See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/338509247

How middle leaders support in-service teachers’ on-site professional

learning

Article  in  International Journal of Educational Research · January 2020

DOI: 10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101530

CITATIONS READS

14 93

3 authors, including:

Darren A. Bryant
The Education University of Hong Kong
38 PUBLICATIONS   588 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Bilateral (Hong Kong): Reshaping Educational Practice for Improvement in Hong Kong and England: How Schools Mediate Government Reforms View project

The Blended & Online Learning & Teaching (BOLT) Project: Collaborative professional development for capacity building in blended and online learning and teaching in
Hong Kong View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Darren A. Bryant on 23 February 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

How middle leaders support in-service teachers’ on-site professional learning

This is a pre-published version of:

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. DOI:
10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101530
1. Introduction
The present study considers how middle leaders (MLs) support in-service teachers’
professional learning, an area of limited research (Edwards-Groves, Grootenboer, Hardy &
Ronnerman, 2019). MLs are teachers who have been appointed to formal positions of authority
within a school’s organisational structure. Typically, they include heads of department, grade-
level leaders, instructional coaches, programme coordinators, and cross-school specialists,
such as information technology or special educational needs coordinators (Bennett, Woods,
Wise & Newton, 2007; De Nobile, 2018). The MLs’ importance to school leadership has
expanded as the pace of educational change puts increasing demands on principals’ time and
energy (Bryant, 2019; Day, Sammons, Hopkins, Leithwoord & Kington, 2008; Leithwood,
Harris & Hopkins, 2019). Concurrently, distributed and shared leadership theories have
explained types of leadership under which principals engage others in leadership activities to
achieve school and system goals (Leithwood et al., 2019; Spillane & Diamond, 2007). Effective
instructional leadership relies on a combination of principal leadership, organisational structure,
teacher self-initiative and professional learning (Boyce & Bowers, 2018). The role that
principals play in the latter three areas has been well developed (Leithwood et al., 2019). Recent
studies, coupled with implications from leadership research, suggest that effective enactment
in these areas requires the engagement of other leaders, including MLs (Bryant, 2019; De
Nobile, 2018; Dinham, 2007). However, little research has been conducted on the role that
MLs play in building professional learning opportunities in schools that enhance teachers’
professional capacity (Hairon, Goh & Chua, 2015). Accordingly, our study asks:

How do middle leaders enact their potential as builders of in-service teachers’ capacity?

Our research addresses this question through a mixed methods case study of middle leadership
I an International Baccalaureate (IB) school. IB schools are known to have complex leadership
structures, and given the need for instructional leadership to navigate “a web of interactions
among multiple players” (Lee, Hallinger & Walker, 2012, p. 685), including formal and
informal leaders (Spillane & Coldren, 2011). Hence they provide an appropriate context to
yield insights on middle leadership enactment.

2. Literature Review
 2

2.1. The role of middle leaders

"Middle Leaders" have also been referred to as "middle-level leaders” (Gurr & Drysdale, 2013)
or "middle-level managers" (Shaked & Schechter, 2017). Each term is indicative of a position
within a school’s organisational hierarchy typically held by teachers or coordinators with
formal administrative responsibilities. They are accountable to senior leaders (SLs, i.e.
Principals and Vice-principals), and mediate between SLs and the teachers who work in
departments or teams that MLs lead (Marshall, 2012). In practice, the delineation of shared
leadership functions among SLs, MLs, and teachers who lead without formal titles is not
always self-evident (Spillane, 2006). This is especially the case where MLs’ work occurs in
team-based processes or is shared with others (Spillane & Coldren, 2011). In other words,
officially designed leadership structures and MLs’ roles may differ from what is enacted in
practice (Spillane, 2006).

Our use of the term “middle leader” acknowledges a shift in role enactment from being
primarily managerial to having leadership functions that are improvement-oriented (Bryant,
2019) and focus on sustainable change (Edwards-Groves et al., 2019). MLs’ leadership
responsibilities may include determining the strategic direction for their area of responsibility,
initiating innovative practices, mentoring and coaching staff, and interpreting policies (De
Nobile, 2018). Successful engagement with teachers in these activities often necessitates
professional learning.

2.2. Teachers’ learning opportunities: formal learning and on-the-job learning

Teachers' professional learning includes formal learning and on-the-job learning (Shirrell,
Hopkins & Spillane, 2019). The former provides structured professional development (PD) to
teachers by offering on- or off-campus programmes, such as workshops, formal study, and
professional networking. On-the-job learning opportunities include instructional
conversations, observations, advice-seeking and information sharing that typically occurs
among peers or within teams (Parise & Spillane, 2010; Thurlings, Evers & Vermeuen, 2015).

Effective professional learning requires an interplay across the two learning types (Shirrell et
al., 2019). Generic stand-alone PD programmes offered sporadically during a school year are
unlikely to consider schools’ unique contexts (Desimone, Porter, Birman, Garet & Yoon, 2002)
or effectively enhance teachers' capacities (Hill, 2007). A more impactful version of PD may
include contextually responsive content that is specific to schools’ needs and classroom
practices, with appropriate duration (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman & Yoon, 2001),
requiring an interplay with school leaders.
 3

Accordingly, in addition to the training opportunities provided by formal learning, on-the-job

learning opportunities are vital for introducing new instructional practices because they offer
teachers daily learning interactions at the workplace (Shirrell et al., 2019). However, on-the-
job learning depends on supportive organisational conditions, including appropriate school
norms, infrastructure (Parise & Spillane, 2010), and social atmosphere (Tschannen-Moran,
2001). School leaders share responsibility for building and supporting the infrastructure that
promotes the interactions needed for professional learning (Shirrell et al., 2019), and effective
middle leadership (Gurr, 2019).

2.3. Middle leaders’ participation in teacher development

Findings, syntheses and metanalyses in educational leadership research identify the principal,
not MLs, as the responsible party for influencing professional learning (Hallinger, 2005;
Leithwood et al., 2019). However, it is also the MLs’ role to enhance educational outcomes by
encouraging teachers’ focus on student learning by facilitating peer learning, mentoring, and
other leadership activities (Author, 2019; Dinham, 2007; Hairon et al., 2015). In this way, MLs
facilitate a context where professional learning takes place.

2.3.1. Aligning goals and curriculum

ML’s leadership, rather than management activities, are typically related to improved teaching
and learning (Gurr & Drysdale, 2013). Such leadership practices include sharing experiences
with teachers (Angelle, 2007), working collectively on curriculum articulation (Hallinger,
2013), and aligning departments’ strategic goals (Armstrong, Ko & Bryant, 2018; Bryant, Ko
& Walker, 2018; Gurr & Drysdale, 2013). At the curricular level, such collective work includes
activities that support vertical curriculum articulation, the "continuity of a program[me]
throughout the K-12," and horizontal articulation, the collaboration of "teachers in the same
grade-level" (Trabona, Taylor, Klein, Munakata & Rahman, 2019, p.473). Accordingly, MLs
build school capacity for improvement in teaching by contributing to curricular coherence
across the school (Hallinger, 2011). When school goals are clear, MLs have been found to
“suggest innovations and initiate changes that met school aims and built teacher capacity” by
refocusing collegial work (Bryant, 2019, p. 16).

