yet internal tensions persisted, and the priorities on one side would cause constraints on the other. This reflects that balancing paradoxes to build effective PLCs is a challenging art. 8.3 Challenges for Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning Based on the analysis of TRGs’ actual function as a form of PLC, the study has shown that teachers can benefit from the current PLC practices. However, the challenges and barriers Chinese PLCs face—such as excessively strong boundaries among subjects and groups, overemphasis on uniformity, the dominant role of teacher leaders, and vulnerable collegiality—might impede teacher professional learning and should not be ignored. First, it was not difficult to find that strong boundaries among subjects and groups strictly separated teachers in their group activities. Teachers mainly relied on peers in the group to exchange ideas on teaching. Although lesson observation was commonplace, it was not common for teachers to observe lessons on other subjects. There were few opportunities for teachers teaching different subjects to exchange knowledge and be involved in cross-department activities. Teachers in the Yangshan school did not belong to TRGs exclusively but also to YGs that organised teachers teaching the same grade; however, YG teachers interacted only around two to three times every semester, not on a fixed schedule. To some extent, interactions and communications among different subject teachers were limited in terms of teaching and professional learning. Previous research has suggested that interdisciplinary membership configuration could facilitate teachers’ willingness to take collective responsibility for student learning, foster curricular coherence and cross-fertilisation, and heighten teachers’ awareness of general pedagogic “best practice” (Curry, 2008). Cross-subject teacher communication and collaboration are also important to teaching improvement as they may trigger teachers’ reflections on their subject teaching and help them to gain an indepth understanding of group collaboration. However, strong boundaries between PLCs might restrict teachers’ professional learning across subject-based communities and prevent them from harnessing the resources necessary to facilitate ongoing professional growth in the changing world.

122  Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning Second, the organisation of PLC activities for collective learning cannot be detached from school administration. Although administrative requirements were necessary to ensure the participation of teachers who were “not active learners” in collective activities, teachers were treated as passive learners assigned tasks for continuous improvement rather than well-trained, highly-skilled professionals. In addition, teachers in China often lack opportunities to participate in school-level decision-making (T. Wang, 2015). At Yangshan, the school leaders set the major theme, tasks, and activities and directly imposed them on subject-based PLCs in a standardised way, with little teacher input. Although the school leaders made local adjustments, set a common theme based on school conditions, and gave each PLC some space to decide specific topics for learning and inquiry, many teachers complained the assigned tasks did not meet their group’s professional needs. Teachers in PLCs showed conformity to external regulations and requirements rather than collective professional discretion. It suggests that teacher professional autonomy in the PLC process is still somewhat restricted (Lai & Lo, 2007; L. J. Wang et al., 2014). Promoting teacher professional learning requires creating conditions that develop teachers professionally rather than foster compliance. Striking a balance between organisation development and grass-root needs remains a challenging task to achieve teacher professional learning. Third, although every teacher was encouraged to speak during PLC activities, the group head or experienced teachers usually directed the group’s collective learning goals. The dominant role of group leaders can limit teachers’ professional autonomy and creativity and even hamper teacher willingness to initiate pedagogical innovations. In our study, some teachers assumed leading was the teacher leaders’ responsibility, not theirs. This may be related to teachers’ obedience to authority and their superiors’ directives and instructions (Hofstede, 1993; Yin, 2013). In addition, formal leadership roles may inhibit informal teacher leaders from demonstrating leadership behaviours. In this study, teachers who did not occupy a designated leadership position had no strong intention to engage in teaching improvement initiatives and were even reluctant to do so, perhaps reflecting the prevalent Chinese cultural belief that “those not in the position should not attend to its affairs” encourages teachers to work within the comfort zone afforded by PLCs (Lo, 2019, p. 563) or that teachers are not conscious of their informal leadership roles in a school’s development (M. Wang & Ho, 2020). Last, PLCs’ effective functioning largely depends on group culture, shaped by vulnerable collegial relationships and trust among group members. In general, teachers at all three PLCs formed a culture of sharing, instead of observing the norms of privacy, autonomy, and non-interference developed in schools in other systems (Levine & Marcus, 2010). However, the levels of collaboration might vary case by case. Organising teachers into designated PLCs on a mandatory basis, building a culture of trust, and fostering genuine collaboration among the colleagues are extremely important yet challenging tasks for making PLCs work effectively. Research suggests that trust facilitates collaboration by enabling teachers to be open to deprivatise their teaching and sharing ideas without fear (Hallam et al., 2015). This study shows that arranged collegiality with compulsory membership did not

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning 123 ensure all members’ positive, in-depth collaboration. In MA-TRG, teachers did not experience in-depth collaboration, and tensions arose between colleagues. Not all members got along with each other, and their group culture was influenced by such individual and group factors as individual characteristics and group leadership. Thus, it was difficult to achieve genuine and spontaneous collaboration among all teachers in the group. Conflicts may limit trust, as the case of MA-TRG suggests. 8.4  Theoretical and Practical Implications of This Book 8.4.1  Revisiting Theories of PLCs

This book enriches the global discussion around the building of PLCs for teacher collaboration and teacher continuous professional development. First, it adds to our understanding of what PLCs of teachers are, what teachers do, and how they are organised to develop themselves in a different context, characterised as a hierarchical and centralised system. Researchers have pointed out that it is difficult but necessary to build authentic professional communities in schools adhering to a bureaucratic structure (Lieberman & Miller, 2011; Spillane et al., 2016); however, the professional and administrative nature of structured communities could be balanced. The practices of TRGs in China have demonstrated the diversity of PLCs across sociocultural contexts and that they can grow and thrive in a hierarchical and bureaucratic system. Second, this study deepens our understanding of how teachers learn from participating in subject-based PLCs in a junior secondary school. It substantiates and expands current studies (e.g., Han, 2006; Paine & Ma, 1993), and suggests that the practice of TRGs, as PLCs, reflects the Chinese approach of balancing complex dualities in educational practices. The extant literature mainly focuses on learning activities (e.g., lesson study, mentoring) in discussing the positive effects of teachers working collaboratively (Han, 2006; Han & Paine, 2010). In this study, many issues pertaining to PLC functioning—such as teachers’ initiative, educational system, school contexts, and cultural factors—have been discussed to contribute to the complex interactions in PLCs and help us to rethink the nature of PLCs in China and gain a deeper understanding of how they function. Third, this study develops our knowledge of how PLCs might constrain teacher professional learning. It has confirmed PLCs act as a powerful mechanism for teachers’ continuous growth, echoing what most studies have suggested (Berry et al., 2005; Bryk et al., 1999; Horn & Little, 2010; Louis & Marks, 1998). Moreover, it demonstrates the challenges and barriers to organising teachers to work collaboratively and explores the limitations of PLCs as a context for teacher professional learning. 8.4.2  Revisiting Theories of School-based Teacher Professional Learning

The theoretical contribution of this book to school-based teacher professional learning and development is threefold. First, it confirms the importance of helping

124  Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning schools to construct a deliberate building system process. In many countries, individual teachers decide which professional development activities to undertake (OECD, 2014), and teacher professional development is largely considered an individual teacher’s responsibility and prerogative (Opfer & Pedder, 2011b). In China, however, teacher professional learning and development is largely an enforced and regulated institutional decision to which teachers must conform. In Chinese school settings, school management plays a major role in deciding the learning activities undertaken by individual teachers. Second, researchers have invested significant efforts in exploring effective ways to achieve teacher professional learning, such as bringing external experts into school (Borko, 2004; Hofman & Dijkstra, 2010; Lieberman & Wood, 2002; Stoll et al., 2012). While not denying the significance of drawing on external sources, this research argues that authentic contexts in which teachers define and solve the real problems of classroom practice are an important source of teacher professional learning and development. Indeed, this study also shows that support from teaching researchers, as external experts, is crucial to updating teachers’ subject knowledge and educational thoughts. However, the context in which teachers work and live also provides rich learning opportunities; this study confirms that teachers have valuable knowledge that can be shared and built upon by other teachers (Lieberman & Miller, 2011) and that teacher leaders’ expertise can facilitate their colleagues’ professional learning through formal and informal interactions. This kind of expertise cannot be bought. Third, this study’s findings align with earlier research, which points to the complexity of teacher professional learning (Opfer & Pedder, 2011a). This study has drawn a picture of China’s school-based teacher professional learning system, the complexity of which mirrors the purposes and processes of teacher professional learning in schools. The purposes intended to be served by teacher professional learning complicate the teacher professional learning process. It outlines the complex drivers of teacher professional learning in communities, considering at least four levels of needs and factors, including the individual level (motivation, personalities, and needs), the group/community level (group dynamics, group leadership, and colleagueship), the school organisation level (learning task design, school leadership, and culture), and the system level (educational policy). Teacher professional learning in school settings is not an individual issue. The negotiations among these four levels shape what teachers (should) learn and how they develop themselves in schools. 8.4.3  Implications of This Book

