The ecological paradigm (Doyle, 1985) is long and widely used in Physical Education (PE) research (Hastie & Siedentop, 2006). However, PE ecological studies essentially focus in the classroom micro-system, lacking insight about how the meso-system, i.e. PE teachers’ collective work, is enrolled and supports teachers’ Classroom Ecology Management (CEM) (Doyle, 1985). Classroom ecology paradigm looks into classroom’s real life and, along with Instructional and Managerial task systems, integrates the Students’ social system  (SSS) (Allen, 1983). This paradigm underlines the interactions of students’ thoughts and behaviours with teachers’ management of academic goals and learning tasks, and the negotiation of the latest with students’ social goals and strategies in three main fashions – condescending on the academic agenda, ignoring the social agenda, and integrating social and academic agendas (Hastie & Siedentop, 2006). Research points that more student centred approaches, i.e. integrating both agendas, provides greater teaching quality by increasing student engagement and learning opportunities (Hastie & Siedentop, 2006). Additionally, collective work enables teachers to learn and develop more student centred strategies (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008).

PE research on collective work would benefit from study models of collective social learning and organizations. Costa, Onofre and Martins (2011) have been using the model of Professional Learning Communities (PLC) (Hord, 1997) to understand and describe collective dynamics from PE subject departments (PESD), and how they support the CEM of respective teachers.

Hord and Sommers (2008) underline PLC as a specific model of collective work in teaching context, that promotes students’ success, grounded on teachers’ development. They define PLC in five dimensions: Shared vision and beliefs; Shared and supportive leadership; Collective learning and its application; Shared personal practice; and Supportive conditions from a relational and logistic perspective. These authors refer to shared practice as the most challenging dimension and leadership as crucial for the staff’s collective development towards a PLC. Tozer and Horsley (2006) comment on the importance of this model for PE teachers, since PLCs emerge as key-elements to change instructional practices, despite contextual differences between schools.

On an international perspective of PLC’s study, Stoll and Louis (2007) emphasize the need to embrace the work from other countries and realities, recognizing their specific cultural contexts. Vescio et al (2008) analysed a set of 11 methodically selected research works about the impact of PLC on teaching practice and student learning, from which only one was done in Europe.

This study, already underway, aims to contribute to enrich the international perspective of the PLC model, specifically in PE research on the collective work, and integrating that model with the ecological paradigm of classroom study. Therefore, this integration of models addresses the relationship between the school meso-system with the classroom micro-system. We intend to achieve that understanding by exploring and describing how PESDs collectively work, grounded on PLC model, while integrating the SSS for a better comprehension of teachers and students interactions in CEM. This paper seeks to present first hand results from quantitative data of the presented study.

Allen, J. (1983). Classroom management: Students' perspectives, goals and strategies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. Bardin, L. (2009). Análise de conteúdo (L. A. Reto & A. Pinheiro, Trans. 5ª ed.). Lisboa: Edições 70. Costa, J., Onofre, M., & Martins, M. (2011). Thinking and practice of teachers from PE departments with different dynamics: The importance and implementation of the students' social agenda. Paper presented at the AIESEP 2011 International Conference, University of Limerick, Ireland. Doyle, W. (1985). Classroom management and the curriculum: A strategic research site (R. a. D. C. f. T. Education, Trans.) (pp. 32). Texas, Austin: University of Texas at Austin. Hastie, P., & Siedentop, D. (2006). The classroom ecology paradigm. In D. Kirk, D. MacDonald & M. O'Sullivan (Eds.), Handbook of Physical Education (pp. 214-224). London: Sage Publications. Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement (S. E. D. Laboratory, Trans.) (pp. 71). Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. Hord, S., & Sommers, W. (2008). Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and practice (1st ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007). Professional learning communities: Elaborating new approaches. In L. Stoll & K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas (pp. 1-13). Berkshire: Open University Press. Tozer, S., & Horsley, H. (2006). Chapter 8: Professional development of teachers in physical education - Where are we now? Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 25(4), 450-457. 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 & Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91. Yin, R. (2010). Estudo de caso - Planejamento e métodos (A. Thorell, Trans. 4ª ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.