2.3.2. Engaging beyond the school

MLs engage in activities beyond their contexts to bring fresh perspectives to their practice. As
Dinham (2007) describes, successful MLs “participate in and contribute to PD and in-service
learning across the school, and with professional associations and other bodies outside the
school” (p. 71). MLs release potential through collaboration and team building and sourcing
 4

new ideas and approaches from other schools and beyond (Dinham, 2007). With both an
internal- and external-looking orientation, MLs can offer more significant social bonding and
commitment to school goals, stimulating efforts towards student achievement and progress
(Hjertø, Paulsen & Thiveräinen, 2014). Thus, MLs potentially extend their influence beyond
their schools while drawing in resources that enhance professional capacity (Dinham, 2007;
Gunter, 2001).

2.3.3. Shaping organisational culture

On-the-job learning is facilitated by supportive school cultures (Parise & Spillane, 2010). MLs
have an impact on school culture by contributing to an environment that values decision-
making and risk-taking (De Nobile, 2018) and to norms of trust and collegiality (Danielson,
2007). Shaping culture requires MLs to respond to factors that influence the entire school
(Shaked & Chen, 2017) and support school-wide pedagogical initiatives (Gurr & Drysdale,
2013). Lack of engagement on a school-wide basis can create tensions for MLs and their teams
(Javadi, Bush & Ng, 2017).

2.3.4. Shaping professional learning through team processes

Effective MLs engage with teacher teams to cultivate a shared sense of purpose with a focus
on student achievement across the school, and sometimes across the system (Song, 2012). They
may lead a “professional learning community (PLC) that unifies members in trying to improve
the school” (Gurr & Drysdale, 2013, p. 63). Thus, they work to enhance teacher capacity by
co-developing curriculum, assessment and instructional strategies, and developing a culture of
shared responsibility, mutual trust and collegiality (Bryant, 2019; Bennett et al., 2007; Irvine
& Bundrett, 2017). Team-building and collective capacity building occur through shared
decision-making, collaborative professional activities and de-privatised practice. Action
research and critical reflection (Hairon et al., 2015) within a scheduled period and with a
subject team are strategies that facilitate improved teaching and learning.

2.3.5. Research aim

The literature noted above aligns with research on effective schools in China, which have been
noted for their attentiveness to structures that enhance in-situ professional learning (Author and
Colleague, 2019; Walker & Qian, 2019). What is unclear is how MLs interact with teachers
and other leaders to build teachers’ capacity in-situ, and how formally designed strategies and
structures, such as engagement in PLCs and vertical and horizontal articulation, match actual
practice. In other words, this study aims to investigate the lived organisation (Spillane,
Camburn, Pustejovsky, Paraja & Lewis, 2008) as it pertains to middle leadership. To
investigate this, we analysed qualitative and social network (SN) data. SN aims to uncover the
 5

connection patterns among individuals (Christakis & Fowler, 2009), which can capture
interactions among leaders and teachers that may differ from formally designed roles and
structures.

Although there is little research on in-service learning compared with research on formal
learning, social network studies on in-service learning are even scarcer (Van Waes et al., 2016).
Moreover, research on SNs in teacher development (e.g. Van Waes, Maeyer, Moolenaar,
Petegem & Bossche, 2018) mostly focuses on higher education. This further exposes the
knowledge gap in understanding the enacted experience of MLs’ influence on school teachers’
in-service learning.

3. Research Design
To examine MLs’ work in building teacher capacity through in-service learning, we collected
and analysed data from a single school that had clearly defined horizontal, vertical and school-
wide middle leadership structures. This section explains the school context, provides a rationale
both for its selection, and the mixed methods approach to collect and analyse data.

3.1. Site selection

This single case study employs a non-random, purposeful sampling (Creswell, 2013) of a case
that engages in the constructs of middle leadership presented in the literature review (i.e.,
theoretical sampling, Patton, 2002). The selected case, a Kindergarten to grade 12 school in
southern China (hereinafter called the “China School”) offering three International
Baccalaureate (IB) programmes, aligned with the following criteria:

1. The SLs espoused distributing leadership to MLs;

2. The organisational structure formally allocated leadership responsibilities to MLs;
3. Different tiers of MLs were responsible for horizontal (at grade-level), vertical
(across grade-levels), and overall (across the school) curriculum articulation;
4. The school timetable scheduled team meetings led by MLs;
5. The school was engaged in a curriculum change process;
6. The school provided teachers with access to quality PD that supported school
initiatives and professional growth.

These criteria aimed to ensure that the MLs participating in this research were actively engaged
in individual, team, and/or school-wide, capacity-building activities (criteria 2, 3 and 5) and
had the support of senior leadership for this engagement (criteria 1, 4 and 6).
 6

China School’s layers of MLs and associated teams provided the potential to examine the
structural complexity of interactions among formal and informal leaders (Spillane & Coldren,
2011). This complexity, however, was complicated by the school’s offering of three IB
curricular programmes – multiple programmes are known to have vertical incoherence (Lee,
et al., 2012). Finally, the international nature of the school’s staffing made for a highly transient
teacher population. Suggested by Lee and colleagues (2012), most through-train IB schools
commonly have complex leadership structures. Findings from this study, therefore, are
particularly pertinent to understanding and improving leadership structures in other IB schools,
and to schools where curriculum articulation and programmatic initiatives require the
engagement of networks of MLs.

3.2. School background

The study focused on the primary section of the school (pre-Kindergarten to Grade 5) because
it was undergoing external accreditation and provided the best response rate in both interview
and questionnaire invitations.

China School, an IB school opens for less than ten years, is owned by a municipal government
as a division of a prestigious government school. It received authorisation to offer IB curricula
from pre-Kindergarten to Grade 12 during 2015 to 2017. During the data collection period in
May 2018, it underwent preparation for Primary Year Programme (PYP) re-authorisation and
received feedback on enhancing vertical and horizontal curriculum alignment. The school
recently began two initiatives for programme articulation in Science and Literacy. A newly
appointed IB Primary Years Programme Coordinator (PC) and Primary School Principal
prioritised curriculum alignment to be supported by newly established PLCs. The school
employed two PCs. PC1 was Chinese and had served the school for four years. Speaking
Mandarin Chinese as her mother tongue, PC1 had strong connections with community and
parent groups. PC2 was an expatriate, newly appointed to the school and highly experienced
in IB curriculum.

Over 95% of students in China School are of Chinese ethnicity, hold a foreign passport and are
from high socio-economic status backgrounds. These students mainly speak Mandarin as their
mother-tongue. The staff comprise a blend of local and expatriate professionals. Local teachers
are valued for connecting with students’ families, the local community and government
officials.