This study has practical implications for school leaders, policymakers, and educational authorities in charge of schools and teachers regarding constructing effective PLCs to maximise teacher professional learning. First, PLCs are not a new initiative in China; they have a seven-decadeslong history in which teachers have worked and learned collaboratively. PLCs were established as a cost-effective strategy for updating teachers’ professional

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning 125 knowledge and skills and improving teaching quality through teachers’ exchanging teaching experiences, against the backdrop of a severe shortage of qualified teachers and constrained resources nationwide. It seems likely that the core PLC principle—i.e., working collectively to counter individualism and teacher isolation for professional development purposes—could be applied in any educational system at a relatively low cost (Vangrieken et al., 2017). In particular, utilising teachers’ collaborative efforts might be promising to low- and middleincome countries facing such challenges as underqualified teachers and limited professional development resources. In addition, PLCs in China have undergone tremendous changes and development over their long history due to education reforms, reminding us that building PLCs is not an overnight endeavour. Educational systems implementing PLCs as a new initiative must take a long-term rather than a short-term view of their development (Hairon & Tan, 2017). Many researchers have emphasised the importance of investing sufficient time and resources to cultivate PLCs properly and avoid their becoming buzzwords or fads (Hargreaves, 2013; Huffman et al., 2016). Second, the tension between hierarchical school administration and teacher collaboration in PLCs could be mitigated by examining Chinese experiences. How to make PLCs thrive in school systems adhering to a bureaucratic model is considered a challenge in Western contexts (Lieberman & Miller, 2011); however, in Chinese contexts, TRGs’ long existence is a result of administrative mandates, and their administrative origin does not influence their critical role in teachers’ collaborative professional learning. In this study, administrative directives regarding PLCs, including providing necessary conditions, designing collective activities for teachers, and addressing disciplinary interests, positively facilitated teachers working together. Enacting TRGs is supported by Chinese culture, which values collectivism, collaboration, and personal connections. Mutual sharing and collaboration in schools are highly recognised by Chinese teachers (Hu, 2005; Wong, 2010; Zhang & Pang, 2016). In addition, putting teachers on teams in PLC settings does not ensure their spontaneous collaboration for productive professional learning (­Levine & Marcus, 2010). Identifying and mobilising competent teachers’ capacity and capability are important steps towards leveraging their expertise and maximising teacher professional learning. This fits the established argument that “a hierarchical work structure in itself does not hinder successful enactment or implementation of PLCs” (Hairon & Tan, 2017, p. 107). Third, while administrative intervention in PLCs is necessary, teacher professional learning and development should be the priority. Developing PLCs whose teacher members focus on teacher professional learning should be the ultimate purpose. This study has shown that TRGs’ original purpose, when first established in the 1950s, was to promote teacher professional learning. School leaders in this study showed their concerns about such teacher professional learning purposes as organising teachers to participate in TRG activities, selecting excellent teachers to be group heads, and exercising professional leadership in collective learning activities; however, more efforts are needed to involve teachers in their professional learning, such as investigating and respecting teachers’ professional

126  Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning learning needs and reducing unnecessary administrative work in the PLC process. We must ensure that teachers, both collectively and individually, play an active, not passive, role in designing and planning their professional development in the PLC process, to protect teacher professional autonomy. Respecting teacher autonomy is fundamental to achieving the “professional” notion underlying PLCs. In short, the school leaders’ administrative authority should be used properly, and close attention should be paid to PLCs’ professional development purpose in school organisations. At the same time, other formal or informal groups—e.g., those formed by professional roles, professional interests, or learner profiles— should be allowed, encouraged, and supported to address ongoing reform challenges alongside a specific community, and thus enable teachers to collaborate and interact beyond community boundaries. More space is necessary for teachers in disciplinary groups to engage in interdisciplinary collaborative activities to address different problems. Fourth, PLCs in China operate at the school level and various system levels—in the case of Shanghai, three system levels. This systematic approach to operating PLCs makes them effective and sustainable. Fullan (2005) contended that most PLCs are built in individual schools, with a major barrier to implementing PLCs lying in the failure to build them at all three education system levels—the school, district, and provincial levels. He further argued that, without attention to the larger educational system, the success of PLCs in schools is “largely a matter of luck or serendipity” (p. 212) that occurs in only a minority number of cases and is sometimes transitory. In China, TROs at the district, city, and municipal levels are established to support teachers in their school-based TRGs. This infrastructure systematically works not only in individual schools but also in all schools throughout the country, making it easier to meet the demands of teacher professional learning, given the reforms mandated to daily practices in schools (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). In the context of educational reforms, the gap between policy and practice can be well addressed, as all schools and teachers in TRGs received consistent support and monitoring from the larger education system via TROs and the teaching researchers therein. Fifth, related to the systematic approach to PLCs, teaching researchers within TROs at the district level or above are subject teaching experts, normally selected based on their excellent teaching performances. In addition to general teaching research activities, teachers in the case school expected to receive specific support from teaching researchers with subject expertise. In regular district-level or higher teaching research activities, teaching researchers themselves, as “boundary brokers” (Wenger, 1998), can provide professional guidance for subject teachers in TRGs, introducing them to updated teaching methods and recent developments in education (Gu & Gu, 2016). In contrast, a lack of consistent and effective content support has been reported as an acute problem in sustaining PLCs in some contexts (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2007). Strong PLCs usually are not self-contained, and collaboration with outside experts can add value to teachers’ interactions and discussions. Specifically, when networks are built up between PLCs and other external agents or institutions, PLC members have more opportunities to consistently assess

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning 127 others’ learning, challenge their own assumptions, find alternative approaches to solve problems, and even try out innovations in their field of expertise (Bolam et al., 2005; Hargreaves, 2007). Lastly, the close link between PLC initiatives and other professional development efforts has been well established in China. The aim of PLCs is not to build a PLC per se but to promote teachers’ teaching quality for students’ ultimate benefit (Bolam et al., 2005; Stoll et al., 2006). When various professional development opportunities are available, they are sometimes offered to teachers in a fragmented manner (Borko, 2004). In China, PLCs do not detach themselves from other teacher professional learning mechanisms and evaluation systems (teacher career promotion or teacher evaluation). Integrating PLC activities with other efforts might create added value for PLCs by reducing teachers’ workload in mandated teacher professional development activities, thus enhancing their willingness to devote their time and efforts to PLC activities and sustain their implementation. Therefore, it is important that policymakers and practitioners consider obtaining teachers’ active participation in PLCs and integrating PLC implementation with current resources, especially when they are introduced as new initiatives. 8.5 Conclusion This book adopted a qualitative case study approach to explore how subject-based PLCs work and teachers’ professional learning experiences in a junior secondary school in Shanghai, China. Based on the Chinese experience, the study shows that PLCs can thrive even with strong administrative intervention. By illustrating teachers’ professional learning experiences in different PLCs and the influencing factors, it has demonstrated the possibilities of teacher professional learning in well-structured PLCs and their historical, organisational, and cultural conditions. Their implementation reflects the Chinese approach of balancing complex dualities in educational practices (i.e., commitment and control, collaboration and authority, and individual and collective approaches). This study does have several limitations. First, case study was used as a research approach to explore the complexity and dynamics of the TRG process, involving only three TRGs in a single Shanghai junior secondary school with a good reputation for school-based teacher professional learning. Caution should be exercised when attempting to generalise this study’s findings to other TRGs or other schools in Shanghai or China; however, the findings can be used to inform hypotheses and as comparative materials for further investigation in other schools or contexts. Third, the study mainly focused on subject-based PLCs rather than district-level PLCs. Although the district-level teaching research network was also included for analysis, this study may not fully depict the interactional dynamics between subject-based PLCs at the school level and the teaching research network at the system level. This study suggests some methodological and theoretical directions possible for future research. First, as the study was conducted in three single-subject PLCs in

