Research objectives

Digital technologies enable the expansion of learning communities from a single school to multiple schools (Shal et al., 2024). However, empirical understanding of such communities, both in Europe and globally, remains underdeveloped, particularly in the context of leadership development. In the ever-changing and uncertain contexts that school leaders navigate, they require a new mindset, skills, and capacities to enhance their schools and improve student outcomes (Fullan, 2020). This study focuses on the online component of a comprehensive leadership development program in Hong Kong SAR. Similar to the leadership development programmes in European countries, the development of school leaders in China addresses the needs of school leaders by emphasizing networked learning to help them transfer knowledge into their real work contexts (Sahlin, 2025; Shantal, 2014). The structured, online learning component of the program includes readings, video lectures, PowerPoint slides, and connection activities (CAs). CAs are Moodle forum activities that report on and investigate learning and experiences arising from various program components. CAs provide participants with opportunities to interact while reading, posting, and responding to peers, program organizers, and coaches.

In this study, we investigated learning and experiences arising from CAs on Moodle. We sought to understand how the networked online learning community emerged and how it shaped school leaders’ engagement in the programme. Accordingly, the specific questions guiding our research were:

RQ1. What is the nature of the online learning component of the leadership development programme?

RQ2. How do school leaders and experts as coaches engage in the online learning component of the leadership development programme?

We hypothesized that an online learning community with online coaching fosters collaborative online learning engagement (Luik & Požogina, 2025). The manner in which the findings can enable practitioners and scholars internationally to learn from the Chinese experience is discussed.

Conceptual framework: Knowledge process model

Through the intentional formation of ties, school leaders leverage their networks to acquire new knowledge and refine their leadership approaches, potentially fostering leadership learning and growth (Crawford, 2002; Floyd et al., 2025). Although boundary crossing carries learning potential (Engeström et al., 1995), participants often find it challenging to acquire, integrate, and generate new knowledge from diverse sources. Carlile (2004) found that shared knowledge is particularly beneficial for connecting units, enabling knowledge to be managed across boundaries and thereby stimulating innovation. Carlile's (2004) work on managing knowledge across boundaries is valuable here. Carlile (2002, 2004) identifies three models of knowledge processes that occur across boundaries: knowledge transfer, translation, and transformation. Knowledge transfer is the process of sharing knowledge. It lies in the information processing across boundaries and knowledge sources- receiver connections.  Knowledge translation refers to the translation of ideas and methods into concepts that individuals can understand and apply in practice. Knowledge transformation is the process of adapting, integrating, and reshaping existing information to create new or altered knowledge.

Participants typically integrate knowledge in multiple contexts in providing solutions. This landscape of expertise has been characterized as “polycontexturality” and “boundary-crossing” (Tuomi-Gröhn & Engeström, 2003). Learning across work teams significantly enhances the transfer of knowledge to their specific contexts (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). While knowledge flows across boundaries are possible, they do not occur without support (Hawkins & Rezazade, 2012). To address the challenges posed by knowledge boundaries, boundary brokers- individuals who connect different domains and facilitate the movement of knowledge between them (Carlile, 2004; Hawkins & Rezazade, 2012). The second mechanism involves boundary objects, identifiable, understandable, and sharable artefacts or activities meaningful to diverse groups of participants (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011). This theoretical perspective enables the authors to analyze different knowledge processes and reveal the underlying knowledge management mechanisms.

Methodology We employed digital ethnography developed from traditional ethnography to conduct online fieldwork as observers (Murthy, 2008), focusing on the online learning environment. Participants are to post/start at least one strand (a comment) on the Moodle Discussion Board representing their school team’ views, and to comment on others as they are posted over time, again based on joint school views rather than individual views. Moodle data were collected and analyzed to capture multilevel interactions and the growth of knowledge among school leaders. Data source In this study, we delved into data collected from the online learning community, comprising 63 school leaders and coaches (i.e., 26 expert principals and two program designers and lecturers). Text-based interactions among participants were captured in Moodle. The data collected through Moodle encompassed not only text-based interactions but also a variety of resources shared by participants, including articles, videos, and case studies. This extensive dataset enabled us to analyze the depth of collaboration and the processes of knowledge construction within the community. By exploring these interactions, we sought to reveal the process that enabled school leaders to lead innovation and change. Data analysis The study used content analysis to explore how the networked online learning community emerged. Content analysis enables systematic examination of learning in online discussions (Bowen, 2009). The analysis took the complete message a participant posts at a particular moment in the discussion as the unit of analysis. The coding of 298 messages captures the features relevant to the research questions, and the themes were constructed from the codes to identify patterns. Specifically, we identified the codes related to tools and learning-oriented achievement. These themes were analyzed in relation to Carlile’s (2002, 2004) model, which identifies three knowledge processes that occur across boundaries: knowledge transfer, translation, and transformation. This initial framework identifies general domains in which one can develop codes inductively to capture cross-system learning practices and their influences. We assigned initial codes under the guidance of the preliminary framework (descriptive codes and a priori codes). We then identified key analytic categories (interpretive codes) guided by the initial codes. We constructed thematic statements based on the earlier codes to demonstrate their meaning (theming the data). Inter-rater reliability is a critical concern in relation to content analysis (Rourke et al., 2001). Three independent coders coded 298 messages to enhance trustworthiness.