3.3. Mixed Methods

 7

This study employs a mixed methods design in which a qualitative case study is supported by
social network analysis (SNA) (Ledger, Thier, Bailey & Pitts, 2019). Conventionally, mixed
method research utilises qualitative and quantitative approaches to explore different
dimensions and triangulate findings. This strategy is in keeping with the interpretation that
“triangulation cannot be used as a form of mutual confirmation or validation" (Gorard &
Taylor, 2004, p. 45). However, the combination of heterogeneous methods can "produce a
three-dimensional image" (Gorard & Taylor, 2004, p. 44) that yields additional insight. We
employ a qualitative design to investigate and conceptualise middle leadership enactment and
participants’ perception of the context and rationale behind middle leadership behaviours, i.e.,
the “how” and “why” (Yin, 2003). In tandem, the social network design supports our analysis
of the communicative enactment (Flessa, 2009; Moolenaar, 2012), which provides insight into
how leadership for capacity building is distributed, and how interactions take place (Daly,
2010). Table 1 below shows the alignment between the two methods.
 8

Research Analytical

question Themes Qualitative Analyses Social Network Analyses

How do middle Mediating Communication among Social network to demonstrate the

leaders enact their instructional SLs, MLs and teachers interaction between groups

potential as initiatives

builders of in-

service teachers’

capacity?

Devising Developing vertical and Grade-level hierarchies to demonstrate

structures for horizontal curriculum collaboration among subject-area

curriculum articulation coordinators, grade-level leaders and

enactment teachers

Sociograms over time to illustrate

changing interactions

Creating Teachers engaging in Sociogram to illustrate channels of

opportunities for leadership activities and MLs advice-seeking on building

professional informal leadership. professional capacity.

dialogue

Adopting new Middle leadership Sociogram to identify MLs’

practices practices that foster professional learning clusters.

teachers' individual and Brokerage to indicate MLs' role in

collective professional facilitating teachers’ collaboration and

development. team building

Table 1 Research question and alignment between qualitative findings and the quantitative data analysis

3.3.1. The qualitative data

The interview sample. Twenty-three participants in the primary school participated in semi-
structured interviews. These included: three senior leaders (SLs), namely the Head of School,
Primary Principal and Assistant Principal; 15 MLs, inclusive of two PCs, six Subject-Area
Coordinators (SACs), seven Grade-Level Leaders (GLLs); and five classroom teachers who
held no formal leadership role. The SACs were specialists in Science, Maths, English language,
 9

Physical Education, Music and Art. The GLLs led teams from pre-Kindergarten (Pre-K) to
Grade 5 respectively.

Semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interview questions positioned the participants as

experts of their context (Weiss, 1993). The Head of School and PCs were interviewed
individually. The Principal and the Assistant Principal were interviewed together. SACs, GLLs
and classroom teachers were interviewed in focus groups of three to seven participants. The
focus group composition and interview formats were selected to best gather the occasional
disconfirming perceptions of the participants (Maxwell, 2013). The purpose of the focus groups
was to elicit different views, not to aim for a consensus (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009). To
develop multidimensional and complex cases of leadership (Fitz & Halpin, 1994), semi-
structured interviews of 40 minutes each clarified: (a) how leaders and teachers perceive the
role of MLs; (b) factors that impact MLs’ instructional leadership and teacher development
activities; and (c) MLs’ main collaborators and the nature of their interactions. A preliminary
analysis of official school documents allowed the tailoring of interview questions.

Qualitative analysis. We transcribed the audio recordings and coded the transcriptions into
themes. We partially adopted Creswell’s (2007) case study coding process. We set up codes,
defined in a codebook, to capture the school context and background and the themes identified
in the literature review. We identified sub-themes by conducting within-case theme analysis.
We used descriptive coding to analyse the interview data (Saldaña, 2013). These codes
reflected the themes of the literature review: the role of MLs, middle leadership enactment,
professional learning activities and day-to-day professional interactions. We then developed
sub-codes to classify the content.

We conducted member checking by explaining the qualitative findings (together with the SNA
results described below) to the school leadership. The school leadership agreed that the
qualitative results accurately described their leadership activities and that the SNA mapping of
the interactions was consistent with their professional judgement and observation. This
suggests trustworthiness in the mixed-method design (Creswell, 2015). Although some recent
studies (e.g. Ledger et al., 2019; Yousefi-Nooraie, Sale, Marin & Ross, 2018) suggest the
combination of qualitative approach and SNA, only a few study (see Lee, 2014) employed
interview as the source of qualitative data collection.

3.3.2. The social network analysis

SNA is used to analyse the interrelationships among positions and roles, formal and informal
interaction patterns, and relational impacts (Lima, 2010; Moolenaar, 2012). We employed a
 10

SN survey to gather data about advice-seeking patterns related to teaching and learning, and
capacity building during one academic year. We applied SN survey iterations ten months apart.

The first social network survey. To understand advice-seeking practices, all leaders and
teaching team members in the primary school (N=105) were invited to identify up to three
advisors for each construct of (a) teaching and learning and (b) capacity building. The limit of
three nominees aimed to guide participants to recall those from whom they frequently seek
advice (Lima, 2010). We received a response rate of 30.48% (n=32). However, a focused
analysis on the MLs’ nominations led to an effective 50% rate (see explanation below). We
ruled out the linkage to and from the SLs, which allowed for a tighter focus on our research
question.

The second social network survey. Following a progressive focusing strategy (Pralett &
Hamilton, 1976), with reference to the qualitative findings, the second survey aimed to better
understand MLs' advice-seeking patterns and their interactions with each other to illuminate
possible co-leadership in support of teachers’ capacity building. This differed from the first
survey, which aimed to understand advice-seeking across the school. Considering personnel
turnover, participants were invited based on their job titles. Hence, the survey focused on the
communication network among positions but did not necessarily indicate longitudinal changes.
The second survey supplemented the first survey by examining the impact of school activities
on formal interactions. We purposively invited two SLs, one K-12 leader with responsibility
for articulation across the three IB programmes, two PCs, seven GLLs and nine SACs, for a
total of 21 participants.

The second survey repeated the first two questions in the first survey. Two new questions were
added: (1) with whom they had interacted over the academic year to develop their capacity;
and (2) who the principal members of their PLC were (Appendix - Part C). The former was
designed to prompt the MLs to recall the contributor(s) to their capacity building. The latter
aimed to identify ML’s sphere of influence beyond their formally structured teams. To support
participants’ nomination of network members, we employed the name-generator technique,
providing a name list of all leaders and teachers in the primary school (Lin, 2001). Participants
could select nominees without limit. The response rate was 57% (n=12 of 21). Low response
rates potentially limit our interpretation of social interactions (Robins, Pattison & Woolcock,
2004) at the network level (the whole school network). However, as we explain in the findings
and discussion sections, our qualitative analyses permits us to focus on a selected aspect of the
 11

network (e.g., at the actor level) to yield further insight, primarily through visualisations and
explanatory approaches to the network data (Guetterman et al., 2015).

Data analysis. We drew sociograms to illuminate communication patterns at the actor level,
i.e., the ego network. The ego network focuses on ties from and toward an actor (also called
egos, vertices and nodes in the SNA) (Prell, 2012). We employed brokerage measures to
understand how MLs act as the agents of capacity building initiatives.

