Pensee teachers' perceptions 2014

Pensee Journal Vol 76, No. 5;May 2014
Teachers’ perceptions of staff collaboration at South African
inviting schools: a case study
Prof GM Steyn
Department of Educational Leadership and Management
University of South Africa, P O Box 392, Pretoria, 0003, South Africa.
As rated researcher, the research has been supported by the National Research Foundation in South
Africa
Abstract
This study reports on staff members’ perceptions of teacher collaboration at two South African schools
that received the inviting school award from the International Alliance for Invitational Education. The
inviting school survey assesses the invitational qualities based on the four assumptions of the Invitational
Education theory. Although these assumptions are harmoniously related, this article primarily focuses on
the second assumption: that education is a collaborative cooperative activity. A quantitative research
design was deemed most appropriate for this study. The five dimensions of Hord’s model were used to
determine staff’s perceptions of collaborations at these schools; (1) shared leadership; (2) a shared vision
and values; (3) individual and shared learning; (4) shared practice; and (5) supportive conditions. The
results revealed that the five dimensions of Hord’s model were evident at both these schools, which
confirmed the existence of teacher collaboration at these schools. The significant contribution of this
study lies in the verification and validation of invitational education in Hord’s model.
Keywords: Invitational education; teacher collaboration; Hord’s model; professional learning
communities
1. Introduction
In the last two decades there has been extensive research on the importance of teacher collaboration for
the sake of quality education; and teacher collaboration as an essential requirement for school
improvement through its constructive impact on teachers’ learning and practice and the performance of
students (Brouwer, 2011:7; Ertesvåg, 2011:1; Goddard & Britton, 2011:5; Goddard, Goddard &
Tschannen-Moran, 2008:878; Lockhorst, Van der Pol & Admiraal, 2008:253; Nehring & Fitzsimons,
2011:516). However, numerous studies indicate that the sphere of influence of teachers is confined to
their classroom walls, and limited opportunities are provided for collaboration (Brouwer, 2010:7;
Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009:57; Ertesvåg, 2011:1; Printy, 2010: 125;
Sigurðardóttir, 2010:407). Therefore, to meet the needs and challenges of students, solo-practice needs to
be replaced by a collaborative system where teachers frequently engage in in-depth dialogue (Fulton &
Britton, 2011:5). Moreover, recent school reforms have focussed on teacher collaboration as a tool for
improving the quality of schools (Brouwer, 2011:21; McLauglin &Talbert, 2010:35; Lockhorst et al.,
2008:253), even in South Africa (Republic of South Africa, 2011:13).
Professional learning communities, through teacher collaboration, are currently viewed as a framework to
enhance teacher collaboration, a shared vision, reflective dialogue and applied learning in order to
improve student performance (Blacklock, 2009:10; Nelson, Deuel, Slavit, Kennedy, 2010: 175). This has
stimulated scholars to continue their exploration into the role of professional learning within school
contexts (Williams, 2010:3). Although a number of studies described the design of professional learning
communities, and more studies on professional learning communities, as a means for teachers’ continuing
professional growth, are required (Brouwer, 2011:9; Katz & Earl, 2010:27,28). Moreover, the Department
216 office@penseejournal.com

of Education (2011:82) in South Africa recommended the development of guidelines to establish and
develop professional learning communities for schools. Such studies on professional learning
communities are necessary to inform educational policies and contribute towards steering the professional
learning community phenomenon (Christianakis, 2010:110).
The researcher was instrumental in assisting the two schools in the study to obtain the prestigious inviting
school award from the International Alliance for Invitational Education. She also gained insight into these
two schools from previous studies. Invitational Education considers collaboration and collectivity among
role players as one of the crucial assumptions to ensure an inviting school environment. This study which
is also part of a research project attempted to gain an understanding of how the staff at these schools
perceived the existence of professional learning communities at their schools.
2. Conceptual framework
Various models that describe and define professional learning communities and teacher collaboration
have been developed (Chappuis, Chappuis & Stiggins, 2009; Katz & Earl, 2010.; Hord, 1997; Hord,
2004). The following models are highlighted for the purpose of this study: The four basic assumptions of
Invitational Education; Mitchell and Sackney’s model of capacity building for a learning community
(2001); and Hord’s Professional Learning Community model (1997).
Invitational Education is viewed as an ethical theory of practice that centres around a set of consistent
assumptions about human behaviour and thinking (Shaw, Siegel & Schoen, line n.d.:5). This approach
attempts to authentically create and sustain a welcoming school environment that is intentionally founded
on respect, trust, optimism and care for the sake of increased learning outcomes; and the personal growth
of all role players (Shaw et al, n.d.:5). Although the primary focus of this study is on the second
assumption of the four basic assumptions of Invitational Education that are harmoniously related (Shaw et
al, n.d.: 5; Purkey & Siegel, 2003:7-24):
1. People are able, valuable and responsible and should be treated accordingly.
2. Helping others is a collaborative, cooperative association in which the process is as important as the
product.
3. People have relatively untapped capacities in all aspects of individual development.
4. Individual capacities can be best achieved by the 4 Ps (places, policies and programmes) that are
intentionally developed to enhance individual growth, and by people who continue to realise their
capacities in themselves and others, both personally and professionally.
The third lens for interpreting this study was Mitchell and Sackney’s model (2001) of capacity building
for a learning community. This model focuses on building three essential capacities, namely personal,
interpersonal and organisational capacities. From a school perspective, personal capacity refers to a
combination of embedded values, beliefs; and knowledge and skills that teachers possess; and the skilled
networks by means of which they interact. In order to build interpersonal capacity, the emphasis moves
from the individual to a group with mutual relationships and collaborative practice at its centre. Since new
methods and shared values take time to develop, it can be expected that collaboration will develop
through different phases that are characterised in team development (Mitchell & Sackney, 2001).
Moreover, a particular kind of communication is required to form a collaborative team that encourages
the development of shared understandings and engagement in collective inquiry to create new objectives
for professional operations at a school (Mitchell & Sackney, 2001). The third capacity of Mitchell and
Sackney’s model (2001) refers to building organisational capacity that begins with the awareness that
structural arrangements could inhibit collaboration or could remove isolation between teachers. It means
that a professional learning community at a school requires a unique kind of organisational structure that
could have an impact on personal and interpersonal capacity building. For Mitchell and Sackney (2001)
the first walls to be broken down from an organisational structure point of view are those negative
attitudes that exist in the minds of individuals. It is also necessary to provide structural opportunities for
professionals to interact. Once sufficient trust has developed among staff members, it may enhance
constructive dialogue and reduce or remove conditions that negatively influence professional learning in
teams. Leadership is also shared among staff members where individuals undertake leadership roles at the
school.
The third model on which the study on teachers’ collaborative learning was based is Hord’s Professional