128  Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning an urban public school in Shanghai, the dynamics of teacher interactions in PLCs might be different from those in other mixed PLCs located in other school contexts, including larger-scale schools, private schools, or schools in rural areas of China. More research on PLC types in other school settings and regions is needed. ­Second, other forms of PLCs related to teacher collaboration and teacher professional learning in China (e.g., YGs, master teacher studio) were not addressed in this study. More research is needed to identify their roles and effects and further our understanding of various forms of PLCs. Finally, the study has mainly investigated implementing PLCs in school settings. Extending the scope of the investigation to address how broader interactions between teachers and subject-based PLCs, both horizontally (e.g., PLCs across schools) and vertically (e.g., supports from teaching researchers and their roles to facilitate teacher professional learning) may bring about system change deserve future research. References Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., Jong, L. D., Emmelot, Y., & Sligte, H. (2021). Schools as professional learning communities: What can schools do to support professional development of their teachers? Professional Development in Education, 47(4), 684–698. 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., Greenwood, A., Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities (Research No. RR637). University of Bristol. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. ­Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organisational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781. Cravens, X., & Wang, J. (2017). Learning from the masters: Shanghai’s teacher-expertise infusion system. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 6(4), 306–320. Curry, M. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations embedded in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement and school reform. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 733–774. DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Solution Tree Press. DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2011). Leaders of learning. Solution Tree Press. Fullan, M. (2005). Professional learning communities writ large. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning communities (pp. 209–223). National Education Service. Furman, G. C. (1998). Postmodernism and community in schools: Unraveling the paradox. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 298–328. Gu, F., & Gu, L. (2016). Characterising mathematics teaching research specialists’ mentoring in the context of Chinese lesson study. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(4), 441–454. Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., & Chua, C. S. K. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in professional learning community contexts: Towards a better understanding of the phenomenon. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 163–182.

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning 129 Hairon, S., & Tan, C. (2017). Professional learning communities in Singapore and Shanghai: Implications for teacher collaboration. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 47(1), 91–104. Hallam, P. R., Smith, H. R., Hite, J. M., Hite, S. J., & Wilcox, B. R. (2015). Trust and collaboration in PLC Teams: Teacher relationships, principal support, and collaborative benefits. NASSP Bulletin, 99(3), 193–216. Han, X. (2006). Collective reflection on a public lesson in a Mathematics teaching research group. Research in Comparative and International Education, 1(4), 403–418. Han, X., & Paine, L. (2010). Teaching mathematics as deliberate practice through public lessons. The Elementary School Journal, 110(4), 519–541. Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 181–195). McGraw-Hill Education. Hargreaves, A. (2013). Push, pull, and nudge: The future of teaching and educational change. In X. Zhu & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st century, new frontiers of educational research (pp. 217–236). Springer. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. Harris, A. (2014). Distributed leadership matters: Perspectives, practicalities, and potential. Corwin Press. Hofman, R. H., & Dijkstra, B. J. (2010). Effective teacher professionalisation in networks? Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 1031–1040. Hofstede, G. (1993). Cultural constraints in management theories. The Executive, 7(1), 81–94. Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational ­Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. Hu, G. W. (2005). Professional development of secondary EFL teachers: Lessons from China. Teachers College Record, 107(4), 654–705. Huffman, J. B., Olivier, D. F., Wang, T., Chen, P., Hairon, S., & Pang, N. (2016). Global conceptualisation of the professional learning community process: Transitioning from country perspectives to international commonalities. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(3), 327–351. Johnson, B. (2003). Teacher collaboration: Good for some, not so good for others. ­Educational Studies, 29(4), 337–350. Lai, M., & Lo, L. N. K. (2007). Teacher professionalism in educational reform: The experiences of Hong Kong and Shanghai. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 37(1), 53–68. Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 389–398. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2011). Learning communities: The starting point for professional learning is in schools and classrooms. Journal of Staff Development, 32(4), 16–20. Lieberman, A., & Wood, D. R. (2002). From network learning to classroom teaching. Journal of Educational Change, 3(3), 315–337. Lo, L. N. K. (2019). Teachers and teaching in China: A critical reflection. Teachers and Teaching, 25(5), 553–573. Lortie, D. C. (2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study (2nd ed.). The University of ­Chicago Press.

130  Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2007). Building professional learning communities in high schools: Challenges and promising practices. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 151–165). McGraw-Hill Education. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011a). Conceptualising teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011b). The lost promise of teacher professional development in England. European Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 3–24. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2014). Indicator D7: How extensive are professional development activities for teachers? OECD Publishing. Paine, L., & Ma, L. (1993). Teachers working together: A dialogue on organisational and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educational Research, 19(8), 675–697. Sargent, T. C. (2015). Professional learning communities and the diffusion of pedagogical innovation in the Chinese education system. Comparative Education Review, 59(1), 102–132. Sargent, T. C., & Hannum, E. (2009). Doing more with less teacher professional learning communities in resource-constrained primary schools in rural China. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(3), 258–276. Sergiovanni, T. J. (1994). Organisations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory. Educational Administration Quarterly, 30(2), 214–226. Spillane, J. P., Shirrell, M., & Hopkins, M. (2016). Designing and deploying a professional learning community (PLC) organisational routine: Bureaucratic and collegial arrangements in tandem. Les dossiers des sciences de l’éducation (35), 97–122. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221–258. Stoll, L., Harris, A., & Handscomb, G. (2012). Great professional development which leads to great pedagogy: Nine claims from research. National College for School Leadership. Tan, C. (2013). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on achieving educational success. Springer. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59. Wang, L. J., Lai, M., & Lo, L. N. K. (2014). Teacher professionalism under the recent reform of performance pay in Mainland China. Prospects, 44(3), 429–443. Wang, M., & Ho, D. (2020). Making sense of teacher leadership in early childhood education in China. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(3), 300–314. Wang, T. (2015). Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: Demystifying professional learning communities in Chinese schools. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 45(6), 908–930. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Westheimer, J. (1998). Among school teachers: Community, autonomy, and ideology in teachers’ work. Teachers College Press.

Understanding Chinese PLCs for Teacher Professional Learning 131 Wong, J. L. N. (2010). Searching for good practice in teaching: A comparison of two subjectbased professional learning communities in a secondary school in Shanghai. Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, 40(5), 623–639. Xu, H. (2015). The development of teacher autonomy in collaborative lesson preparation: A multiple-case study of EFL teachers in China. System, 52, 139–148. Yin, H. B. (2013). Societal culture and teachers’ responses to curriculum reform: Experiences from China. Asia Pacific Education Review, 14(3), 391–401. Zhang, J., & Pang, N. S.-K. (2016). Exploring the characteristics of professional learning communities in China: A mixed-method study. Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 25(1), 11–21.

Appendix A Methodology

This appendix presents the research methodology employed to address the research questions in this book. It first introduces the research problem and questions, then illustrates the rationale for adopting a qualitative case study and explains the reasons for choosing three TRGs in a junior secondary school in Shanghai. This is followed by a description of the data collection process, data collection methods (i.e., interviews, observations, and document collection and analysis), and data analysis process. Finally, the trustworthiness of this book and ethical considerations are presented. Research Problem and Questions The research problem and questions are the starting point for designing research. As defined in Chapter 1, this study attempts to address how TRGs, as well-­structured PLCs, work and achieve their effects on teacher professional learning. The specific questions proposed are as follows: 1 How are TRGs as PLCs operated in school settings? 2 Can teachers learn by participating in TRG professional learning activities, and how? 3 What factors support or impede the development and effectiveness of TRGs? Design and Rationale of a Qualitative Case Study Selection of Research Approach

Case study, characterised as the detailed examination of a single setting, entity, phenomenon, event, or social unit (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007; Merriam, 1988; Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003), was adopted as the research approach in this study, for the following reasons. First, this study explored how TRGs work as a form of PLCs to foster teacher professional learning in workplaces, and the main research question is a “how” question. Case studies are preferred to answer “how” and “why” questions (Yin, 2003). Second, this study focused on contemporary events in teachers’ professional learning in structured communities, and the researcher could not