Brokerage measures an individual’s mediation between actors. Figure 1 shows four types of
broker. Person A, B and C are the actors represented by circles. The lines (the edges or ties)
represent the connection between two actors while the arrows stand for its direction. The actor
who receives an inbound edge is an alter. The broker is the alter who also has directional tie(s)
towards another alter(s). Different brokers play distinctive mediation roles (see Figure 1). Person
B is the coordinator broker when Person A, B and C are all in the same group. Person B is the
gatekeeper broker when Person A belongs to another group while Person B and C are in the
same group. Person B is the representative broker while Person A and B belong to the same
group and Person B conveys information to the alien group. Person B is the consultant broker
when Person A and C belong to the same group while Person B’s group is the alien.

Figure 1. Broker roles (Source: Prell, 2012)

There is a brokerage score if and only if (1) the actor has responded to the survey, and (2) the
agent is nominated. The un-normalised broker scores count the frequency of an individual
being the broker.
 12

In this study, we computed the brokerage scores by UCINET 6 software. We classified the
respondents and nominees into two groups. The PCs, SACs and GLLs fell into the “Middle
Leaders” group and Teachers belong to the “Teacher” group. The brokerage assumes the
inbound and outbound ties are related; that is, the broker literally delivers one’s message to the
others. However, it may be problematic if a person who has five inbound ties and one outbound
tie is distributing five sets of various messages to the same alter. Moreover, the limit of
nominations can impact the broker result. In other words, actors can play various broker roles
as they can nominate more names. Inasmuch as the second survey has only collected data from
SLs and MLs, there were no inbound ties from the teacher group. Therefore, only the brokerage
found in the first survey are included in the findings (Section 4.5).

4. Findings
In this section, we present the qualitative findings followed by corresponding SNA results and
clarify the connection between the two sets of results at the end of each sub-section. Our
findings are organized under subheadings that indicate our analytical codes.

4.1. Mediating instructional initiatives

MLs played an essential role in maintaining teacher focus on student learning at China School.
PC2 comments on her role in enacting IB initiatives:
We’re diffusing and disseminating information and building understanding of
organisational capacity. Any time things come out from the IB, we disseminate that… We
have input into PD, but I don’t think we get enough opportunity to build the capacity
strategically and effectively. I think we’re trying to build teachers’ capacity in everything.
(PC2)

When the IB disseminates new policies or curricular standards, the PC communicates and
works with teachers to embed new information or intended practices into the instructional
programme. Hence, the PC potentially builds teachers’ capacity.

When asked about the structures and processes by which the PC enacts leadership and mediates
IB-related curriculum initiatives, teachers assessed the PC’s influence as follows:
We've weekly meetings and [PC2] is open to listening to ideas... She has taught in different
countries besides China, so she can bring expertise and experience to the table. She is
always there when we need her. (Teacher A)
 13

We spend time to look at the feedback and reflection from each unit and we talk as a team.
We decide what worked, what didn't work, and what we need to change. [PC2] is there for
the whole process. She brings the [IB] documents that we need to look at, and she keeps
reminding us to look at each central idea and how to excel at that. (Teacher B)

These extracts indicate the teachers valued the PC’s expertise and accessibility, which builds
upon their experiences, skills and practices. The process includes regular meetings, formal
documentation, and collective processes to align curriculum with IB standards. This approach
provided an opportunity to cultivate mutual trust, support, and develop individual and
collective capacity.

China School employs two PCs. Both engage in similar activities to mediate instruction.
However, they described a division of labour:
PC1 and I balance the workloads. It changed this year. We were doing split grades. Now
I’m looking after all the grade-levels and she is looking at specialists. (PC2)

Despite engaging in similar leadership activities, their recent division of responsibilities by

subjects (PC1) and grades (PC2), suggests different foci and engagement with leaders and
teachers.

Figures 2 and 3 depict the advice-seeking networks for teaching and learning and school
capacity building respectively. Only the linkages towards the PCs were selected to present the
PCs’ role in others’ advice-seeking. These ego networks were extracted from the school
network using the first survey. In Figure 2, both PCs have a similar quantity of advice-seekers
(9 versus 10). However, the two PCs appear to be consulted by different MLs. Principally, PC1
advised SACs and teachers, and PC2 advised GLLs and teachers.
 14

Figure 2. Advice networks of Programme Coordinators supporting teachers on leading teaching and learning (Data collected

from first network survey)

In Figure 3, the advice-seeking pattern is similar to Figure 2 in terms of the distinction of SAC
versus GLL advice-seeking behaviour. Of note is that more teachers directly consult the two
PCs about advice-giving about capacity building than about teaching and learning.

Figure 3. Advice networks of Programme Coordinators supporting teachers on school capacity building (Data collected from

first network survey)

The two networks highlight PCs as advisers to MLs and teachers. As stated by Teacher B, PC2
leads curriculum change to align with IB standards. Hence, teachers directly contact PCs on
 15

matters related to IB-capacity building. This also reflects the data from Teacher A, revealing
that grade-level teachers and PC2 have regular meetings which facilitate direct interaction (i.e.,
not mediated by GLLs) as indicated in the right hemisphere of Figure 3. By working directly
with teacher teams on building capacity in new IB-related mandates and instructional practices,
the PCs become the focal advisors for capacity building. Because different teachers and MLs
consult different PCs, we infer that these interactions are attributed to the PCs’ niche expertise
[c.f. Section 4.2]. This is partially confirmed by the above qualitative data from Teacher B.

4.2. Devising structures for curriculum alignment

Responses to questions on the MLs’ use and development of organisational structures and
leadership practices to support capacity building around curriculum alignment uncovered webs
of vertical and horizontal ML positions. This included the pairing of an expatriate PC (PC2)
with a local PC (PC1) to synergise experience with contextual insight. PC1 explains the process
of curriculum coherence between the primary and the secondary school by utilising imported
curriculum standards:
We mapped what was used … to see if it aligned with the [proposed standards]. We asked
for [teachers’] recommendations and we collected all the data and realised that the
[proposed standards were] a good fit for our school. We aligned that with the MYP and DP.
We did the same with Language last year. This year we looked at Science and we invited
teachers, the Science Lead and PCs from primary and secondary school to collaborate on
this. (PC1)

This extract notes the participation of PC1 (subject-area leadership) and SACs (e.g., vertical
articulation of science and language programmes) in a collaborative enterprise that includes
teachers and secondary school MLs.

The MLs convene planning meetings with SACs and GLLs to devise the curriculum structure,
programme development and capacity building. PC2 elaborated on her role:
…meeting with all the GLLs to do their collaborative planning, and help run the meetings,
working very closely with the other PCs, looking at the vertical and horizontal elements of
the planning.

Such structures, whereby PCs work with GLLs and SACs, who in turn work with respective
teacher teams, support curriculum articulation. This structural design is reflected in the advice-
seeking patterns in Figures 2 and 3.