In this study, we sought to understand how the structured, networked online learning community emerged and how it shaped school leaders’ engagement in the programme. Our analysis showed that the school leaders learned through asking and answering questions. The school leaders moved cognitively between schools to identify successful practices (Floyd et al., 2025) and incorporated elements from different contexts into school-improvement strategies, which corresponds to Engeström’s (1995) term “hybridization”. School leaders established knowledge-sharing ties, while experts promoted the diffusion of knowledge across schools by constructing shared meaning and facilitating subsequent implementation. The guiding discussion questions served as boundary objects, encouraging leaders to critically assess their current practices and strategies through a goal-oriented lens. School leaders appeared motivated to pinpoint specific, impactful initiatives that could drive tangible improvements in their educational settings. Our analysis suggested that the involvement of expert coaches and facilitators, combined with the provision of guiding questions, maximised learning opportunities in the program’s online learning components (Luik & Požogina, 2025). The structured discussion questions both spurred and focused interactions throughout the learning community and shaped a task-driven learning environment (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011; Hutchison & Colwell, 2012). This study identified the significant role of multilevel coaching as a knowledge broker to foster knowledge flow across schools (Hawkins & Rezazade, 2012). Within this environment, the coaches and facilitators could provide the support and encouragement necessary for school leaders to process new knowledge and to explore new areas (Goodyear et al., 2019). As new knowledge emerged from discussions and fed into the learning network, new opportunities to reflect on innovation and change within participants’ schools appeared. This dynamic interaction seemed to form a worthwhile model that incorporated the conditions under which school leaders could develop mindsets and capabilities for continuous personal and organizational improvement.

Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative research journal, 9(2), 27-40. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development. Organization Science, 13(4), 442–455. Carlile, P. R. (2004). Transferring, translating, and transforming: An integrative framework for managing knowledge across boundaries. Organization Science, 15(5), 555–568. Crawford, M. (2002). Enhancing school leadership: Evaluating the use of virtual learning communities. Educational Management & Administration, 30(4), 431-445. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: Learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5(4), 319–336. Floyd, A., Baxter, J., Morales, A., & Bari, R. (2025). Leading online learning during a pandemic and beyond: Challenges and opportunities for school leaders in England. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 53(4), 829-849. Fullan, M. (2020). The nature of leadership is changing. European Journal of Education, 55(2), 139-142. Hawkins, M. A., & Rezazade M, M. H. (2012). Knowledge boundary spanning process: Synthesizing four spanning mechanisms. Management Decision, 50(10), 1800-1815. Hutchison, A., & Colwell, J. (2012). Using a wiki to facilitate an online professional learning community for induction and mentoring teachers. Education and Information Technologies, 17(3), 273-289. Luik, P., & Požogina, K. (2025). Unleashing digital transformation: How a professional development programme can lead to change. European Journal of Education, 60(3), e70191. Murthy, D. (2008). Digital ethnography: An examination of the use of new technologies for social research. Sociology, 42(5), 837-855. Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International journal of artificial intelligence in education, 12, 8-22. Sahlin, S. (2025). Professional development of school principals–how do experienced school leaders make sense of their professional learning?. Educational management administration & leadership, 53(2), 380-397. Shantal, K. M. A., Halttunen, L., & Pekka, K. (2014). Sources of principals’ leadership practices and areas training should emphasize: Case Finland. Journal of leadership Education, 13(2), 29-51. Tuomi-Gröhn, T., & Engeström, Y. (Eds.). (2003). Between school and work: New perspectives on transfer and boundary-crossing (pp. 123-135). Amsterdam: Pergamon.