Methodology  133 manipulate teachers’ learning activities in their schools (Yin, 2003). Third, case study is suitable for investigating a phenomenon that is sufficiently bound to qualify as a case (Merriam, 2009; Miles et al., 2014); the study object should therefore have clear boundaries to define it as a case. In this study, a bounded system—the subject groups named TRGs in a junior secondary school—was identified as a case wherein teachers’ interactions occurred. Fourth, this study aims to generate an indepth understanding of the nature and mechanism of designated communities as a research result. No fixed theory explains the current practice of TRGs; case study is, therefore, appropriate as it allows the researcher to capture the complexity, look for details of interactions, and even further revise theory (Eisenhardt, 1989; Stake, 1995). A case study can be conducted from either a quantitative or qualitative perspective, depending on the purpose of the research; however, the logic informing a case study derives from qualitative research in such disciplines as anthropology, sociology, psychology, and history (Jacob, 1988; Merriam, 1988). This study adopted a qualitative approach to the case study for the following reasons. First, it had no hypotheses to test or verify. Rather, the findings would be inductively derived from the data in the form of words, themes, categories, and concepts, explaining the practices of TRGs and teacher interactions for learning in China. Second, exploring, interpreting, and understanding the functioning of TRGs and teachers’ professional learning therein are the main purposes of this research. The research inquired into how teachers perceived and interpreted their experiences in TRGs, and how these experiences contributed to their professional growth. This matches the assumptions of qualitative research, which takes understanding the meanings people have constructed as an end in itself (Merriam, 2009). Therefore, a qualitative case study was more appropriate for this study. There are four types of case study designs, according to Yin (2003). Based on the number of cases, there are single and multiple case designs, and under each of these are holistic (single) and embedded (multiple) units of analysis. In this study, a single case with multiple units of analysis was selected as the case study design. The school was defined as the case, and TRGs as the unit of analysis; the rationale for doing so will be justified in the following section. The choice of a single case study allows a close and in-depth examination to capture the circumstances and conditions of TRGs. In addition, as teachers are divided into different TRGs based on their subject, multiple units of analysis were selected to demonstrate the varieties of TRGs, which allowed the researcher to analyse within and across TRG settings. In short, an embedded single case study design was employed in this study. Selection of Case

The selection of a research sample—including a research site, people, and events—depends on the purpose of the inquiry. Purposive sampling—mainly used in qualitative research to yield insights on and an in-depth understanding of the issues under investigation (Patton, 2002)—was adopted as a sampling strategy to identify the information-rich research site in this book. Criterion-based sampling,

134 Methodology a common form of purposive sampling, was used in this study to identify a sample likely to be information rich for in-depth analysis. It requires researchers to “­establish in advance a set of criteria or a list of attributes” for the study and “search for exemplars that match the specified array of characteristics” (LeCompte et al., 1993, p. 69). This book’s city, school, and TRG selections were based on certain criteria. Shanghai was chosen as the research site because of its nation-leading role in education development and well-functioning teaching research system, examined in Chapter 4. Within the context of Shanghai, Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School was identified based on three proposed criteria: its school level, its school-based teacher professional learning efforts, and the presence of well-­functioning TRGs. First, a junior secondary school was deemed appropriate to conduct the research. In China, senior secondary schools have much more pressure related to college entrance examinations than primary and junior secondary schools, which may affect the organisation of teaching research activities. In primary schools, on the other hand, teachers may teach two or more subjects, in which case they belong to multiple TRGs, making it difficult to separate subject teachers by TRGs and identify the boundaries of subject-based teaching research activities. Second, the school should attempt school-based teacher professional learning and provide rich learning opportunities for teachers; such rich interactions among teachers for mutual learning serve this study’s interests. Third, related to the emphasis on teacher professional learning, a school in which frequent and regular TRG activities were organised was preferred. Although TRGs are established at schools in Shanghai and throughout China, the frequency of teachers’ professional learning activities depends on each school and may vary greatly, even within Shanghai (Wang & Zhang, 2016). As it met all the above criteria, Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School was an appropriate case school. Teachers in TRGs were organised to work together weekly, and the frequent and regular TRG meetings were informative to the researcher. The selection of three TRGs in the school was purposive and related to two aspects of group dynamics. The first was the diversity of teaching experiences within the group. Given the variety of their teaching experiences, teachers may perceive teaching research activities differently, and their involvement in activities may be affected. The three main subjects had young teachers (with fewer than five years of teaching experience), while the mixed TRGs had no young teachers when the research was conducted. The second criterion concerned the variations of peer collaborations in TRGs. TRG practices were different, even within the same school, and there might be different extents of teachers’ collaborations and interactions in different groups. Covering both tight and relatively loose collaborations within TRGs may generate a deeper understanding of the functioning of TRGs. Among the three TRGs, CH-TRG and EN-TRG were recommended by school leaders as having tight peer collaboration, while MA-TRG’s peer collaboration was considered relatively weak. Another consideration in selecting these TRGs was that each consisted of 11 teachers, while the number of group members in the mixed groups was much lower. Some joint activities (e.g., collective lesson planning) could not

Methodology  135 be organised in these TRGs, because there was only a teacher teaching the subject (e.g., history, psychology, music, etc.). This research examined the functioning of TRGs, and the number of teachers in each group is important for teacher interaction. The reason for selecting three TRGs—rather than one or more units of analysis for this study—was to consider variety and richness. While studying a single TRG might not reveal the variety of dynamics in TRGs within the same school structure, covering all TRGs would be too demanding because each TRG’s activities are scheduled simultaneously. This limited my ability to examine each TRG’s interactions in depth and forced me to take turns attending the three TRGs’ activities. Data were collected from other TRGs and their teachers as supplementary sources to enrich the information and support the research findings. Data Collection Process Getting entry to a site to conduct fieldwork is important in a qualitative study and can be difficult without personal contacts. Utilising personal connections in Shanghai, I approached the principal of Yangshan several months before starting my fieldwork to express my research interest and explain my research purpose. He had no hesitation and addressed the school’s reputation in school-based teaching research activities as a Municipal Professional Development School. I entered the school when the semester began in February 2016. After permitting me to collect data in the school, the principal tried to find a position for my legitimate participation in school activities. Finally, I was offered a position as a research assistant; however, everyone knew it was a nominal position because there was no research office or officer at Yangshan. It seemed an effort to balance the school’s expectations of me and my legitimate role at school. As a research assistant, I was mainly expected to support the school based on my research experiences as a doctoral student. At the same time, I was included as part of the school, not a mere outsider. As a research assistant, I was first introduced to the school management team at an administration meeting and then to all TRG heads at a TRG head meeting. Then, the TRG heads introduced me to the subject teachers. This reflected the bureaucratic nature of the school organisation, in that information flowed in a top-down manner. During the data collection period, I was placed in the moral education office, next to the teaching affairs office, merely because there was a vacant desk available. I acted as a full-time teacher—arriving at school around 7:30 a.m., having breakfast and lunch with teachers in the teachers’ canteen, and leaving the school around 5 p.m. My full-time presence in the school allowed me to attend all kinds of meetings and activities, including weekly administration meetings only ­attended by school administrators. I seized every chance to develop a trusting ­relationship with teachers by providing them with needed help. For example, teachers would seek my help in finding materials, editing their proposals (topics such as Moral ­Education), photographing their activities, and writing newsletters. My ­efforts earned me the trust of the school leaders and teachers. The school principal asked

136 Methodology me several times, in person and in public, to consider working at the school ­after graduation, saying I had approached teachers wisely, had good relationships with them, had not caused any disturbances, and my research had not generated complaints from teachers. Teachers invited me to participate in teaching research ­activities outside the school and even to have coffee and dinner outside of school hours. At the end of the semester in July 2016, I completed the first round of data collection at Yangshan. My previous pleasant experience at Yangshan made it much easier to revisit the school. When I requested permission to collect the second-round data at Yangshan in 2017, the school principal agreed instantly. He even suggested I come back in March or May, when they would organise teaching competitions among young teachers—which I did, returning to the field in May 2017. The second round of data was mainly to supplement some data with a more specific focus. I also tried to recruit more participants. When I returned to school, I found that the research projects in some TRGs had changed. Some school personnel had, too; for example, they had recruited new teachers to teach English and Mathematics, and some teachers had asked for leave or were absent from school for various reasons. This reminded me that TRGs were not static but were always developing in response to changes in school requirements and teachers. I stayed at school for a relatively short period, around five weeks. Like the first-round data collection, I went to school as a full-time teacher and stayed there all day. My presence was quite familiar to most teachers at Yangshan. On June 9, 2017, I finally completed all the fieldwork for this study. Overall, in two rounds of data collection, I spent almost six months at Yangshan in Shanghai. Data Collection Methods To answer the research questions, data on the school-based teacher professional learning activities, TRG activity routines, teachers’ perceptions of these activities, TRG leaders’ practice of TRG activities, interpersonal relationships among teachers, and school contexts—including school organisational structure, leadership, and cultures—had to be collected. Interview, observation, and document collection and analysis were selected as the three major data collection methods. Interview