Figure 4 elaborates the advice-seeking network in leading teaching and learning. The three
columns: (from left to right) represent the SACs, GLLs, and grade teachers. The network is
 16

constructed from the first survey to visualise the curriculum articulation. Connections between
some SACs and GLLs and their teachers are observable. However, ties between SACs and
between GLLs are absent. There are linkages between GLLs and SACs, and connections
between teachers in their respective year levels. Notably, there are more linkages between
GLLs and grade teachers than ties between SACs to teachers. Communication among teachers
becomes denser in upper grades (from Grade 3 onwards) with increased examples of cross-
grade interactions.

Figure 4. Advice seeking network between middle leaders and teachers in primary school (Data collected from first network

survey)
 17

The linkages between GLLs and teachers implies efforts in horizontal articulation. In the
qualitative findings, the PCs identified a lack of coherence in curriculum planning, especially
in vertical articulation. The more active interaction in the higher grades suggests that teachers
had started to collaborate in preparing for such curriculum articulation. Echoing PC1’s
statements, upper-grade teachers had begun working with the secondary school teachers and
SACs on the Language and Science curriculum articulation. The network shows that the
Science SAC interacts with Grade 3 and 5 teachers and a Grade 3 GLL, reflecting the
prioritisation of vertical articulation work in the science curriculum.

Figure 5 shows the two networks of MLs’ advice-seeking ten-months apart: the network from
the first survey is on the left and the network from the second survey on the right. The columns
from left to right represent SACs, PCs and GLLs. The left network shows that the PCs mediate
communication among SACs and GLLs. Predominantly, GLLs connect with PC2 while the
SACs connect with PC1. There are no connections among the SACs nor are there connections
among the GLLs (however, this result may be attributed to the limited nominations). In the
second survey, despite unlimited nominations, the SACs seek comparatively less advice from
the PCs. Instead, the SACs link with each other. The PCs have fewer inbound ties and there is
less mediation between GLLs and SACs. Notably, the Grade 5 GLL broadly seeks advice from
both PCs, three SACs and the Grade 4 GLL. This pattern likely reflects Grade 5 GLL’s status
and needs as a newly appointed ML.

Figure 5. Comparison between the advice-seeking network between programme coordinator, Subject-Area Coordinators and

grade-level leaders over one year (Data collected from first network survey (left) and second network survey (right)
 18

The network results enrich the qualitative findings. The first network shows PCs as advisors
during the period of establishing curriculum alignment structures. This reflects the division of
responsibility among PCs (see PC1 quotation above). The declining mediating role of PCs in
the second network survey implies less dependency on coherence making. PC 2 mentioned that
they have provided autonomy to MLs for their collaborative planning and encouraged SACs to
work closely together. The new linkages between SACs in the second network, aligning with
qualitative data, reflect this maturation of the curriculum articulation process and new
opportunities for on-the-job learning and professional interaction.

4.3. Creating opportunities for professional dialogue

The Principal perceived that teachers’ capacity building reflected values of leadership and
school culture:
 19

I always say “everyone is a leader.” You don’t have to be in leadership to become a leader,
so we try to create a culture. If you have a great idea, you can share and we will try to work
out a plan. You can pilot it in your class to see whether it’s worth sharing.

While regular meetings provided time for collaboration and professional dialogue, teachers
cited informal communication as a vehicle to exchange ideas, develop strategies and evaluate
practices:
We have weekly meetings and then [we] informally pop in and discuss. We built our scope
and sequence two years ago. We work in our year levels from that. We talk about the
projects, if we have any challenges, or share ideas. (SAC4)

Notably, the starting point for the informal interactions among SACs and teachers was
discussions seeded during formal meetings. Teachers claimed such interactions enhanced their
professional learning and bonds.

Figure 6, taken from the second survey, captures MLs’ advice-seeking for professional capacity
development. Although this network is incomplete due to non-responses, it captures several
diverse patterns. SACs seek advice from other SACs (e.g., the EYP English Lead seeking
advice from the Maths Lead). GLLs seek advice from other GLLs (e.g., Kindergarten GLL
seeking advice from the Grade 2 GLL). GLLs also seek advice from SACs (i.e. the Grade 5
GLL asks the Science Lead). And, SACs and GLLs seek advice from teachers.

Figure 6. Network of advice-seeking on professional capacity development (Data from second network survey)
 20

The qualitative findings revealed the notion that everyone is a leader. The SNA reinforces this
observation. Both results indicate a significant role for MLs and selected teachers in developing
and implementing formal and informal communication structures, whereby formal leaders seek
the advice of teachers and other leaders as part of the capacity building process (most evident
in GLL KG). This aligns with the previous section (Figure 5) where patterns of interactions
shift over time in response to changing conditions.

4.4. Facilitating team learning

In addition to grade-level and subject-area teams, coordinating teams of GLLs and SACs were
led by PCs. One SAC explains:
We talk about best practice, vertical alignment, [and] about what fits. We take it straight
from the scope and sequence in the curriculum to our plan, and we’re trying to get it all in
line. And, while we’re trying to celebrate different teaching styles, we are also creating new
scope and sequences this year. So, trying to get that to inform everything, whilst
collaborating and sharing what works well for us, is what our teams are all about. (SAC6)

This extract suggests that MLs support teacher development effortlessly through high norms of
collegiality, a willingness to meet their teachers’ developmental needs (e.g., learning styles),
and that this development happens collectively. A GLL describes how this is their “normal”
practice:
Now, we've adopted [new standards]. So our Maths Head would be someone I would be
able to go to with questions - if you didn’t know the answer, you could get the answer.
(GLL4)

The SLs and MLs value a school culture of collegiality and value professional learning that
occurs through formal team processes and informal consultations among different leaders.

The second survey asked MLs to identify their professional networks (See Appendix – Part D)
to better understand team development. The professional learning network captures both
membership and members’ interactions (Figure 7). The shapes of the nodes represent different
roles: teachers in circles, GLLs in triangles, and SACs in squares. Letters represent subjects
(the legend shows the full name of the subject).

In this result, individual MLs and their nominated teachers formed clusters. While the
qualitative data suggests engagement in formally designated teams, the SNA shows that clear
clusters did not emerge exclusively along grade-levels and subject-area responsibilities. Given
the school's initiatives in Science and Literacy, the primary Science SAC identified a range of
 21

teachers, but also SACs in Maths, Secondary Science and ICT, as part of a PLC. This indicates
an attentiveness to both vertical and horizontal curriculum articulation. The EAL SAC,
reflecting the languages and literacy initiative, included the English, Languages and Maths
SAC as well as a PC and three GLLs. This network is sensible as this SAC is expected to work
with leaders in similar domains and across grade-levels. The inclusion of the Maths SAC is
explained by additional qualitative data that noted students’ struggling with the language of
mathematics. The EAL SAC addressed this with the mathematics teachers. Hence, the
professional learning networks reflected MLs and teachers’ efforts to collaborate and support
teacher development across the curriculum. This may also reflect the infrastructure of
scheduled cross-subject and cross-grade-level ML meetings. Notably, a PC is located at the
centre of the network, linking together different PLCs.

