The position and role of middle leaders (MLs) in educational institutions has attracted attention from researchers, policymakers, and practitioners worldwide, as they have been proven to have the potential to make strategic contributions to institutions (Bryant, 2019). Considering that MLs occupy critical positions providing important linkages upwards, across and downwards (Grootenboer, 2018), capacity building and professional development for MLs (PD for MLs) has become an emerging research direction. Existing research shows that PD opportunities and the effective experience of MLs in practice are limited (Bassett, 2016; Bassett & Shaw, 2018). Previous research highlighted that PD for MLs prioritises practical on-the-job experience over formal leadership training (Lillejord & Børte, 2019; Lipscombe et al., 2021). Bryant (2019) also confirmed that MLs build capacity by developing professional networks and establishing partnerships with NGOs, consultants, and other universities. In other words, collaboration and interaction are effective ways to realise PD for MLs.

The concept of professional learning communities (PLCs) comes from learning organisation (Senge, 1990) and community of practice theories (Wenger, 1998). As defined by Stoll et al. (2006), PLCs are the manner in which a group of people conduct an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented, growth-promoting event to share and critically interrogate their practice. Although empirical evidence from different contexts has different manifestations and interpretations of PLCs, a consensus has been reached in the academic research field around the five characteristics of PLCs, involving shared values and vision; collaborative activities; reflective professional inquiry and dialogue; collective responsibility for student learning; de-privatised practice (Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio et al., 2008). The aforementioned characteristics have been widely recognised and used in different educational contexts. However, it should be noted that such existing studies focus on the role of PLCs in teacher professional development, while research that connects PLCs with the professional development for institutional members other than teachers, such as MLs, is limited.

In China, research that connects PLCs and PD for MLs is limited. In the few existing studies, MLs along with principals have been discussed in depth as vital factors affecting the PLCs and teacher professional development (Tang et al., 2023; Zhang et al., 2022; Bryant et al., 2020). Indeed, informal learning and PLCs have great potential in realising PD for MLs (Lillejord and Børte, 2019; Lipscombe et al., 2021). In this context, this study attempts to investigate PLCs’ practices in PD for MLs based on the Chinese context, which can enrich international educators’ understanding of the match or fit between the development of PLCs and their social culture (Stoll et al., 2006).

This study reports on a qualitative phenomenological study of 4 Chinese higher vocational colleges (CHVCs) in Shandong Province, involving two stages. In the first stage of the study, the researcher collected and screened policy texts issued by the central and Shandong provincial governments as well as institutional texts of sample colleges to quickly grasp the attitudes and initiatives of authoritative agencies and colleges towards PD for MLs and PLCs. In the second stage, the researcher further qualitatively examined the learning experiences of MLs in PLCs, using a snowball sampling strategy to identify 15 eligible MLs to complete two rounds of semi-structured interviews. The design of the interview outline was completed under the guidance of the basic situation mastered in the previous stage. During the interview process, the interview content and field notes were fully recorded. For confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for all interviewees. All data for this study were collected and transcribed in Chinese, and then the grounded theory coding method was used as the data analysis method (Charmaz, 2014). The researchers re-read policy texts, interview transcripts, and field notes and used Nvivo to assist with data storage and analysis. During the initial coding phase, the researcher identified a series of procedural and descriptive codes (Saldaña, 2021). This stage aims to restore the real experience of MLs participating in PLCs. The researcher then re-recorded, analysed and reviewed the first round of coding and raw data, which were then combined to form emerging categories.

Research findings reveal that two types of PLCs that play a vital role in PD for MLs, traditional PLCs with well-articulated structure and position-based PLCs. A variety of well-structured PLCs provide MLs with formal learning opportunities across boundaries. Learning opportunities here focus on the teaching role and expert status of MLs. As collaboration and learning platforms, although the foundation and scope of PLCs are different, their purpose involves strengthening members’ capabilities. Through top-down promotion and regulation, collaborative activities in PLCs gradually achieve institutional development. This study emphasises that the dilemmas faced by traditional PLCs in PD for MLs include role deviation, content disconnection, and controlled operation. In addition, there is a type of bottom-up PLCs in the Chinese hierarchical context to support PD for MLs, which can be conceptualised in terms of shared vision for institutional governance and development, collective endeavours and responsibility for institutional development, collaborative and mutual professional activities, de-privatised exchange of experiences, reflective deliberations and explorations. This study specifically proposes that this type of PLCs has the MLs-driven and position-based nature of PLCs and exist outside the bureaucratic structure in educational institutions. Such PLCs are proven to hold promise in areas wherein traditional contrived communities have fallen short, particularly when maintaining an equilibrium between bureaucratic learning mandates and authentic learning needs for routine work. In addition, this study also identified potential barriers to the development of position-based PLCs involving institutional leadership, structural and cultural conditions. By explaining the practices and effects of PLCs in PD for MLs, this study aims to investigate the characteristics of PLCs in different contexts and scenarios, which assumes major significance in both centralised and devolved systems. It adds to the growing knowledge base about PLCs and also informs international educators who are interested in promoting PLCs practices.

Bassett, M. (2016). The role of middle leaders in New Zealand secondary schools: Expectations and challenges. Waikato Journal of Education, 21(1). Bassett, M., & Shaw, N. (2018). Building the confidence of first-time middle leaders in New Zealand primary schools. International Journal of Educational Management, 32(5), 749-760. Bryant, D. A. (2019). Conditions that support middle leaders’ work in organisational and system leadership: Hong Kong case studies. School Leadership & Management, 39(5), 415-433. Bryant, D. A., Wong, Y. L., & Adames, A. (2020). How middle leaders support in-service teachers’ on-site professional learning. International journal of educational research, 100, 101530. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. sage. Grootenboer, P. (2018). The practices of school middle leadership. Springer. Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2019). Middle leaders and the teaching profession: building intelligent accountability from within. Journal of Educational Change, 21(1), 83-107. Lipscombe, K., Tindall-Ford, S., & Lamanna, J. (2021). School middle leadership: A systematic review. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 51(2), 270-288. Saldaña, J. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. The coding manual for qualitative researchers, 1-440. 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. Tang, J., Bryant, D. A., & Walker, A. D. (2023). In search of the middle influence: how middle leaders support teachers’ professional learning. Educational Research, 65(4), 444-461. 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. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems thinker, 9(5), 2-3. Zhang, X., Wong, J. L., & 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.