Since 1990s, the idea of professional learning communities (PLCs) became fashionable, and now it is widely practiced in North America (DuFour et al., 2010; Hord, 2008), Europe (Doğan & Adams, 2018; Lomos, 2017; Vanblaere & Devos, 2016), East Asia (Hairon & Tan, 2017; Pang & Wang, 2016; Zheng et al., 2020) and other contexts (Jäppinen et al., 2016; Vangriekenet al., 2017). PLC is globally welcomed as ample studies have shown that Transforming schools as PLCs can bring enhance student achievement and teacher learning (Vangriekenet al., 2017, Stoll et al., 2006). A PLC is commonly defined as “a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented, growth promoting way” (Stoll et al. 2006, p. 223).

Many previous studies have considered the whole school as a PLC (Vanblaere & Devos, 2016; Zhang et al.,2021), but many scholars have called for assessing the different levels of PLCs (Sleegers et al., 2013; Zheng et al., 2021) and their possible influences on students and teachers (Lomos, 2017; Vanblaere & Devos, 2016, 2018). Within schools, departments are the basic unit for teacher collaboration. Teachers are nested in departments and departments are nested in schools. This is especial the case in Chinese schools, where teacher collaboration mainly occurs at the subject-based departments (Gao & Wang, 2014; Wong, 2010). The present study focused on PLCs at the department-level in Chinese contexts. It explored the departmental PLC characteristics and their influences on individual teachers.

In addition, even previous studies have documented the benefits of PLC, it is not self-evident that teachers who engage in departmental PLCs can bring positive outcomes (Louis et al., 2010; Vescio et al., 2008). The study concerns the role of different dimensions of departmental PLC, namely shared norms, collective responsibility, deprivatized practice, and reflective dialogue. Using a multilevel analysis, it analyzed the relationship between departmental level PLC characteristics and individual teacher development.

Leadership is vital in developing and sustain effective PLCs. In school contexts, there exist multiple leaders, such as school principal, middle leaders and teacher leaders. Previous studies have mainly focus on the role of principal leadership in PLCs (Stoll et al., 2006; Vanbalere & Devos, 2016; Vangerieken et al., 2017). The study focused on teacher leaders in departments. Scholars argued that departmental leadership may possess greater influence for the creation of departmental subcultures than senior leadership roles, as teachers were in direct and continuous contact with subject leaders on daily basis as opposed occasional and seasonal contact with senior leaders (Ghamrawi, 2010; Leithwood, 2016; Printy, 2008). Therefore, the study further explored the role of department heads as teacher leaders for teacher development. Teacher leaders’ two types of leadership, namely instructional leadership (IL) and transformational leadership (TL), were examined at the departmental level.

In terms of teacher development outcomes, the study selected teachers’ self-efficacy as the outcome, which is a commonly used indicator for teacher development (Zee & Koomen, 2016). The study addresses teacher leadership and PLCs practices at the departmental level in the Chinese contexts. Two research questions are addressed:

       (1) What are the relationships between departmental PLC characteristics and individual teachers’ self-efficacy?

       (2) What are the relationships between two types of departmental teacher leadership (namely transformational and instructional leadership) and individual teachers’ self efficacy?

The participants were 907 teachers two Chinese provinces. They are from 81 departments, and the number of teachers in each department is more than 5. Among them, 365 (40.3%) were male teachers, 541(59.7%) were female, and 1 teachers was missing. There were 375 elementary teachers and 531 secondary teachers. In terms of their subjects, 338 (37.3%) taught Chinese language, 312 (34.4%) were mathematics teachers, 134 (14.8%) taught English, and the remaining 123 (13.6%) taught natural science, social science or arts. Furthermore, 58 teachers (6.4%) had taught less than 3 years, 99 (17.5%) had taught for 3–7 years, 211 (23.5%) had taught for 8–15 years, 219 (24.4%) had taught 16–23 years, 311 (34.3%) had taught for 24 years or more, and 9 were missing. Finally, 570 (62.8%) teachers were from urban schools, and 335 (37%) were from rural areas, and 2 were missing. The questionnaire used in this study included four scales: Professional Learning Community Scale (PLCS, Wahlstrom & Louis, 2008), Transformation Leadership Scale (TLS, Vanblaere & Devos, 2016), Instructional Leadership Scale (ILS, Vanblaere & Devos, 2016), and the Teacher Self-efficacy Scale (TSES, Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). SPSS 19.0 and Mplus 7.4 were used to analyse the data. First, descriptive statistics at the individual and departmental variables were calculated using SPSS. Then, the reliability of each dimension was tested and CFA was conducted using Mplus to examine the construct validity. Finally, the multilevel linear model (MLM) was conducted in Mplus, and four models were tested (i.e., the null model, Model 1 and Model 2). In the null model, the intra-class correlations (ICC, computed by σ2μ0 / (σ2e0 +σ2μ0), where σ2μ0 denotes the department variance and σ2e0 denotes the individual variance) were calculated. We then added the controlling variables. In Model 1, we added three individual variables related to teacher efficacy: gender, educational level and teaching experience. In Model 2, we added the departmental level variables, i.e., the four PLC dimensions. In model 3, we added teacher transformational leadership and instructional leadership at the departmental level, respectively.