Learning Community model (1997). Professional learning community models aim at designing structures
that reduce or remove the isolation of teachers and enhance collective learning among them to attain
shared objectives for student learning (Piccardi, 2005: 6; Williams, 2010:139). Hord’s model (1997)
identifies the following five dimensions of a professional learning community which are also supported
by various other scholars:
Dimension 1: Supportive and shared leadership: Changing a school into a learning community requires
the leadership of principals to create a school environment for the continuous collective learning of
teachers. (Fulton & Britton, 2011:14; Hord, 1997:2; Hord, 2007:8; Cranston, 2009:2; Hargreaves,
2007:187; Katz & Earl, 2010:27; Stoll, Bolam, Mcmahon, Wallace & Thomas, 2006:235; Richardson,
2009:29; Williams, 2010:4).
Dimension 2: Shared values and vision: Sharing a vision is considered to be a mental picture of what is
essential to both individuals and the school (Hord, 2007:8; Greer, 2012:8; Katz & Earl, 2010:27). It is
necessary that teachers are committed and willing to focus strongly on the primary goal of improving
their teaching practice for the sake of improved student learning (Fulton & Britton, 2011:14; Greer, 2012:
8). According to Fulton and Britton (2011:14), this dimension is the most critical factor for effective
teacher collaboration.
Dimension 3: Individual and collective learning: In a professional learning community teachers work and
learn collectively by sharing their professional skills and knowledge and by applying innovative teaching
methods to ensure effective student learning (Blacklock, 2009: 135; Katz & Earl, 2010:27).
Dimension 3: Dimension 4: Shared personal practice: To develop a shared practice, teachers need to
observe and visit one another’s classrooms regularly to discuss observations constructively (Hord,
1997:4; Greer, 2012: 8). Mutual trust and respect are also basic elements for an effective learning
community in the shared practice of staff (Cranston, 2009:10; Fulton & Britton, 2011:7).
Dimension 5: Supportive conditions: Hord (2007:10) distinguishes between two factors of supportive
conditions, namely structural and physical factors and human capabilities. Structural and physical
arrangements include aspects such as appropriate scheduled time to meet; access to resources and
structures to improve communication; and reduce isolation among teachers (Chenoweth, 2009:41; Fulton
& Britton, 2011:14; Greer, 2012:8; Katz & Earl, 2010:28; Williams, 2010:18). Building trust requires
ample time for teachers to develop mutual norms and language for the team to operate (Fulton & Britton,
2011:15; Hord, 1997:4; Katz & Earl, 2010:28).
3. The school contexts
The researcher was instrumental in assisting the two schools to become inviting schools. Both these
schools received the prestigious award from the International Alliance for Invitational Education; School
A in 1993 and School B in 2010. The nomination for the inviting school award in 1993 entailed the
completion of an Inviting School Survey by all role players which focusing on the existence of the so-called
four Ps (people, places, policies, and programmes) in invitational education. The ISS survey which
was a product of WW Purkey, the co-founder of Invitational Education, was originally a 100-item Likert-type,
hand-scored instrument without psychometrics, such as reliability and validity indices and norms to
support the instrument (Smith, 2012). Since then applications for the inviting school award were revised
and School B had to complete the Inviting School Survey-revised (ISS-R) and submit a portfolio that
attended to five dimensions: people, places, policies, programmes and processes (Shaw et al., n.d: 15;
Smith, 2012; Steyn, 2013: 560). The ISS-R is a 50-item Likert-type five-point survey that was completed
by students, teachers and parents at the school (Shaw et al., n.d: 15).
In 2010 a new principal took over at School A which led to an even stronger focus on teacher learning
and academic performance of students and School B intentionally started to adhere to the assumptions of
invitational education after its nomination as an inviting school in 2009. The study particularly focused
on the second assumption: Education is a collaborative, cooperative activity.
Schools A and School B were urban schools located in the eastern and southern suburb respectively in
Gauteng, South Africa. School A had approximately 1750 students and School B approximately 1790
students. The socioeconomic environments of these schools ranged from average to above average
although a number of students are exempted from school fees. The school visions of both schools
focussed on current and future directed student learning through quality teaching. At School A the