An interview is a conversational practice for exploring informants’ experiences and insights (Brinkmann, 2013; Hatch, 2002). In a qualitative case study, interviews are an essential data source (Yin, 2003). Researchers can ask respondents questions directly about feelings, thoughts, and intentions that cannot be observed directly (Merriam, 1998). The purpose of an interview is to allow researchers to “enter into the other person’s perspective” (Patton, 2002, p. 341). Interviews can be structured, unstructured, and semi-structured (Merriam, 1998); the three types serve different purposes. In structured interviews, interview questions and answers are standardised and predetermined (Hatch, 2002; Patton,

Methodology  137 2002) and mainly used to collect “sociodemographic data” (Merriam, 1998, p. 74). Unstructured interviews are unsystematic and used to explore the unknown, often emerging from the immediate context (Patton, 2002). Semi-structured interviews are a mix of more- and less-structured questions. On the one hand, a list of questions is prepared before the interview; on the other hand, there is some room for adjustment based on respondents’ responses or situations. In this book, the interviews were mainly semi-structured, following guiding questions but with flexibility left for interviewees to talk about their own stories or for the researcher to ask follow-up questions to probe into areas that arose during interview interactions. In addition, the other two types of interview questions were combined so all the standardised information about teachers (e.g., working experiences, etc.) and fresh information that emerged during the fieldwork could be gathered. For unstructured interviews, some questions were formed in conjunction with observation and document collection; for example, interviewees were invited to share their feelings and experiences after attending TRG activities. Interviews were conducted with four types of interviewees: (1) district teaching researchers, (2) school leaders, (3) TRG leaders, and (4) teachers with various teaching experiences, professional titles, etc. Among the teachers, both young and experienced teachers were important informants. During the fieldwork, I tried to cover these four types of interviewees and interview as many participants as possible to develop comprehensive and diverse understandings of their perceptions of TRG practices. Therefore, other subject teachers were also interviewed. In total, I conducted interviews with 38 participants in different positions. The demographic information of participants is listed in Appendix D. The interviews mainly addressed several themes: perceptions of school-based learning activities, experiences of teaching research activities at different levels, leadership roles at the group, school, and district levels, and relationships, interactions, and collaboration among TRG colleagues. For each type of informant, the questions varied. First, general questions addressed all respondents’ perceptions of the current practice of teaching research activities at different levels (municipal, district, and school) and their perceptions of and needs for development. Second, the specific questions for district leaders focused on the organisation of districtlevel teaching research activities, professional support to the school and teachers, their connections with school leaders and group leaders, and their perceptions of the specific subject teaching performance in the case school. Third, the specific questions for school leaders focused on how they organised TRG activities and the rationale behind their organisations, how they perceived the functioning of each TRG in the school, and how they perceived their roles as school leaders in participating in TRG activities. Fourth, the specific questions for TRG leaders mainly addressed their perceptions of their roles as TRG leaders, connections with teaching researchers, implementing activities within a specific TRG, and the climate and relationships among TRG members. Finally, the specific questions for teachers focused on how they perceived leadership roles at different levels, collegial relationships, school culture, group climates, and their outside-of-school professional learning experiences.

138 Methodology Generally, each interview started with icebreaking questions on such topics as the interviewee’s teaching experiences and work experiences at that position, if applicable in the school—e.g., “How long have you been working in this school? How long have you been a teacher? How long have you been appointed to this position?” The planned interview questions followed later. Each interview was conducted individually in Chinese, the interviewees’ and my native language. Each interview lasted 40–90 minutes. Most were conducted during office hours in a vacant meeting room, and some were conducted outside the school at the request and convenience of the interviewee. All interviews were audio-recorded with the permission of the interviewees and later transcribed for further analysis. Some informants were interviewed more than once when doing so was necessary to gain richer information and explanations on a certain issue. For instance, if a teacher conducted an open or competition lesson in the school, they might be interviewed several times to gain their full learning experiences in the activity. Observation

Observation is another important data source in qualitative case studies. Different from interviews, which are interpretations or accounts from informants, observation allows the researcher to see first-hand how things work (Creswell, 2014; Merriam, 1998), to understand and capture the context within which people interact (Patton, 2002), and to gather data participants may not be consciously aware of or able to articulate (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In this study, observation ­allowed the researcher to see how teachers participated in TRG activities and how they directly supported each other for improvement. It was also helpful to generate reference points (e.g., on-site incidents, actions) for subsequent interviews (Merriam, 1998). I observed four major types of activities during the first and second rounds of data collection. The first type involved teaching research activities at the school or across-school levels. Within the school, the organisation and implementation of collective lesson planning, open lessons, reflective talks, and meetings were observed, giving me an understanding of the group climate, discussions, and interactions among teachers for mutual learning. The researcher also learned how school leaders played their roles during TRG activities. In addition, the teaching research activities across schools—either organised by district teaching researchers or co-organised by the case school and other schools—were also observed, which helped the researcher to understand the wider connections between TRGs and the outside world. The second type of observation concerned school meetings, including weekly school administration meetings attended by school administrators and TRG head meetings. In these meetings, the researcher explored how teachers interacted with one another, how TRG activities were enacted, and how school leaders monitored TRG activities. The third type was lesson observations. Besides the open lessons conducted by teachers, I was informed of and observed teachers’ daily lessons, sometimes with

Methodology  139 Table A1  Major observations conducted in this study Categories of activities and meetings

Numbers

Plenary meetings School administration meetings School TRG head meetings Cross-school teaching research activities TRG activities

23 18 5 5 34

Lessons

7 for CH-TRG 6 for MA-TRG 15 for EN-TRG 6 for other subject TRGs 16 Chinese lessons 12 Mathematics lessons 18 English lessons 6 other subject lessons

52

school leaders and sometimes by myself, with the teachers’ permission. The daily lesson observations helped me to notice teachers’ teaching styles and classroom teaching skills. The fourth type included weekly plenary meetings, some school reception ­activities, school-based teacher training and workshops, and school activities for students or teachers. For students, there were morning physical activities, lectures delivered by teaching researchers on subject content learning to students at the same grade, etc. For teachers, there were holiday celebration activities (e.g., making rice dumplings for the dragon boat festival), staff sports meetings, etc. Observation of these activities helped me to understand the school culture and norms and the interpersonal relationships among teachers (Table A1). The researcher’s stance while participating in activities should be made explicit. The researcher’s possible roles are fourfold: complete participant; participant as observer; observer as participant; and complete observer (Merriam, 1998). At one extreme, as a complete participant, the researcher participates in activities fully and even conceals their role as a researcher. At the other extreme, the researcher observes activities without participating, even passively. In this study, I adopted a non-participant observation stance to detach myself from school events (LeCompte et al., 1993). However, that does not mean I was hidden from the group or concealed my role as a researcher when observing ­activities. Rather, I took part in the activities, watched what people did, and listened carefully to what they said; however, I did not interrupt or intervene in the activities, and the group members always controlled the flow of activities under investigation. ­According to Merriam (1998), researchers are rarely “total participants or total observers” (p. 102). On some informal occasions, I had opportunities to observe teachers’ informal interactions and sometimes joined in their conversations. For example, they would talk to me at lunchtime about school news and gossip. I would also go to teachers’ offices and chat with them informally. Daily conversations and casual chats helped me understand the school environment, teachers’ personalities, and some topics (e.g., teachers’ relationships with their