In the null model, an ICC coefficient of .275 was found, which indicates that 27.5% of the difference between teachers’ self-efficacy was attributable to differences between departments. The results showed that teachers’ self-efficacy differed significantly between departments. In Zheng et al.’s (2021) multilevel analysis, they found that between-school variance is significant when considering the whole school as a PLC. School-level PLC should not be equal to department-level PLC. Our study goes one step further, and it shows that between-department variance is also significant. In Model 1, the results show that none of the controlling variables significantly contributed to teachers’ self-efficacy. In Model 2, four characteristics of school level PLC were added, and the results show that reflective dialogue (Est. =0.51, p < .05) and collective responsibility (Est. = .60, p < .001) were associated with individual self-efficacy. The results corroborate the findings of previous studies (Kennedy & Smith, 2013; Vanblaere& Devos, 2016). The results call our attention to collective responsibility to student learning and deep reflective dialogues between colleagues, as they can promote teachers’ teaching efficacy. The results means that, in departments, collective structure and sharing practices (e.g., observing others’ classes) are not enough. Critical conversations between colleagues and deep reflections on teaching practices or student learning are important for teachers’ authentic learning in communities. In model 3 and 4, teacher transformational leadership was significantly related with individual self-efficacy (Est. = 32.81, p < .001), while teacher instructional leadership is not a significant predictor. The study showed that departmental teacher transformational leadership had positive influences on teacher self-efficacy while teacher instructional leadership had not. The study implicates that departmental leader should create a more harmonious and communicable learning atmosphere for teachers, provide learning support and feedback on their professional learning within departments.

Doğan, S., & Adams, A. (2018). Effffect of professional learning communities on teachers and students: Reporting updated results and raising questions about research design. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(4), 634–659. DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press. Gao, S., & Wang, J. (2014). Teaching transformation under centralized curriculum and teacher learning community: Two Chinese chemistry teachers’ experiences in developing inquiry-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44, 1–11. Jäppinen, A.-K., Leclerc, M., & Tubin, D. (2016). Collaborativeness as the core of professional learning communities beyond culture and context: Evidence from Canada, Finland, and Israel. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(3), 315–332. Leithwood, K. (2016). Department-head leadership for school improvement. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 117-140. Lomos, C. (2017). To what extent do teachers in European countries differ in their professional community practices? School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(2), 276–291. Sleegers, P., den Brok, P., Verbiest, E., Moolenaar, N. M., & Daly, A. J. (2013). Toward conceptual clarity: A multidimensional, multilevel model of professional learning communities in Dutch elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 118–137. 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. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher effiffifficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783–805. Vanblaere, B., & Devos, G. (2016). Relating school leadership to perceived professional learning community characteristics: A multilevel analysis. Teaching and Teacher Education, 57, 26-38. Vanblaere, B., & Devos, G. (2018). The role of departmental leadership for professional learning communities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(1), 85-114. 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. Wahlstrom, K. L., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers experience principal leadership: The roles of professional community, trust, efficacy, and shared responsibility. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 458–495. Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Liu, Y. (2021). Are professional learning communities beneficial for teachers? A multilevel analysis of teacher self-efficacy and commitment in China. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(2), 197-217.