professional learning structure became prominent in the second year of the appointment of a new
principal who placed huge emphasis on teacher collaboration and who also played a key role in creating a
learning community at the school (Steyn, 2014a; Steyn, 2014b). School A reduced the number of
students in the Grade 5 to 7 Mathematics classes to 15 students per class and school B appointed 16 class
assistants for Grade 4 to 7 classes in the main subjects– Mathematics, Afrikaans and English to help with
discipline, marking papers and the identification of learning problems in these classes. The school profile
of both schools showed stability and homogeneity of the teachers and students. Of the 95 staff members
at School A, 40 teachers were departmental and 55 governing body appointments, while School B had 66
staff members of which 41 were departmental and 25 governing body appointments.
4. Research design
The two inviting schools of the study were purposefully selected since previous studies revealed
collaborative learning cultures at these schools (Steyn, 2013a; Steyn, 2013b; Steyn, 2013c; Steyn, 2014a:
in press; Steyn, 2014b: In press). For the purpose of this study a quantitative research design, particularly
a descriptive case study, was chosen to explore the perceptions of staff members with regard the existence
of teacher collaborative practices at their schools.
Hord’s (1996) “School professional staff as a learning community questionnaire” which was most
appropriate to answer the research question, was administered. It was designed to assess the development
and maturity of teacher collaboration in a professional learning community (Meehan, Orletsky & Sattes,
1997:iv). The items were based on the staff’s perceptions of the existence of teacher collaboration in a
professional learning community at the schools. The survey comprised 17 items; and the staff members at
both schools were invited to complete it. According to Meehan and others (1997:4) there are five major
dimensions of a professional learning community: (1) the involvement and facilitation of the principal
who shares leadership, power and decision-making with his staff members (with two descriptors); (2) a
shared vision and values which show staff members’ dedication to student learning which is continuously
communicated and put into operation in the work of staff members (with three descriptors); (3) teachers’
collaborative learning during which solutions are developed to attend to the needs of students (with five
descriptors); (4) the analysis and inquiry into teachers’ classroom practices by colleagues with a view to
assist and provide feedback for individual and school improvement (with two descriptors); and (5)
Supportive conditions which comprise physical circumstances and human capabilities that promote staff’s
collaborative operations (with five descriptors). Each of these dimensions with its sub-items consists of
descriptors on a Likert response scale of 5 (strongly agree and high) to 1 (strongly disagree and low).
Higher scores show a more positive and confirmed view of a specific dimension in the collaborative
practices of a school as a learning community (Gaspar, 2010:26.)
The data from the Hord’s study showed that the School Professional Staff as a Learning Community
(SPSaLC) instrument revealed suitable reliability and validity measures that were applicable to similar
studies (Meehan et al 1997:29, 33). According to Meehan and others (1997:45) the concurrent validity of
Hord’s instrument “does possess satisfactory correlation with the school climate instrument used in this
field test”. Cronbach’s Alpha that determined the reliability of the total instrument revealed a score of
0.9389 (Meehan et al., 1997:29). The content, concurrent and construct validity were also studied and
considered to be acceptable (Meehan et al., 1997:36-38). In order to ensure content validity of this
instrument, three different stages were used. After an extensive literature review Hord constructed the
five dimensions in the first stage which consisted of 17 descriptors and 51 indicators (Meehan et al.,
1997:36). Three Appalachia Educational Laboratory (AEL) staff members completed the content validity
assessment in the second stage to reformat Hord’s instrument which had been used in the pilot test of an
AEL project (Meehan et al., 1997:36). Another check on the content was done in the third stage when
staff of the AEL gave their reformatted instrument to the initial designer (Meehan et al., 1997:36).
The researcher applied for and received ethical approval from two bodies; The Gauteng Department of
Education and the University of South Africa to conduct the study. Moreover, the Southwest Educational
Development Laboratory (SDEL) gave written permission to use Hord’s (1997) questionnaire for this
study. Both principals also agreed to continue studies at their schools. Staff completed the survey
anonymously and the participation of staff in the study was voluntary.
At School A, a total of 52 questionnaires out of 95 were returned at the end of 2013 which represents a
return rate of 54.73%. Considering the fact that only 40 staff members were permanent, departmental

appointments and the rest governing body appointments, it could be considered as a relatively high return
rate. At School B a total of 41 questionnaires out of 66 were returned which represents a return rate of
67%. As in the case of School B, the return rate was relatively high considering that 41 posts were
departmental appointments and the rest (25) governing body appointments. This study’s investigation,
therefore, totalled the number of questionnaires ( 93) at the two schools for the purpose of this study.
For the purpose of this study the internal consistency of scale responses of both schools was assessed by
Cronbach’s Alpha, since the study focussed on how collaboration manifested in two inviting South
African schools. The overall Cronbach Alpha coefficients were 0.75 for supportive and shared leadership;
0.78 for developing shared values and a vision; 0.83 for collective learning and application; 0.81 for
shared personal practice; and 0.83 for supportive school conditions at both schools. The data analysis for
this study was done by means of SAS JMP (version) 10.0. A limitation of this exploratory study was that
it employed a quantitative design that measured frequencies of dimensions and not the quality of
collaboration or types of collaboration that existed in these two schools.
5. Findings
The descriptive study used in this study investigated the status of the five dimensions of Hord’s Learning
Community Model (1996) at two inviting primary schools in South Africa. The data collected from the
study revealed that staff rated themselves above average as a professional learning community at these
two schools as explained below.
Dimension 1: Supportive and shared leadership of Hord’s survey, attempted to determine whether the
principals involved teachers to share power, authority and decision-making (Hord 1996:1).
Table 1. Supportive and shared leadership
Dimension 1: Supportive and shared leadership 2 3 4 5
Subdimensions of the statement % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
1a: The principal consistently involves staff in
decision-making at the school.
4.30% 19.35% 43.01% 33.33%
1b The principal involves the entire staff in the
decision-making process.
1.11% 34.44% 36.67% 27.78%
Mean Standard deviation
3.99 0.74
It is revealed in table 1 that 76.34% of staff agreed that the principals consistently involved staff in
decision-making at the schools; while 64.45% of staff members believed that the principals involved the
entire staff in the decision-making process. No 'strongly disagree' responses were recorded and only 4.3%
and 1.11% respectively disagreed with the statements in 1a and 1b at both schools. Although both
principals were democratic in the decision-making process, the large number of staff at both schools made
it difficult to involve the entire staff. For both these subdimensions the mean of 3.99 was relatively high
while the standard deviation of 0.74 was relatively small.
Dimension 2: The shared values and vision measured the shared visions for school improvement that had
an undeviating focus on student learning, and were consistently referenced for the staff's work (Hord,
1996:1).
Table 2. Shared vision and values
Dimension 2: Shared vision
and values
1 2 3 4 5
Subdimensions of the
statement
% of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
2a Staff share visions of school
improvement.
1.10% 1.10% 19.78% 39.56% 38.46%