140 Methodology colleagues) that may have been uncomfortable for participants to discuss formally (Creswell, 2014). In addition, teachers’ interactions for open lesson preparations took place informally, either in their offices, in the canteen, or on the playground. I also seized any chances to observe teachers’ mutual support for open lessons. These observations helped me gain a deeper understanding of peer collaboration among teachers. Field notes and memos were taken, including details about settings and participants, descriptions of activities, interesting words and phrases expressed by participants, and my observations. Audio recordings were not taken on all occasions, as participant consent was not forthcoming in all cases, especially when activities were conducted outside the case school. The audio recordings and field notes complemented each other. Sometimes, photos were taken, with permission, to record the physical settings. In fact, I was frequently required to take photos for school leaders’ and teachers’ records and school newsletters. In sum, I acted mainly as a non-participant observer in activities relevant to TRG operation and teachers’ professional learning. Teachers were aware of my role as a researcher. I tried to stay close to teachers and observe their formal and informal interactions. However, I was cautious about my role, behaviours, and words. I did not make comments during the meetings and activities, nor did I evaluate their performances on any occasion. Document Collection and Analysis

Documents are one of the data sources in this research. In qualitative research, document analysis is an important supplementary data source that furnishes descriptive information to complement what was said and how people behaved in authentic settings (Stake, 1995). Documents convey data indicating people’s knowledge, experience, and value. Stability is a great advantage of such documents as the school development plan and meeting records of TRG activities, as they are not produced for research but are a ready-made source of data not impacted by the researcher’s work (Merriam, 1988). This study collected documents produced at four levels. First, district-level policy documents, handouts on district teaching research activities, and cross-school joint teaching research activities were collected to understand the connections between the teachers in the school and the outside world. Second, at the school level, the school development plan, school research projects, school regulations pertaining to teacher professional development, teaching research activities, and teacher evaluation, school publications including books, selections from professional papers produced by teachers, school-based teacher training programmes, semester plans for teaching research activities, agendas from related events and meetings, etc., were gathered to analyse the specific school context and its organisation of activities in TRGs for teachers’ professional learning. Third, group-level semester plans for teaching research, meeting records of TRGs and lesson preparation groups, proposals for group action research projects, and final research reports were collected to analyse implementing TRG practices in each TRG. Fourth, at the

Methodology  141 individual teacher level, open lesson plans, worksheets, teaching materials, reflective talk notes, professional research papers, lesson observation notes, and teaching schedules were gathered. Apart from the documents, audio-visual materials—such as videotapes of open lessons and post-lesson conferences—were also collected. In sum, interviews, observations, and document collection and analysis were conducted during the fieldwork. These three data collection methods were not separate during the study but were performed in conjunction to substantiate the research findings. For example, when examining a teaching research activity participated in by all teachers in a TRG, observation would be conducted, and relevant documents for this activity analysed to supplement and enrich the researcher’s understanding. Some activities triggered follow-up interviews with specific informants to obtain their post-participation thoughts and opinions. Data collection through various methods is also a means of triangulation to ensure data validity and reliability, as will be discussed in the following sections. Data Analysis This study had three major data sources for analysis—interview transcripts, observation transcripts and notes, and documents. Although there are few fixed formulas or procedures to follow for qualitative analysis, it is important to review all the data, make sense of it, and organise it into categories or themes (Creswell, 2014). This study generally followed the inductive process of building “patterns, categories, and themes from the bottom up by organising the data into increasingly more abstract units of information”(Creswell, 2014, p. 186). The researcher was cautious about being open to all possible meanings in the data and about looking for emerging themes. In addition, the framework generated from the literature was proposed as the general proposition for analysis (Yin, 2003). The deductive codes derived from the literature were useful for scanning the texts; for example, the key dimensions of TRG functioning—routines, leadership, and collaboration—were used to examine the functions of TRGs and teachers’ learning experiences within their TRGs. All interviews were transcribed verbatim into texts, and the field notes and ­documents collected were brought together for analysis. The researcher conducted the initial coding by reading all transcripts carefully, writing memos highlighting certain ideas and thoughts, and segmenting sentences into categories responsive to the research questions. Some lower-level concepts—e.g., leadership strategies, group dynamics, sharing, and collaboration—were constructed. The first coding round was open and free to all possible meanings that emerged from the data (­Merriam, 2009). As analysis proceeded, the researcher went through axial or analytical coding, by repeated readings for further categorisation (Corbin & Strauss, 2008), which grouped initially related jots—e.g., dual leadership at different levels, patterns of collegiality, and environmental factors. This coding round involved looking for concepts and patterns derived from the data; however, the data analysis process was recursive, as Miles et al. (2014) suggested. The three streams of data

142 Methodology analysis—data condensation, data display, and conclusion drawing—were performed interactively (Miles et al., 2014). The researcher moved back and forth between concrete bits of data and abstract concepts to generate and group themes and categories. During the coding process, themes and categories were constantly compared, contrasted, and modified (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Generally, the following major points were focused upon: (1) the current goals for teacher professional learning in TRGs, (2) the organisational structure of TRGs, (3) the leadership roles for teacher professional learning in TRGs, (4) the norms of collegiality among teachers in TRGs, and (5) influencing factors. Similarities and differences within and across the three TRGs—e.g., group leadership, interaction dynamics, and peer collaboration—were compared to explore the common themes and identify some variations. N-Vivo 10 software was used to organise, classify, and cluster the raw data, which enabled the researcher to draw out the codes, concepts, and categories more effectively and finally discover the patterns in the data. Codes were used to protect the personal identity of each interviewee. Each code was comprised of two parts, linked with a hyphen—the first part was two letters that represented the TRG category (CH = Chinese language, EN = English, MA = Mathematics, SC = Science, SS = Social Science, and AR = Arts) and group to which the teacher belonged, while the other was a randomly-chosen pseudonym replacing the teacher’s name. For example, CH-Chen indicated that Chen was a teacher from the Chinese language TRG. School leaders’ and district teaching ­researchers’ positional titles were fully shown in the book. Data analysis is an ongoing process interwoven with data collection (Merriam, 2009; Miles et al., 2014; Stake, 1995), and the two stages are concurrent during the research (Bazeley, 2013). In this study, the emergent topics in the field allowed the researcher to revise the data collection process and guided the researcher to gather more information. The collected data provided more intensive and focused information for analysis. Trustworthiness of This Book Both quantitative and qualitative research are concerned with methodological ­rigour and quality issues. Due to differences in the research approaches, quantitative research’s cannons of validity and reliability may not be simply adopted into qualitative research (LeCompte et al., 1993). As qualitative research data was collected in a natural setting, researchers agree that the trustworthiness of a qualitative study should be examined to determine whether data are adequately collected, accurately analysed, and correctly interpreted and whether the data findings can capture the social reality (Guba & Lincoln, 1981; Merriam, 1998; Neuman, 2013). Specific measures are suggested to increase, including triangulation, member checking, long-term observation, feedback, clarifications of the researcher’s biases, etc. (Maxwell, 1996; Merriam, 1998; Stake, 1995). Given the conditions for conducting this research, several measures were taken to enhance its trustworthiness. First, triangulation was the key strategy in

Methodology  143 this regard and was conducted using multiple data collection methods and sources (Denzin, 1978; Mathison, 1988; Stake, 1995). In this study, data were collected from different informants—e.g., district teaching researchers, school leaders, TRG leaders, and teachers—which led to a fuller understanding of the operation of TRGs and teachers’ interactions in TRGs. Multiple data collection methods were used to triangulate the emerging findings, including interviews, observation, and document collection and analysis. Second, member checking was used to help triangulate the researcher’s observations and interpretations (Stake, 1995). When completed, I sent the final research report back to the school for the principal’ and teachers’ review to avoid misinterpretations (Maxwell, 1996). Third, long-term observation was used in this study. For almost half a year, I spent about nine hours a day, five days a week, in the field as a full-time member of the school, staying close to teachers and school leaders and attending TRG activities and other school events. This prolonged stay in the school guaranteed the observation of repeated teacher interactions and TRG activities and yielded rich data, thus helping the researcher to develop a comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the operation of wellstructured PLCs. Ethical Issues Ethical issues are vital to research quality and value. The need to be cautious and protect subjects is a common concern for researchers (Krathwohl, 1993). In qualitative educational research, researchers have special ethical responsibilities to minimise the risks to human participants (Hatch, 2002; Lipson, 1994). This study was conducted in line with the research ethics policies of the University of Hong Kong, where I obtained my PhD degree. Ethical practices were carefully followed, including gathering participants’ informed consent, ensuring data confidentiality, and protecting participants’ privacy. First, before conducting the research, informed consent forms were collected from all participants, including the school principal and interviewees. I described the research, how it was to be carried out, and how the data were to be collected and presented. I also stressed the voluntary nature of their participation in this study and that participants were free to withdraw at any time without any consequences. Second, I guaranteed the participants that all information obtained would remain confidential, be used only for research purposes and that only I could access the data. Furthermore, as participants’ thoughts and opinions on some questions (e.g., school leadership, interpersonal relationships) may be sensitive, I confirmed that I would not discuss the gathered information with others in the field to protect the participants’ interests. Third, to maintain the confidentiality and privacy of the school and participants, pseudonyms were used for all participants, the school, and the district to ensure their anonymity in the research report. Names were randomly chosen to reduce the possibility that readers might identify the school or informants and to avoid uninvited comparisons or unnecessary risks.

