Doctoral studies play a major role in preparing for academic work, and in the process, certain factors can be crucial for the study to be successful. The journey is often lonesome, and therefore, the opportunity to participate in a learning community with other doctoral students can be crucial. To respond to this common situation, the two of us, both supervisors of doctoral students, decided to collaborate in our supervision and create a space for a professional learning community (PCL) for our doctoral students. The learning community was established the year of 2021 and is still going in the year 2025. The PLC meetings have occurred once a month for four years, most often on-line although we meet in person twice a year. 

Professional learning community can be defined as a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their work in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented, and progressing way (Stoll et al., 2006). It can also be defined as professional development focusing on activities that develop an individual’s skills, knowledge, expertise, and other characteristics that portray a professional (OECD, 2009). Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) defined professional learning communities as a space where collaborative improvements and decisions are informed and discussed (Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012). They also found it important that two-way communication and consultations are fostered. Although the idea of PLC was established and mostly used in schools generating a collaborated community the idea behind it can fit into other situations also (Christensen, 2022). Collaborative practice focusing on learning, vision, responsibilities, and supportive conditions can be adapted to collaborative meetings with doctoral students also (Admiraal, et.al., 2019).

In a doctoral PLS group, it is important that the practice or the meetings are built around students’ needs and therefore essential for the mentors to be responsive and quick to react to the doctoral students´ needs. Responsiveness can be conceptualized as a strategy that is both attentive and adaptive in support of doctoral students and that builds support on student diversity, backgrounds, knowledge, interests, affect, and needs (Talafian et.al., 2025). However, a critical point for PLS groups is not to overfocus on what students are learning and overlook mentors’ experience and knowledge (Eshchar‐Netz & Vedder‐Weiss, 2021). It is important for doctoral students that their mentors share their expertise. Another critique directed toward the CoP model is associated with the hierarchy of power between the mentors and between the mentors and the students (Sutton & Shouse, 2019).

It is critical that the mentors establish a democratic structure at the PLC meetings and encourage collaborative routines that afford all participants sufficient space to contribute equally. 

Tickets out of class (TOC) are a type of formative assessment that can be used to elicit critical reflection (Marzano, 2012) by allowing supervicors to collect information on what students learn from PLC group meetings and respond accordingly (Brookhart, 2013). TOCs afford opportunities for students to clarify and consolidate their learning and to synthesize PLC content and organization, challenging them to actively analyse their learning (Edge & Olan, 2020) rather than waiting for knowledge to be delivered (Brookhart, 2013).

The purpose of this self-study was to map important aspects of the PLC and identify what we have learned is crucial for supporting academic progress. The aim of the study was to examine what PLC calls for and what needs to be in place for the professional learning community to be successful. Therefore, our research question was as follows: What characterizes our emphasis and action in creating a sustainable professional learning community of doctoral students and supervisors.

The research builds on the methodology of self-study of teaching and teacher education practices (S-STTEP), where we as the researchers and teacher educators, focus on our situation and progress as supervisors through the critical and collaborative lens of self-study. Self-study methodology engages in the researcher's own professional experiences, with the goal to improve their own practice. The methodology offers a comprehensive understanding of professional practice by reflecting, critically analyzing, and evaluating it through collaboration (Samaras, 2011). According to Pithouse-Morgan (2022), self-study research can provide evidence of the work of teachers and teacher educators. They can strengthen education by becoming accomplished practitioner-researchers, being a self-directed professional in their learning, it becomes valuable for their professional development and when they are committed to their professional growth they benefit both themselves and others. Participants were two supervisors in the beginning, later the third joined, and four to six PhD students. The doctoral students are at different states at their studies. Two doctoral students have finished their studies and defended their projects but are still participating in meetings. Our data collection is derived from work related to the PLC, recordings from meetings, agendas of meetings, PPT slides, and TOCs. By the end of each monthly meeting students turn in responses to questions or prompts we supervisors present as written on-line “tickets” before leaving the meeting. These responses are called TOCs (tickets out of Class) and are an important part of helping us to give students the feedback we conclude they need in the next meeting and to analyze what has been useful/helpful/constructive at each meeting. We presented to students that we were gathering data on the progress of the PLC and they accepted to participate in the study and that we could use data derived from them. We also scrutinized transcripts and minutes from our supervisors´ preparation and analytical meetings. Data analysis was ongoing as we responded to our interpretations of students´ situations and learning needs and used these findings to plan each meeting ahead. In addition to constant analysis, we listed and gathered all data over the four years and looked for challenges, recurring issues, and signs of what had worked well. We noted these traits and discussed how we had responded and whether our responses were in the spirit of our values and emphasis, in our teaching and supervision.