Dimension 2: Shared vision
and values
1 2 3 4 5
Subdimensions of the
statement
% of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
2b Visions of improvement
focussed on students, teaching
and learning
1.09% 0.00% 3.26% 29.35% 66.30%
2c Visions of improvement with
quality learning for all students
as target
0.00% 3.23% 8.60% 22.58% 65.59%
4.42 0.64
It is revealed in table, that 2 78.02% of staff agreed that they had a shared vision of school improvement;
95.65% of staff concurred that the visions of improvement focused on students, teaching and learning;
while 88.17% believed that these visions targeted quality learning for all students. The high percentages
in this dimension showed that staff had a well-defined vision, which focused on improving teaching and
learning to ensure quality learning for all students. Compared to dimension 1, this dimension showed an
even higher mean (4.42) and lower standard deviation (0.64) which revealed staff member’s experience of
a shared vision and values.
Dimension 3: Collective learning and its application of learning: assessed staff members’ co-operative
learning and whether applying such learning led to high intellectual learning responsibility and answers to
the needs of students (Hord, 1996:2).
Table 3: Collective learning and its application of learning
Dimension 3: Collective learning and its application
of learning
2 3 4 5
3a The entire staff meets to discuss issues, share
information and learn from one another.
2.15% 30.11% 33.33% 34.41%
3b Staff meets regularly to discuss substantive student-centred
issues.
0.00% 13.33% 35.56% 51.11%
3c The staff discuss the quality of their teaching and
students’ learning.
1.09% 13.04% 36.96% 48.91%
3d The staff, based on the learning, make and
implement plans to address student’s needs, more
effective teaching and more successful learning.
1.09% 7.61% 41.30% 50.00%
3e Staff assesses and debrief the impact of their actions
and make revisions.
2.17% 7.61% 46.74% 43.48%
4.28 0.58
It is revealed in item 3a in table 3 that less staff members (67.74%) than in others subdimensions of

Dimension3 concurred that the entire staff meets to discuss issues, share information and learn from one.
This is in line with the response in 1b (64.45%) where the entire staff was involved in decision-making.
The relatively large number of teachers (95 at School A and 93 at School B) did not allow for constructive
dialogue. However, according to the data, collective learning occurred in teams since 86.67% of staff
concurred that they convened regularly to discuss student-centered educational issues; 85.87% of staff
members agreed that they debated the quality of their teaching and student’s learning; 81.30% of staff
indicated that, based on learning in teams, they made and implemented plans to attend to the needs of
students, more effective teaching and more successful learning; while 90.22% of staff was of the opinion
that they assessed and debriefed the impact of their actions and made the necessary revisions. With regard
to subdimensions, 3b to 3e, teachers experienced constructive dialogue in teams and that they
implemented those decisions taken during interactions for the sake of more successful teaching and
learning. In line with dimension 2, this attribute showed a relatively high mean of 4.28 and a relatively
low standard deviation of 0.58.
Dimension 4: The shared practice of staff: Measured whether staff members observed and reviewed one
another’s classroom practices and provided feedback accordingly to enhance individual and school
capacity (Hord, 1996:2,3).
Table 4. Shared practice
Dimension 4: Shared practice 1 2 3 4 5
Subdimensions of the statement % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
4a Staff regularly visit and observe one
another’s teaching.
4.30% 11.83% 31.18% 38.71% 13.98%
4b Staff members provide feedback to
one another about teaching and learning
based on their observations.
3.26% 4.35% 17.39% 42.39% 32.61%
3.72 0.92
It is revealed in table 4 that only 52.69% of staff agreed that they often visited and observed one another’s
classrooms. This was also the lowest score compared to the other dimensions of the professional learning
community model. However, a higher score of 75.10% indicated that teachers provided feedback after
such events. The mean of 3.72 was also lower than those of the other dimensions while the standard
deviation (0.92) was higher. The compulsory peer observation in the Integrated Quality Management
System and the performance management system in South African schools allowed for such shared
practices to occur annually. However, the workload of teachers and full time table made the scheduling of
extra opportunities for staff to observe and visit one another’s classroom practices very difficult.
Dimension 5: Supportive conditions: Attempted to measure the conditions and capacities that supported
the school's arrangement as professional learning organisations (Hord, 1996:3).
Table 5. Supportive conditions
Dimension 5: Supportive conditions 2 3 4 5
5a Time is arranged for whole staff interactions. 2.25% 4.49% 55.06% 38.20%
5b The size, structure and arrangements of the school 2.20% 14.29% 54.95% 28.57%