144 Methodology References Bazeley, P. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies. Sage. Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.). Pearson. Brinkmann, S. (2013). Qualitative interviewing. Oxford University Press. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and ­procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods ­approaches (4th ed.). Sage. Denzin, N. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. Jossey-Bass. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. State University of New York Press. Jacob, E. (1988). Clarifying qualitative research: A focus on traditions. Educational ­Researcher, 17(1), 16–24. Krathwohl, D. R. (1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrated approach (2nd ed.). Longman. LeCompte, M. D., Preissle, J., & Tesch, R. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). Academic Press. Lipson, J. G. (1994). Ethical issues in ethnography. In J. M. Morse (Ed.), Critical issues in qualitative research methods (pp. 333–355). Sage. Mathison, S. (1988). Why triangulate? Educational Researcher, 17(2), 13–17. Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Sage. Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. Jossey-Bass. Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (2nd ed.). Jossey-Bass. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis (3rd ed.). Sage. Neuman, L. W. (2013). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (7th ed.). Pearson. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage. Wang, J., & Zhang, M. X. (2016). TALIS jiaoshi zhuanye fazhan pingjia kuangjia de shijian yu sikao [Practice and reflection on TALIS framework for assessing teacher’s professional development: Based on data results from Shanghai TALIS 2013]. Global Education, 45(6), 86–98. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage.

Appendix B School Regulation on TRG Development

The requirements for TRG development of Yangshan ­Experimental Junior Secondary School

(amended in 2014) TRG is the major platform for teacher professional development in the school. It functions based on teaching practices, focusing on teacher professional development. A school-based research theme will be adopted to connect teachers’ personal reflections, peer coaching, and professional guidance to solve the practical problems encountered in school education. The requirements are specifically formulated to ensure and promote teaching research activities. 1 At the beginning of each semester, each TRG head shall formulate a semester plan according to the school and the TAO’s work plans, combined with its TRG’s characteristics. The plan should include routine arrangements, research themes, and team-building activities. TRGs should establish a clear goal and arrange learning activities that reflect research, action, and collaboration features. The plan should include the arrangements of contents, forms, and teachers to conduct the open lessons and reflective talks. 2 TRG head meetings are held biweekly, on Tuesdays. The TRG activities should be conducted on Fridays in the second-floor classrooms the same week. Every teacher should participate in TRG activities punctually. Never be late or leave early. Leave should be obtained in advance for any absence. 3 Implementing TRGs is to improve the effectiveness of school-based teacher training. Open lessons or reflective talks must be carried out around the research theme or group-based research projects. Activities should be arranged in an orderly manner. Teachers should offer constructive comments during group activities to form a questioning, collaborative, and supportive climate for mutual learning. Each activity is to be well documented. Teachers are suggested to accumulate relevant information and share resources in each TRG. 4 Each TRG should launch a research project, which could be generated from the research theme, or salient problems in teaching. The research project must demonstrate a research process of project establishment, mid-term demonstration, and submission of conclusion reports. TRGs should actively submit applications for district-level research projects and research outputs for awards selection.

146  School Regulation on TRG Development 5 Open lessons should be arranged at the LPG time uniformly. TRG heads should promptly inform all team members. All teachers should attend open lesson observation on time. Evaluation of lessons should be timely, frank, and fair, which is helpful to teachers’ classroom teaching practices and professional improvement. 6 TRGs are to improve the routine management of teaching. The school leaders in charge should observe teachers’ daily lessons. TRG heads should observe all group members’ daily lessons each academic year. They are also responsible for guiding each LPG’s collective lesson-planning activities. 7 At the end of the semester, each TRG head should write a summary of TRG work, considering the planned goals and the actual development of the TRG. With reflections on the effectiveness and shortcomings of TRG work, room for further improvement should be put forward.

Appendix C Semester Agenda of TRG Activities

Table C1  Semester agenda of the Chinese language TRG as an example (the second semester of 2015–2016) Week

Activity

Before semester begins

• TRG meeting: general arrangement of this semester and distribution of relevant materials • Check on teaching plans • LPG activity / • TRG activity • Examination result analysis for LPG 9 • LPG activity • TRG activity • Peer evaluation on teaching cases and selection of excellent ­teaching cases • LPG activity • An open lesson by Teacher 1 (school level) • Formal lesson evaluations by Teacher 2 • TRG activity • A reflective sharing by Teacher 3 • LPG activity • An open lesson by Teacher 4 (district level) • TRG activity • A reflective sharing by Teacher 5 • Revision for mid-term examinations • Mid-term examinations • Submission of mid-term teaching research materials • LPG activity • Examination result analysis and general teaching ­arrangement for the next mid-term • An open lesson by Teacher 6 (school level) • Formal lesson evaluations by Teacher 3 • TRG activity • Analysis of the Chinese language mid-term examination papers • A reflective sharing by Teacher 7

Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10 Week 11

Week 12

(Continued)

148  Semester Agenda of TRG Activities Table C1  (Continued) Week

Activity

Week 13

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Week 14 Week 15 Week 16 Week 17

Week 18 Week 19 Week 20

• • • • • •

LPG activity An open lesson by Teacher 8 (school level) Formal lesson evaluations by Teacher 9 TRG activity A reflective sharing by Teacher 10 LPG activity An open lesson by Teacher 2 (school level) Formal lesson evaluations by Teacher 11 TRG activity Submission of teaching research materials for evaluation A reflective sharing by Teacher 9 LPG activity Submission of all the materials for teacher evaluation on teaching research work An open lesson by Teacher 11 (school level) Revisions and preparations for final examinations Final examinations Marking examination papers and archiving Analysis of the Chinese language final examination papers Submission of the group semester-end summary

Appendix D List of Interviewees

Table D1  The Demographic information of interviewees Name

Subject

Gender

Professional title

Position

Teaching experience (in 2017)

Zhou

Chinese

M

Senior level

31 years 12 years in the position

Ying

English

F

Senior level

Xu

Maths

F

Senior level

Shi

Maths

M

Senior level

District teaching researcher District teaching researcher District teaching researcher Principal

Guo

Chemistry

F

Senior level

Vice-Principal

Pan

Geography

F

Middle level

TAO director

Li

Chinese

F

Middle level

Huang

Chinese

F

Middle level

TAO Vice-Director TRG head

Chen Lei Feng Qi Zhang Zhao Hu Zhu

Chinese Chinese Chinese Chinese Chinese Chinese Chinese English

F F F F F F F F

Middle level Middle level Middle level Junior level Middle level Middle level Middle level Senior level

TRG head

Qian Liang Jiang Du Yi

English English English English English

F F M F F

Middle level Middle level Middle level Middle level Middle level

24 years 12 years in the position 31 years 20 years in the position 24 years 10 years in the position 26 years 2 years in the position 15 years 2 years in the position 23 years 1 year in the position 18 years 2 years in the position 22 years 3 years 6 years 2 years 8 years 19 years 9 years 21 years 7 years in the position 6 years 22 years 3 years 14 years 21 years (Continued)

150  List of Interviewees Table D1  (Continued) Name

Subject

Gender

Professional title

Tao Ming Hong Wang Xue

English English English English Maths

F F F M F

Middle level Middle level Middle level Middle level Middle level

Lin Ye Fu Song Su Gu Xiao Gong Ma Wei Jin Ning

Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Maths Chemistry Physics Physics Biology Psychology History

F F M M F F F F F F F F

Middle level Middle level Middle level Middle level Middle level Senior level Senior level Middle level Middle level Middle level Middle level Middle level

Position

TRG head

TRG head

TRG head

Teaching experience (in 2017) 9 years 23 years 24 years 21 years 17 years 9 years in the position 24 years 2 year 9 years 22 years 20 years 21 years 26 years 7 years 15 years 8 years 19 years 14 years