Figure 7. Professional learning network in primary school (Data collected from second network survey)
 22

4.5. Developing formal and informal leader capacity: experts, hubs, and navigators

The emphasis on team learning reflects China School’s priorities. The school invests heavily
in PD and structures that support team building and teacher learning. One SL commented on
how teacher expertise is developed by design:
We always encourage [teachers] to pilot in their grade-levels, in their team. Then if it
worked well, we could share. (SL1)

This remark indicates a culture of encouraging pedagogical research and teacher development
supported by the top leadership.

One GLL reported the PCs’ role in facilitating team learning:

I see [PCs’] job brings subject teachers together, [and] makes plans with other schools;
she's like the hub of a wheel that brings everybody together. (GLL1)

PCs have a crucial role in developing the capacity of teachers new to the school:
Sometimes, it’s the people new to the program who require the most from you. This is
where there are different levels of understanding that you might need to provide support
for. Understanding the program while not letting go of [important initiatives], like the
inquiry side of things, requires nurturing. Sometimes people feel like they know it already,
and they’ve got nothing else to learn from me, which can diffuse and have an [undesirable]
impact on the whole team. I think a lot of the barriers are attitudinal, which I must navigate
so they are ready to get on with the task. (PC 2)

The above data together indicate the notion of the hub – that teacher development is supported
by structures designed by the SLs with MLs’ engagement reinforcing the visual representation
in Figure 7.

To explain the nature of collaboration in leading teaching and learning and school capacity
building among MLs and teachers, we analysed brokerage. Table 2 and Table 3 list the un-
normalised brokerage scores generated from the first two questions in the first network survey.
Only participants with a broker score are included. The first two columns represent the
participants’ positions and their roles. The following columns show the un-normalised broker
scores.

On Table 2, a teacher in Grade 1 has the highest coordinator broker score (score of 3). One
Grade 3 teacher and one Grade 5 teacher have the second-highest score (score of 2). For the
gatekeeper broker score, the Grade 4 GLL ranks the highest (score of 2), and the KG GLL and
 23

Maths Lead earn the second place (score of 1). For the representative broker, there are two
leaders: PC2 and a Grade 5 teacher (score of 3), followed by a Grade 1 GLL and Visual Art
Teacher (score of 2). There are also two top scorers in consultant brokerage: PC2 and Grade 5
Teacher (score of 5). The Maths Lead, KG GLL and a KG Teacher have a score of 1.

Coordinator Gatekeeper Representative Consultant

Position Role
broker broker broker broker
PC2 PYPC 0 0 3 5
Maths Lead SAC 0 1 0 1
KG GLL GLL 1 1 0 1
Grade 1 GLL GLL 0 0 2 0
Grade 4 GLL GLL 0 2 0 0
Grade 5 GLL GLL 0 0 1 0
KG Teacher Teacher 0 0 0 1
Grade 1 Teacher Teacher 3 0 0 0
Grade 3 Teacher Teacher 2 0 0 0
Grade 5 Teacher Teacher 0 0 0 5
Grade 5 Teacher Teacher 2 0 3 0
Visual Art Teacher Teacher 0 0 2 0
Table 2 Un-normalised brokerage scores in lead teaching and learning in primary school (Data collected from first network

survey)

These scores show that teachers tended to communicate about teaching and learning issues
among themselves (coordinator broker) for mutual development. This corroborates the finding
on “everyone is a leader” (c.f. Section 4.3). Our qualitative findings show collaborations among
MLs and among teachers. The SNA indicates that MLs likely have higher gatekeeper and
representative scores. MLs’ dominance of the gatekeeper broker scores further suggests that
MLs’ work as conduits of information flow from teachers to other MLs. Alternatively, the MLs
and teacher groups have similar scores in representative brokerage, which implies both groups
have representatives exchanging information to other groups. Teachers with high
representative scores are likely to be leaders. Finally, the PC plays an advisory role (consultant
broker) to foster communication between the actors who belong to the same group (i.e.,
facilitating communication among teachers). This finding underscores the PCs’ vital role in
linking teachers together in support of early curriculum articulation efforts.

For school capacity building (Table 3), PC2 scored highest for coordinator brokerage
(unnormalised score of 13) whereas a Grade 5 teacher scored only 1. PC2 also scored highest
 24

in gatekeeper brokerage (score of 8). The KG GLL scored 2 and Grades 3 and 5 teachers 1
each. Only the GLLs scored for representative broker. For the consultant broker score, the
Visual Art teacher earned first place (score of 3), followed by the KG GLL and EAL Lead
(scores of 1 each).

Coordinator Gatekeeper Representative Consultant

Position Role
broker broker broker broker
PC2 PYPC 13 8 0 0
English Lead SAC 1 0 0 0
EAL Lead SAC 0 0 0 1
Pre-K GLL GLL 0 0 1 0
KG GLL GLL 0 2 1 1
Grade 5 GLL GLL 0 0 2 0
Grade 3 Teacher Teacher 0 1 0 0
Grade 5 Teacher Teacher 1 0 0 0
Visual Art Teacher Teacher 0 0 0 3
Music teacher Teacher 0 1 0 0
Table 3 Un-normalised brokerage scores in school capacity building in primary school (Data collected from first network

survey)

PC2’s high coordinator broker score corroborates our qualitative findings, which showed that
she was the key player connecting with MLs in school capacity building, plausibly because of
her noted expertise in IB curricula, standards and practices. PC2 played a vital role in
channelling professional knowledge to build other professional knowledge in IB practices. In
contrast, all teachers’ low coordinator brokerage score in Table 2 implies unfamiliarity with
the knowledge required for school capacity, or lack of recognition in this domain. In other
words, the task of school capacity development relies on MLs. The representative score
supports this insight. PC2 scored the highest in gatekeeper brokerage, again, implying that
PC2’s niche professional knowledge contributed to the MLs’ capacity development in IB
curriculum and instructional matters.

We believe Table 2 and Table 3 describe the nature of communication and demonstrate the
norms of collegiality, echoing our interpretation that the school invests in school improvement
initiatives and structures to foster collegiality, team building and teacher learning.

5. Discussion
 25

This paper set out to address the knowledge gap in how MLs’ enhance in-service teacher
capacity. Taking the perspective that leadership entails shared action (Spillane & Coldren,
2011), it demonstrated that effective MLs, such as programme coordinators, build teachers’,
and, other MLs’, professional capacities through a range of leadership practices. These include
strategies anticipated in our review of literature: mediating instructional changes initiated from
outside of the school and facilitating the vertical and horizontal curriculum alignment. They
accomplished this by designing appropriate team structures, facilitating professional dialogues
and team learning, and developing others’ leadership capacity, leadership practices similar to
SLs (Bryant et al., 2018b). These practices stand in contrast to conventional middle leadership
challenges that emerge when MLs identify as mere conduits between SLs and teachers, who
work to sell mandates rather than initiate innovation, and hesitate to intervene in others’
professional practices (Bennett et al., 2007). In contrast, our findings affirm more recent
literature that emphasises a role for MLs in building others’ capacity (Bryant, 2019). This
requires broad systemic perspectives on collective learning and peer influence (Shaked &
Schechter, 2017). Our research shows how key MLs, such as programme coordinators, can be
pivotal advice-givers when they develop strategies that leverage external (i.e., IB) mandates to
develop others’ instructional and middle leadership capacities. Further, the findings show that
MLs influence the specific interactions within and among teaching and middle leadership
teams by devising and working within and across vertical and horizontal organisational and
curriculum structures. Whereas the SNA affirms the impact of such activities, such as through
newly emergent advice-giving patterns, the qualitative data explains the processes involved.