Dimension 5: Supportive conditions 2 3 4 5
facilitate staff proximity and interaction.
5c A variety of processes and procedures are used to
encourage staff communication.
1.10% 6.59% 45.05% 47.25%
5d Trust and openness characterise all of the staff
members.
5.49% 25.27% 36.26% 32.97%
5e All staff members have caring, collaborative and
productive relationships
0.00% 13.19% 58.24% 28.57%
4.17 0.56
It is revealed in table 5 that 93.26% of respondents agreed that the schools schedule time for staff
interactions; 83.52% of staff members were of the opinion that although their schools are large, the size,
structure and arrangements of large schools nevertheless allowed for staff proximity and interaction; a
score of 92.30% showed that a variety of processes and procedures existed to encourage staff
communication; 79.23% of staff members perceived trust and openness among staff members, while
86.81% experienced caring, collaborative and productive relationships at their schools. The various high
positive responses in the sub-dimensions showed that the schools provided supportive environments for
professional learning communities to function effectively. The mean of 4.17 is in line with dimensions 1,
2 and 3 while the standard deviation is the lowest of all the other attributes.
The total score of the mean and standard deviation of these five dimensions were 4.02 and 0.51
respectively. This score indicates the extent to which staff members were of the opinion that the schools
created a positive learning environment and that they were supportive as learning communities. The
higher the total mean score, the more positively the school was viewed as a professional learning
community.
6. Discussion
This study attempted to investigate two primary inviting schools and examine staff members’ views on
the status of professional learning communities at their schools according to the Professional Learning
Community model developed by Hord (1997a). This study found that the two inviting schools exhibited
characteristics of each of the five dimensions of Hord’s model.
The results of this study reveal the existence of supportive and shared leadership. According to Hord
(2004:8) the transformation of a school into a professional learning community requires the endorsement
of school leaders’ endorsement and enthusiastic nurturing of the professional development of their staff as
a learning community. The data indicated that although the entire staff was less involved in decision-making,
both these schools provided other opportunities to consistently involve staff in decision-making
at the schools. Stoll and others (2006:243-246) state that school contexts such as the size of the school
may have an impact on the effectiveness of professional learning communities. However, theoretical
models on professional learning communities confirm the necessity of both shared and supportive
leadership for the successful operation of such communities (Blacklock, 2010:312; Gaspare, 2010:4;
Terry, 2013:65). Principals play a crucial role in developing professional learning communities by
sharing leadership and supporting collaborative learning (Cranston, 2009:16; Greer, 2012:30; Higgins,
2010:65; Reimer, 2010:16; Williams, 2010:4). However, to commence the drive for teacher collaboration
in their schools, it is necessary that principals raise a sense of urgency among staff members to work and
learn collectively in order to enhance their own learning and that of their students (Williams, 2010:153;
Greer, 2012: 30). It also means that they need to help staff understand the functioning of collaborative

teams at the school (Chappuis et al., 2009:57). Moreover, it implies that principals should not be solely
responsible for leading instructional reform in schools and they need to capitalise on the expertise of staff
and build on teacher leadership for the sake of creating effective professional learning communities at
their schools (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2007:157). Furthermore, it also necessitates leadership to find
shared ‘pictures of a future with staff members that could foster genuine commitment (Senge, 1990: 8;
Williams, 2010:22).
Fulton and Britton (2010:37) are of the opinion that the second dimension of Hord’s model (1996),
sharing a vision and values, is the first key factor for a successful learning community at schools. The
results of this study reveal the existence of shared values and a collectively developed vision that
promotes improvement at both schools. The collected data, therefore, support the identified dimension:
shared values and a vision in ‘n professional learning community (Greer, 2012:88). This also confirms the
results in similar studies (Blacklock, 2010: 312; Huffman & Hipp, 2003:43; Reimer, 2010:17). By
implication, the second assumption of invitational education, education is a collaborative, cooperative
activity, was also supported by the findings of the study. The schools also shared the responsibility of
student learning and growth (Nehring & Fitzsimons, 2011:515). Principals lead their teachers to work and
learn collaboratively with a common vision of a professional learning community where students are
viewed as “academically capable and staff envision learning environments to support and realize each
student’s potential achievement” (Hord, 2004:8). It is within a learning community that a collective
understanding of successful student learning emerges and also what staff members would like to achieve
in future (Fleming, 2007:24; Fulton & Britton, 2010:47; Richardson, 2009: 25). Moreover, the shared
vision then serves as a context for decisions on teaching practices, collaborative learning efforts of
teachers and student learning at a school (The Centre for Comprehensive School Reform and
Improvement 2009:1). The results of this study, however contradict the results of Higgins’study (2010).
Higgins (2010:106; 107) shows that staff did not agree or discuss the vision of the school and they lost
focus of the goals at the school.
Sharing knowledge and skills support both individual and collective learning at schools (Drago-Severson
2007:99). The notion of building personal and interpersonal capacities in Mitchell and Sackney’s model
(2001) was also confirmed by the findings of this study. Moreover, the major focus of shared personal
practice is on teachers’ professional learning where they learn and work together by continually assessing
their teaching practices and the needs of their students (The Centre for Comprehensive School Reform
and Improvement 2009:1). Williams (2010:104) is of the opinion that a known advantage of teacher
collaboration lies in the notion of “pooled intelligence”. He believes that the “concept is founded on the
premise that collaboration prompts all participants to share their expertise, thus increasing the knowledge
and skill of all members of the group” (Williams, 2010:104). The dimension “shared personal practice” in
this study was reported with the lowest mean score of 3.72. This finding was also supported by a study of
Blacklock (2010: 336). Moreover, compared to other sub-dimensions in this study, staff reported the
lowest score for opportunities to visit and observe other teachers regularly. The Integrated Quality
Management System in South Africa is an attempt by the Department of Education to monitor and
evaluate the performance of teachers with a view to improving the quality of education at schools. In this
system teachers are appraised once or twice a year by a panel of appraisers who conduct class visits with
a view to obtaining assessment scores for performance measurement purposes. In a study of Rabichund
and Steyn (2014:353) teachers suggested that IQMS be aborted and that class visits be conducted
throughout the year to have an impact on the professional development of teachers. The notion of regular
classroom visits during which teachers discuss classroom observations and debated teaching practices
was also supported by studies done by Maistry (2008:131), Reimer (2010:18,19) and Williams
(2010:125). Sharing classroom practices assist in building a cohesiveness among team members which
enhances the professional learning of teachers. (Greer, 2012: 8).
The results of the study also show the existence of collective learning and its application of learning.
Professional learning in communities at both these schools were demonstrated by staff working and
learning collectively and collaboratively together (Hord, 2004:9) thereby supporting the second
assumption of invitational education. These results were also corroborated by other studies (Blacklock,
2010: 344; Drago-Severson, 2007:87; Greer, 2012:88; James, Dunning, Connolly & Elliott, 2007:548;
Reimer, 2010:18,19). However, as in the instance of dimension 1: shared leadership; respondents also
indicated that professional learning among the entire staff in subdimension 3a occurred less than in other