Index

Note: Italicised page numbers refer figures and bold tables in the text. action research 72–74; collaborative 81, 96, 116, 117; group-based 82, 117, 140; teacher 40, 41, 42, 78, 86 administrative duties 39, 41–42, 65, 119 apprenticeship model see mentoring scheme backbone teachers 51–52, 72, 107; curriculum reform 20; district-level award 52, 57; LPG heads 65; TRG heads 64; see also master teacher China: Comprehensive Education Reform 48; District Education Bureau (DEB) 48; examinationoriented education 2; Ministry of Education (MOE) 48; Municipal Education Commission (MEC) 48; principal responsibility system 54; professional learning communities (PLCs) 23–26; State Council 48; teacher professional learning in 18–23; teaching research system 40; TRGs 43 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) 19, 54 Chinese PLCs for teacher professional learning 116–128; balancing dualities in 117–121; challenges for 121–123; see also teacher professional learning CH-TRG 55–56, 63, 64, 68, 72, 80–86, 100, 107, 112–113, 120 classroom teaching 71; action research 41; educational reforms 52; effectiveness 70; high-quality 59; mentoring 72; practical problems in 73; professional development

of teachers 50; skills 56; teacher professional learning 18, 81–83 collaboration versus hierarchy 119–120 collaborative culture: experiencing contrived 93–94, 108–110; with a focus on student learning 16; isolation of teaching practices 12; respect and trust among teachers 17; teacher professional learning experiences in TRGs 83–84 collective learning: application and 15; teacher professional learning experiences in TRGs 80–81 collective lesson planning 70 collective versus individual approaches 120–121 collective work 23, 42–43, 71 commitment versus control 118–119 communities of practice 13, 14 compulsory education 38–39 contrived collegiality 17, 95, 119 criterion-based sampling 133 critical reflections 84–86 Cultural Revolution 37, 38, 43 curriculum reform 5, 20, 39–41, 48 Darling-Hammond, L. 12 data analysis 141–142 data collection methods 136–141 data collection process 135–136 Day, C. 10 The Decision on the Reform of the Educational System 19 demographic information of interviewees 148–150 Deng Xiaoping 38

152 Index district-level open lessons 68 document collection and analysis 140–141 East China Normal University 20, 50 education system and development in Shanghai 47–49 English teacher 57, 59, 64, 71, 88, 104; authoritative information 86; collective activity periods 66; criticised colleagues 110; dominant culture 89; EN-TRG 87; novice 72; TRG 90, 91, 109 EN-TRG 55, 63, 64, 68, 72, 86–91, 96, 106, 107, 108, 110, 120, 134 ethical issues 143 Famous Principals programme 50 Famous Teachers programme 50 The Fifth Discipline (Senge) 14 Fullan, M. 126 group tradition 110–111 Hargreaves, A. 17 homeroom teacher (banzhuren) 59 individual teachers’ characteristics 111–113 innovative teaching practices 84–86 in-service teachers 20–21 institutionalisation: of in-service teachers 20–21; of the organisational structure 41 interview/interviewees 136–138; demographic information of 149–150; professional learning 102; research problem 74; teaching researchers 106 Kairov, I. A. 38 Lave, J. 14 leadership structure within TRGs 64–65 lesson polishing 69 Lesson Preparation Group (LPG) 23, 65, 66, 66, 67, 70, 72, 81, 87, 94, 99, 103–104 Lin, C. D. 20 Louis, K. S. 15, 17 Ma, L. 118 Marks, H. M. 17

master teacher 51–52; studio 23; see also backbone teachers MA-TRG 56, 63, 64, 68, 72, 91–95 mentoring scheme 22, 72 Merriam, S. B. 139 Miles, M. B. 141 Ministry of Education (MOE) 37 municipal level open lesson 67–68 Municipal Teacher Professional Development School 3 National Centre for School Curriculum and Textbook Development 39 National College Entrance Examination (Gaokao) 38 National Teacher Training Project (NTTP) 20 New China 37–38, 41, 43 New Curriculum Reform in 2001 2 observation 138–140, 139 open lessons 67–69 organisational structure 17, 24, 25, 41, 54, 55, 136 organisation of TRGs 63–78; leadership structure within 64–65; regulating teacher professional learning goal 74–76; routine professional activities in 67–74; subject-based nature of 63–64; teachers’ general perceptions of TRG activities 76–78; time and space arrangement of 66, 66–67; see also teaching research groups (jiaoyanzu, TRGs) Paine, L. 118 Pang, N. S.-K. 25 professional development 42–43; programmes and activities 4; school quality 3; teachers 10 professional learning 10–11; institutionalisation of in-service teachers 20–21 professional learning communities (PLCs) 1–2; “240/540” project 21; benefits and challenges of 16–18; characteristics of 15–16; in-service teacher 42; research-oriented collaborative 43; standardised training in 50; teacher 13–18, 24, 37, 38, 40, 43, 57, 74, 78, 97, 124,

Index  153 125, 127, 145; teacher professional learning 23–26; theoretical origins 13–15 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2, 3, 24, 49 public lessons 22, 67–69, 89 Qiao, X. 24, 26 qualitative case study 132–135 reflective talk 70–71 Regulation of Teacher Qualifications 19 routine professional activities in TRGs 67–74 Sargent, T. C. 24 school-based teacher professional learning 21–23, 123–124 school-based teaching research 3 school level open lessons 68 Secondary School Entrance Examination (zhongkao) 53 selection of case 133–135 selection of research approach 132–133 self-realisation 112 Senge, P. M.: The Fifth Discipline 14 Shanghai 3; “5-4” structure of compulsory schooling 47–48; “240/540” project 21; “360” project 49; education system and development in 47–49; gross domestic product (GDP) 47; junior secondary school in 4; Stage-2 curriculum reform (erqi kegai) 48; teacher career promotion system in 50–52; teacher professional learning in 49–53; teaching research system in 52–53; Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School 53–59 Shanghai Education Statistics 48 Shanghai Municipal Education Commission 3 shared goals 15 shared leadership 1, 15, 25 shared personal practice 1, 15 shared values 15 Some Recommendations on Improving and Strengthening Teaching Research Work 38 Soviet Union 2, 36, 43

State Education Commission 38 Stoll, L. 15 subject-based nature of TRGs 63–64 supportive conditions 16 supportive leadership 15 teacher career promotion system in Shanghai 50–52 teacher leadership practices 106–108 teacher professional learning 9–26, 74–76, 80–96; approaches to 11– 13; in China 18–23; collaborative culture 83–84; collective learning 80–81; critical reflections 84–86; goals for 74–75; initiatives of promoting 49–50; innovative teaching practices 84–86; professional learning communities (PLCs) 23–26; research project by classroom teaching 81–83; school-based 123–124; in Shanghai 49–53; teacher PLCs, theories of 9–18; teaching research groups (jiaoyanzu, TRGs) 24–26 teachers see backbone teachers; master teacher Teachers Law 19 Teaching and Learning International Survey (TALIS) 50 teaching as profession 9–10 teaching research groups (jiaoyanzu, TRGs) 2, 3, 4, 36–44; continuity in development in China 43; disciplinary concerns in activities of 76; as a form of PLCs in Chinese schools 23–24; group dynamics in 106–111; increased administrative duties 41–42; increased integration with professional development 42–43; intensified institutionalisation of the organisational structure 41; origin of 36; regularisation in the expansion of compulsory education 38–39; role in the foundation of the New China 37–38; semester agenda of activities 147–148; shifts in orientation of collective work 42; teacher professional learning 24–26; transformation under new curriculum reform 39–41; see also organisation of TRGs

154 Index teaching research office (TRO) 52 time and space arrangement of TRGs 66, 66–67 Tsui, A. B. M. 21 “Two Famous Programme” (shuangming gongcheng) 50 UNESCO 10 Wang, J. 64 Wang, T. 24, 25 Wenger, E. 14 Wong, J. L. N. 21

Yangshan Experimental Junior Secondary School 3, 53–54; mentoring 72; organisation structure 54, 54–56; reflective talk 70; requirements for TRG development of 145–146; school leaders 122; students 64; teacher professional learning 102; teaching staff 56, 56–57; teaching workload 57–59, 58 Y. Hu 24 Yin, H. B. 133 Zhang, J. 24, 25 Zhou, B. 24