Conventionally, the literature on school leadership has depicted building capacity as a key
function of the principalship (Leithwood et al., 2019, Bryant, 2019). However, we infer from
the literature on distributed leadership (Spillane, 2006) that MLs sometimes play a role in this
process (Gurr & Drysdale, 2013). This study shows not only that MLs play an important role
in school leadership, for which they need to be equipped (Irvine & Brundrett, 2017), but that
capacity building is also a key element of their work. We observe this particularly in the
differences in advice-seeking patterns for instruction and capacity building, whereby teachers
and other MLs distinguish between advising roles in these areas. Here, the leadership practices
of programme coordinators, including routines of meeting with instructional teams focused on
specific initiatives, seem to explain these different patterns. This also reflects the PCs’ co-
constructing their roles by identifying niche areas of expertise (cultural and language capacity;
IB expertise and experience) and leadership for organisational structures (subject-area
alignment and grade-level alignment) and corresponding routines, such as team meetings.
These, in turn, shaped other MLs and teachers’ advice-seeking patterns. These findings depict
attentiveness to role definition that is improvement-oriented. When PCs, with a broader
positional scope than SACs and GLLs, provide support and advice to the latter, it suggests their
 26

potential as in-situ developers of SACs and GLLs instructional leadership capacity, addressing
the challenge that many novice MLs’ development is largely self-managed (Gurr, 2019). These
findings show the potential influence of middle leadership over advice-seeking and leadership
functions normally attributed to SLs such as redesigning the organisation and developing
people (Day et al., 2011; Leithwood et al., 2019). This enhances evidence that effective school
leaders build school conditions, norms and infrastructure for capacity building (Parise &
Spillane, 2010) by contending that MLs share responsibility and influence in this enterprise.
Whereas other research has argued that effective MLs share responsibility and commitment
(Edwards-Groves et al., 2019), our research illuminates how this may be done.

The present study which couples qualitative interviews and SN is rare in the literature, as is the
use of SNs to analyse in-service learning (Van Waes et al., 2016). This study illustrates the
methodological potential of one method while addressing the limitations of the other. This
study demonstrated the procedure, suggested by Yousefi-Nooraie and colleagues (2018), of
selecting the network indicators from the SNA (i.e. brokerage), providing qualitative
interpretation of data in the graph and numeric findings, and transforming the data into analytic
themes. We acknowledge that the network indicators are impacted by poor response rates.
However, the network visualisations coupled with the qualitative findings serve to make sense
of the network. For instance, the division of labour and different areas of expertise reported by
the two PCs helps us to interpret the differences in advice-seeking patterns that are depicted in
figures 2 and 3. Conversely, SNA informed the qualitative analysis. For example, the interview
data revealed PCs leading meetings with SACs, GLLs, and their respective teams for the
purposes of curriculum alignment and provided some evidence of vertical and horizontal
curriculum work. However, the second advice network survey evidenced the emergence of
advice-seeking between SACs, suggesting a new dynamic that resulted from the structures
supported by PCs. These two examples show how a mixed methods approach serves to
illuminate findings that would otherwise have remained hidden.

6. Conclusion
Although recent literature has suggested that MLs have a role in developing in-service teacher
capacity through on-the-job professional learning (De Nobile, 2018; Gurr & Drysdale, 2013),
the literature on the nature of their role, their scope influence and how they actually accomplish
this is thin. Central to this study of middle leadership were two PCs who led the implementation
of the IB Primary Years Programme. They guided its grade-level and subject articulation across
the early childhood to grade 5 instructional programme and with the secondary school. To do
this, they co-constructed their roles and responsibilities for working with other MLs and teacher
teams. They established structures necessary to provide direct support, as well as indirect
support (i.e., mediated by other MLs) to build teacher capacity. The foci of collaboration and
 27

teaching team discussions influenced group dynamics and work on curriculum alignment. This
influence was depicted in advice-seeking patterns showing interactions among MLs, such as
subject-area and grade-level leaders, and with teachers and the PCs. These SN patterns coupled
with the qualitative data showed that PCs galvanized other MLs and respective teaching teams
to build capacity around areas related to implementing curriculum and supporting subject-area
and grade-level leaders in leading their teams. The focus on capacity building and crafting of
networks for this purpose is particularly valuable to novice MLs who initially lack leadership
experience and expertise needed to lead teams effectively, a challenge identified by Irvine &
Brundrett (2017) who posit the need for appropriate ML development programmes that focus
on leadership skills. This study suggests that leadership and well as instructional capacity can
be developed in-situ given supportive on-the-job structures. This finding is pertinent to
experienced MLs and SLs who aim to establish structures and practices that build individual
and collective professional capacity and to leadership researchers who wish to further uncover
the contributions of MLs to school leadership distributions (Spillane & Coldren, 2011) and
infrastructure development (Shirrell et al., 2019). Our findings showed that MLs may indeed
play a pivotal and deliberate role in supporting in-service professional learning and that SNA
can play a part in understanding this. Given the limits of our SNA data, a more fine-grained
examination of ML’s roles in SNs that enhance professional learning capacity building and that
are explicitly linked to specific school-based initiatives and the relevant qualitative data is
needed.

7. Funding
This work was partially supported by the Hong Kong Research Grants Council under RGC Ref
No. ECS28611215 and partially funded by the International Baccalaureate Organisation.
 28

8. Appendix
Second Advice network survey (Parts A & B repeated from 1st survey)

Advice Network Survey

This purpose of this survey is to understand how people with different positions in the
school influence the work of others. The survey asks you to consider who you regularly
seek advice from in three different categories of work. We provide examples of the sorts of
work conducted in each category. Please keep in mind that you most likely seek advice
from an array of colleagues. They may include formal leaders but also teachers or
colleagues and even those from outside of your teaching area.

During data analysis, we will replace your name and that of the people you identify with a
code. You can identify the people that you regularly seed advice from by selecting their
names from the provided lists on the following pages. You may select as many people as
you wish.
Please select your name
[Drop down list]

Part A
Who do you frequently seek advice from when it comes to matters related to Teaching
and Learning?
• Examples include
• Improving your practices related to instruction or assessment.
• Developing curriculum.
• Implementing new methods of teaching and learning.
• Implementing new technologies.
• Learning new strategies to support students with Special Needs.
• Analysing data related to student learning.

[List of names with check boxes]

Part B
Who do you frequently seek advice from when it comes to matters related to School
Capacity Building?
Examples include
• Understanding school policies and strategic aims.
• Developing your own or others’ professional knowledge and skills.
• Seeking support through activities such as mentoring or coaching.
 29

• Understanding or supporting school-wide initiatives.