subdimensions. The fact that both schools were relatively large in size explains their responses (Stoll et
al., 2006:243-246). In order to meet the learning needs of students, the historically solo-practices of
teachers need to change to collaborative practices whereby teachers continuously engage in teams to
develop their knowledge and skills (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, S 2009:
2; Ertesvåg, 2011:1; Fulton & Britton, 2011:5; Nehring & Fitzsimons, 2011:526). Staff who intentionally
focus on learning attempt to search for and create the necessary support activities and opportunities to
move beyond the current status quo (Katz & Earl, 2010:32). Moreover, within professional learning
communities a culture of learning is valued, supported and encouraged by all staff members (Blacklock,
2010: 345). The results of this study are contradicted by Higgins (2010:107) which indicated that staff
did not apply learning experiences from interactions with other teachers and they also did not value the
importance of such interactions. In line with this view McLaughlin and Talbert (2007:160) state that staff
from different departments often think that they have little in common to share.
An appropriate, supportive learning environment where staff at schools can collaborate as a unit to learn,
make decisions, solve problems and work creatively is required (Fulton & Britton, 2011:14; Hord, 2004:
10; Hord, 2007:11). Blacklock (2010: 319) states that organisational structures at schools which provide
supportive conditions play an essential and integral role to ensure the effectiveness of professional
learning communities. Staff members in this study reported that their school schedule and organisation
allowed staff to collaborate effectively. These findings, therefore, support the building of organisational
capacities as identified by Mitchell and Sackney’s model (2001) and also the fourth assumption of
invitational education: that individual capacities in the school’s organisation are intentionally developed
to promote individual development, personally and professionally. Although both schools are large they
nevertheless succeeded in providing a variety of processes and procedures to encourage staff
communication. The supporting conditions for effective professional learning communities also require
caring, collaborative and productive relationships which include trust and openness among staff members
(Cranston, 2009:10; Fulton & Britton, 2011:7; Katz & Earl, 2010:29, 30). In this regard Hargreaves
(2007:187), Higgins (2010:109) and Fleming (2007:28) maintain that developing trust is critical for
sustaining professional learning communities. The data, therefore, supports the identified characteristic of
this dimension in the professional learning community. The findings of this study are also supported by
those of Greer (2012: 89), James, and others (2007:548) and Blacklock (2009: 183).
7. Conclusion
With the teaching profession’s emphasis on communities of learners, schools need to implement
collaborative models of professional development. The findings of this study suggest the existence of the
five professional learning community dimensions of collective learning of Hord’s model at two South
African inviting schools. Learning more about the collaborative culture of these successful schools and
studying them through the theoretical framework of the Professional Learning Community model,
elaborated on the practices which promoted the success of these schools.
The collaboration model at these schools revealed a well-developed structure for the professional
collaboration which all staff members understood and respected. The following implications can be
drawn from this study:
• Strong leadership capacities in communicating and sharing the vision for building and maintaining
professional learning communities at schools are required. As instructional leaders, the principals need
to be committed to teachers’ professional learning by sharing school leadership at the schools. It
implies that principals should acknowledge the expertise of staff members and ensure their active
participation in the functioning of the school.
• Staff requires a strong understanding of the purpose of collaboration which implies the necessity to
share values and a vision that is focussed on improved teaching practices for the sake of improved
student learning.
• Collective learning occurs when individual teachers work together in collaborative relationships to
develop professionally and enhance student learning. The teachers need to develop the necessary skills
and processes to collaborate effectively for the sake of improving their individual learning and that of
their students.
• Shared practice requires the building of trust and respect among staff members and also commitment
and willingness to share their practices. By implication it means to abandon competition among staff
members and to break down any barriers that are created by isolation at schools.