The process in developing the PLC has been an adaptable and creative journey, as we have adjusted and responded to students’ needs and requests. The frame for the agenda is flexible, with these elements: The circle of trust; supervisors’ input; various tasks; TOC. During the circle, students share what they have been doing in the past weeks and whether they achieved their goals they set themselves at the previous meeting. They are often surprised when they compare their finished tasks with their goals, that they have accomplished more than they thought. We supervisors usually present briefly some issues that the students have asked for, or we have identified as important. The topics can be reminding of conferences, preparing presentations or articles for publishing, writing an abstract, finding a suitable journal, and the rights and duties of PhD students. The students always share their gratitude for these inputs and discussions that follow. We organize short writing sessions for the students where they work in pairs or individually. According to the data, we have used this space less than we expected. At the end of each meeting, we give students space to respond to TOCs which they deliver on-line. The TOCs have prompts or questions from us e.g. What goals do you set for the next weeks? What would you like us to focus on at our next meeting? What did you take with you from this meeting? Our responsiveness to the students through the TOCs is at the core of our approach and pedagogy. We have seen the benefits, for us as well as the students, of working in a learning community with researchers of different nationalities and cultures, focusing on different topics, and applying versatile research approaches as they complexity and depth to the understandings of issues in education.

Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., De Jong, L., Emmelot, Y., & Sligte, H. (2019). Schools as professional learning communities: What can schools do to support professional development of their teachers? Professional Development in Education, 47(4), 684–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1665573 Brookhart, S. M. (2013). Develop a student-centered mind-set for formative assessment. Voices from the Middle, 21(2), 21–25. Christensen, A. A. (2022). A global measure of professional learning communities. Professional Development in Education, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2022.2065516 Edge, C. U. & Olan, E. L. (2020). Reading: Literacy, and English language arts teacher education. In J. Kitchen, A. Berry, A. M. Bullock, A. R. Crowe, M. Taylor, H. Guðjónsdóttir & L. Thomas (Eds.) International handbook of self-study of teaching and teacher education. 2nd edition. Springer international handbooks of education (pp. 779–822). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-1710-1_10-1 Eshchar‐Netz, L. & Vedder‐Weiss, D. (2021). Teacher learning in communities of practice: The affordances of co‐planning for novice and veteran teachers' learning. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 58 (3), 366–391. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21663 Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional capital: Transforming teaching in every school. Teachers College Press. Marzano, R. (2012). Art and science of teaching: The many uses of exit tickets. Educational Leadership, 70(2), 80–81. OECD. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results from TALIS. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/creating-effective-teaching-and-learning-environments_9789264068780-en.html Pithouse-Morgan, K. (2022). Self-study in Teaching and Teacher Education: Characteristics and contributions. Teaching and eacher Education, 119, 103880. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103880 Samaras, A. (2011). Self-study teacher research: Improving your practice through collaborative inquiry. SAGE Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, AJ., Wallace, M., & Thomas, SM. (2006). Professional Learning Communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7 (4), 221–258. https://doi.org:10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8 Sutton, P.S. & Shouse, A.W. (2019. Investigating the role of social status in teacher collaborative groups. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(4), pp. 347-359 Talafian, H., Lundsgaard, M., Mahmood, M., Shafer, D., Stelzer, T. & Kuo, E. (2025). Responsive professional development: A facilitation approach for teachers’ development in a physics teaching community of practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 153. 104812 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2024.104812