• Supportive, conducive conditions are required at schools for professional learning communities to
function effectively. This implies the institution of structural and physical conditions to ensure teacher
collaboration. The necessary time for teachers to meet regularly on a sustained basis with a hectic
school time table remains a challenge for schools. Moreover, such regular scheduled opportunities are
required since it takes time to build teacher qualities, such as care, trust, and respect to ensure
effective collegial, collaborative relationships.
The findings of this study might help policymakers to design appropriate professional development
programmes that focus on teacher collaboration. However, a limitation of the study is that it focussed on a
single case study: professional learning communities at two South African inviting schools. Based on the
findings of this study; and considering the fact that school contexts differ, the following studies are
recommended: (1 A study that compares the views of staff in the two inviting schools to show similarities
and differences in the professional learning communities at the schools. (2) A study at inviting schools in
other countries on how the dimensions of Professional Learning Communities in Hord’s model (1996) are
revealed (3) A study on how the factors in different school contexts influence the development and
existence of professional learning communities at schools may contribute to the current body of
knowledge in transforming schools into professional learning communities.
References
Blacklock, P.J. (2009). The five dimensions of professional learning communities in
improving exemplary Texas elementary schools: a descriptive study. Unpublished Ph.D Dissertation.
Texas: University of North Texas.
Brouwer, P. (2011). Collaboration in teams. Ph.D Thesis, Unpublished. Utrecht, Netherlands:
University of Utrecht.
Chappuis, S., Chappuis, J., & R. Stiggins. (2009). Supporting teacher learning teams. Educational
Leadership, February, 66(5), 56–60.
Chenoweth, K. (2009). It can be done, it's being done, and here's how. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(1), 38-
43.
Cranston, J. (2009). Holding the reins of the professional learning community: eight themes from
research on principals’ perceptions of professional learning communities. Canadian Journal of
Educational Administration and Policy, February, 90, 1-22.
Creswell, J.W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches.
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.
Christianakis M (2010). Collaborative research and teacher education. Issues in Teacher Education,
19(2), 109 – 125.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional
learning in the learning profession: a status report on teacher development in the United States and
abroad. Dallas, TX: National Staff Development Council. [Online] Available:
http://www.nsdc.org/news/NSDCstudy2009.pdf (April 1, 2014).
Department of Education, 2011. Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for Teacher Education
and Development in South Africa. Technical Report: Basic Education and Higher Education and
Training. [Online] Available: http://getideas.org/resource/integrated-strategic-planning-framework-teacher-
education-and-development-south-af/ (January 21, 2014).
Drago-Severson, E. (2007) Helping teachers learn: principals as professional development leaders.
Teachers College Record, 109(1), 70-125.
Ertesvåg, S.K. (2011). Improving teacher collaboration: the role of classroom characteristics and
individual factors on teachers’ collaboration: a latent Growth Curve Approach. Paper presented at the
ICSEI Congress 2011 International Congress for School effectiveness and Improvement. Linking
Research, Policy and Practice to Promote Quality in Education, Limassol Cyprus. 4-7 January.
[Online] Available: http://www.icsei.net/icsei2011/Full%20Papers/0090.pdf (November 9, 2013 ).
Fulton, K. & Britton, T. (2010). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: A knowledge

synthesis. [Online] Available:
http://www.wested.org/online_pubs/resource1097.pdf(November 9, 2013 ).
Fulton, K. & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From Good
teachers to great teaching. [Online] Available: http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/1098-
executive-summary.pdf (November 9, 2013).
Gaspar, S. (2010). Leadership and the professional learning community. Ph. D. Thesis, Unpublished.
Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska.
Goddard, Y.L., Goddard, R.D. & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2008). A theoretical and empirical
investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public
elementary schools. Teachers College Record, April, 109(4), 877-896.
Greer, J.A. (2012). Professional learning and collaboration. Ph. D Thesis, Unpublished. Virginia:
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professsional learning communities. In Professional learning
communities: divergence, depth and dilemmas, edited by L Stoll, KS Louis (Eds.): Maidenhead, UK:
Open University Press, pp, 181–195.
Higgins, K.E. (2010) An investigation of professional learning communities in North Carolina.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, Fayetteville State University: Fayetteville, North Carolina.
Hord, S.M. (1996). School professional staff as learning community questionnaire. Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Available by permission from: SEDL Information
Resource Center-Copyright Permissions4700 Mueller Blvd.Austin, TX 78723
www.sedl.org/about/copyright_request.html (Reprinted by Trudy Steyn with permission from
SEDL)
Hord S.M. (1997). Professional Learning Communities: What are they and Why are they important?
Issues... about Change, 6(1), 1-8.
Hord, S.M. (ed.). (2004). Learning together, leading together. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hord, S.M. (2004). Professional learning communities: An overview. In Hord (ed) 2004. (Chapter 1).
Huffman, J.B. & Hipp K.K. (eds.) 2003. Reculturing schools as professional learning
communities.Oxford: ScarecrowEducation.
James, C.R., Dunning, G., Connolly, M. & Elliott, T. (2007). Collaborative practice: A model of
successful working in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(5), 541-555.
Katz, S. & Earl, L. (2010). Learning about networked learning communities. School Effectiveness
and School Improvement, March, 21(1), 27-51.
Lockhorst, D., Van der Pol, J. & Admiraal W. (2008). A descriptive model of teacher communities.
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Networked Learning, ISBN No: 978-1-86220-
206-1: 253-261. [Online] Available at :
http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/ivlos/2009-0106-200613/lockhorst%20-
%20a%20descriptive%20model.pdf (February 13, 2014).
Maistry, S.M. (2008). Towards collaboration rather than co-operation for effective teacher
professional development in South Africa: Insights from social practice theory. Southern African
Review of Education, 14(1), 119-142.
McLaughlin, M.L. & Talbert, J E. (2007). Building professional learning communities. In high
schools: challenges and promising practices, edited by Stoll & Louis, Chapter 11
McLaughlin, M.L. & Talbert, J.E. (2010). Professional learning communities: Building blocks for
school culture and student learning. Voices in Urban Education, Spring, 35-45. [Online] Available :
http://www.stanford.edu/group/suse-crc/cgi-bin/
drupal/sites/default/files/Professional_Learning_Communities.pdf (November 12, 2013).
Meehan, M.L., Orletsky, S.R. & Sattes, B. (1997). Field test of an instrument measuring the concept
of professional learning communities in schools. Appalachia Educational Laboratory: Charleston,
West Virginia.

Mitchell, D. &. Sackney. L. (2001). Building Capacity for a Learning Community. Canadian Journal
of Educational Administration and Policy (19). [Online] Available :
http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/mitchellandsackney.html (no page numbers).
(November 6, 2013).
Moller, G. (2006). Teacher leadership emerges within professional learning communities. Journal of
School Leadership, 16(5), 520-533.
Nehring J. & Fitzsimons, G. (2011). The professional learning community as subversive activity:
countering the culture of conventional schooling. Professional Development in Education,
September, 37(4), 513–535.
Nelson, T.H., Deuel, A., Slavit, D. & Kennedy, A. (2010). Leading deep conversations in
collaborative inquiry groups. The Clearing House, 83, 175–179,
Norris, C.J., Barnett, B.G., Basom, M.R. & Yerkes. D.M. (2002). Developing school leaders. A
working model: The learning community in action. New York, NY: Teachers’ College, Columbia
University
Piccardi, J.M. (2005). Principals' perceptions of factors affecting teacher collaboration in elementary
schools. Ongepubliseerde Doktorsgraad proefskrif. Whales Universiteit: Rhode Island, Engeland.
Purkey, W.W.& Siegel, B. (2003). Becoming an invitational leader: A new approach to professional
and personal success. Atlanta: Humanics Trade Group.
Printy, S. (2010). Principals’ influence on instructional quality: insights from US schools. School
Leadership and Management, April, 30(2), 111-126.
Rabichund, S. & Steyn, G.M. (2014). The contribution of the Integrated Quality Management
System to whole school development in South Africa. The Mediterranean Journal of Social
Sciences, 5(4), 348-358
Republic of South Africa. (2011). Technical Report: Integrated Strategic Planning Framework for
Teacher Education and Development in South Africa. Pretoria: Department of Basic Education and
Department of Higher Education and Training. [Online] Available :
http://getideas.org/resource/integrated-strategic-planning-framework-teacher-education-and-development-
south-af/ (February 19, 2014)
Reimer, L. (2010) A study on the principal’s role in the development of professional learning
communities in elementary schools that ‘beat the odds’ in reading. Unpublished doctoral thesis,
University of Minnesota: Minneapolis, MN.
Richardson, M.A. (2009). Perceptions of Principals from High and Low Performing Elementary
Schools Concerning Schools as Professional Learning Communities. Ph.D. Thesis, Unpublished.
Minneapolis, Minnisota: Walden University.
Sigurðardóttir, A.K. (2010). Professional Learning Community in Relation to School Effectiveness.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, October, 54(5), 395–412.
Senge, P. 1990. The fifth discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday.
Shaw, D., Siegel, B. & Schoenline, A. n.d. Basic tenets of invitational theory and practice (ITP): An
invitational glossary manuscript. Unpublished manuscript.
Smith, K. (2012).The History and Development of the Inviting School Survey: 1995-2012. Journal
of Invitational Theory and Practice , January, 18,57-64
Steyn, G.M. (2010). Creating intentionally inviting schools through professional development: an
appreciative inquiry. Koers, 76(4), 873-897
Steyn, G.M. (2013a). Principal succession: The sosialisation of a primary school principal in South
Africa, Koers: Bulletin for Christian Science. [Online] Available: 78(1), Art. #426, 9 pages.
http://dx.doi. org/10.4102/koers.v78i1.426 (February 19, 2014)
Steyn, G.M. (2013b). Principal succession in a South African primary school: a narrative inquiry.
Loyola Journal of Social Sciences, XXWI(2), 271-291
Steyn, G.M. (2013c). Using visual ethnography to explore a principal’s perceptions of innovations

made in a South African primary school. African Education Review, 10 (3), 557-580.
Steyn, G.M. (2014a). Creating a teacher collaborative practice in a South African primary school:
The role of the principal. In press The Journal of Asian and African Studies
Steyn, G.M. (2014b). Teacher collaboration and invitational leadership in a South African primary
school. In press: Education and Urban Society.
Stoll, L. & Louis, K.S. (eds.). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas.
Berkshire, England: Open University Press.
The Centre for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement 2009. Professional learning
communities: What is a PLC? [Online] Available: http://www.centerforcsri.org/plc/literature.html
(January 21, 2013).
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., Mcmahon, A., Wallace, M. & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning
communities: a review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.
Terry, W. (2013). Shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 71(2), 62-67.
Williams, S.M. (2009). The Impact of Collaborative, Scaffolded Learning in K-12 Schools: A Meta-
Analysis. The Metiri Group, Cisco Systems, Inc. [Online] Available:
http://www.cisco.com/web/about/citizenship/socio-economic/
docs/Metiri_Classroom_Collaboration_Research.pdf (January 23, 2014).
Williams, M.L. (2010). Teacher collaboration as professional development in a large, suburban high
school. Unpublished PhD thesis. Lincoln, Omaha: University of Nebraska.

Pensee teachers' perceptions 2014

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Pensee teachers' perceptions 2014

More from steyngm1

Recently uploaded

Pensee teachers' perceptions 2014