• Collaborating with parent groups.
• Developing strategies for school improvement.

[List of names with check boxes]

Part C (2nd Survey Only)

Who did you frequently interact with, in term of developing your professional
capacity over the past year?
Examples include
• Understanding new teaching pedagogies and methodologies.
• Developing your own professional knowledge and skills.
• Seeking support through activities such as mentoring or coaching.
• Understanding or developing school-wide initiatives.
• Collaborating with third-party groups such as parents, IBO staff, regional
authorities, etc.
• Seeking support for or developing strategies for team, division or school-wide
improvement.

[List of names with check boxes]

Part D
Who would you say are the principal members of your personal professional learning
community?
Example include
• Members of your subject Team.
• A grade-level colleague.
• A PYP, DYP or DP Coordinator.
• A Senior Leader.
• A cross-school leader such as the Librarian, IT Head, Athletics Director, etc.

[List of names with check boxes]

 30

9. Reference List

Angelle, P. S. (2007). Teachers as leaders: collaborative leadership for learning communities.

Middle School Journal, 38(3), 54-61.

Armstrong, P., Ko, J., & Bryant, D. A. (2018). Values-driven leadership through institutional
structures and practices: How successful schools in England and Hong

Kong ‘absorb’ policy. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(3), 360–372.

Bryant, D. A. (2019). Conditions that support middle leaders’ work in organizational and
system leadership: Hong Kong case studies. School Leadership and Management,
39(5), 415–433.

Bryant, D. A., Ko, J., & Walker, A. (2018). How do school principals in Hong Kong shape
policy? Leadership and Policy in Schools, 17(3), 345–359.

Bryant, D. A., & Rao, C. (2019). Teachers as reform leaders in Chinese Schools. International
Journal of Educational Management, 33(4), 663–667

Bennett, N., Woods, P., Wise, C., & Newton, W. (2007). Understandings of middle leadership
in secondary schools: A review of empirical research. School Leadership &
Management, 27(5), 453-470.

Boyce, J., & Bowers, A. (2018). Toward an evolving conceptualization of instructional

leadership as leadership for learning. Journal of Educational Administration, 56(2),
161-182.

Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2009). Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social
Networks and How They Shape Our Lives. New York: Little, Brown and Company.

Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing Among Five
Approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design: Choosing among Five
Approaches (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. (2015). A Concise Introduction to Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks,

CA: Sage
 31

Daly, A. J. (2010). Mapping the terrain: social network theory and educational change. In A. J.
Daly (Ed.), Social Network Theory and Educational Change (pp. 1–16). Cambridge,
Mass: Harvard Education Press.

Danielson, C. (2007). Enhancing Professional Practice: A Framework for Teaching. (2nd ed.).
Alexandria, VA: ASCD

Day, C., Sammons, P., Hopkins, D., Leithwood, K., & Kington, A. (2008). Research into the
impact of school leadership on pupil outcomes: policy and research contexts. School
Leadership and Management, 28(1), 5-25.

Day, C., Sammons, P., Leithwood, K., Harris A., Hopkins, D., Gu, Q., Brown, E. & Ahtaridou,
E. (2011) Successful School Leadership: Linking with Learning and Achievement.
Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

De Nobile, J. (2018). Towards a theoretical model of middle leadership in schools. School

Leadership & Management, 38(4), 395–416.

Desimone, L., Porter, A., Birman, B., Garet, M., & Yoon, K.S. (2002). “How Do District
Management and Implementation Strategies Relate to the Quality of the Professional
Development That Districts Provide to Teachers?” Teachers College Record, 104 (7),
1265–1312.

Dinham, S. (2007). The secondary Head of Department and the achievement of exceptional
student outcomes. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(1), 62-79.

Edwards-Groves, C., Grootenboer, P., Hardy, I. & Ronnerman, K. (2019). Driving change from
‘the middle’: middle leading for site based educational development. School
Leadership and Management, 39(3-4), 315-333.

Fitz, J. & Halpin, D. (1994). Ministers and mandarins: educational research in elite settings. In
G. Walford (Ed.), Researching the powerful in education (pp. 32-50). London: UCL
Press.

Flessa, J. (2009). Educational micropolitics and distributed leadership. Peabody Journal of

Education, 84(3), 331–349.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., &Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
 32

Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2004). Combining Methods in Educational and Social Research.
Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Guetterman, T., Fetters, M., & Creswell, J. (2015). Integrating quantitative and qualitative
results in health science mixed methods research through joint displays. Annals of
Family Medicine, 13(6), 554-561.

Gunter, H. M. (2001). Leaders and Leadership In Education. London: Paul Chapman

Publishing.

Gurr, D. (2019). School middle leaders in Australia, Chile and Singapore. School Leadership
& Management, 39(3-4), 278-296.

Gurr, D., & Drysdale, L. (2013). Middle-level secondary school leaders: potential, constraints
and implications for leadership preparation and development. Journal of Educational
Administration, 51(1), 55-71.

Hairon, S., Goh, J. W. P., & Chua, C. S. K. (2015). Teacher leadership enactment in
professional learning community contexts: towards a better understanding of the
phenomenon. School Leadership & Management, 35(2), 163–182.

Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: a passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239.

Hallinger, P. (2011). Leading for learning: lessons from 40 years of empirical research. Journal
of Educational Administration, 49(2), 125-142.

Hallinger, P. (2013). A conceptual framework for systemic reviews of research in educational

leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(2). 126-149.

Hill, H.C., (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. The Future of Children, 17(1), 111–
127.

Hjertø, K. B., Paulsen, J. M., & Thiveräinen, S. (2014). Social-cognitive outcomes of teachers’
engagement in learning communities. Journal of Educational Administration, 52(6),
775–791.

Irvine, P. A., & Brundrett, M. (2017). Negotiating the next step: the part that experience plays
with middle leaders’ development as they move into their new role. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 1–17.
 33

Javadi, V., Bush, T., & Ng, A. (2017). Middle leadership in international schools: evidence
from Malaysia. School Leadership & Management, 37(5), 476-499.

Kvale, S., & Brinkmann, S. (2009) InterViews: Learning the Craft of Qualitative Research
Interviewing. London: Sage

Ledger, S., Thier, M., Bailey, L. & Pitts, C. (2019). OECD's approach to measuring global
competency: powerful voices shaping education. Teachers College Record, 121(8), 1-
40

Lee, M. (2014). Bringing the best of two worlds together for social capital research in education:
social network analysis and symbolic interactionism. Educational Researcher, 43(9),
454-464.

Lee, M., Hallinger, P., & Walker, A. (2012). A distributed perspective on instructional
leadership in International Baccalaureate (IB) schools. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 48(4), 664–698.

Leithwood, K., Harris, A. & Hopkins, D. (2019). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management. 1-18.

Lima, J. A. (2010). Studies of networks in education: methods for collecting and managing
high-quality data. In A. J. Daly (Ed.), Social Network Theory and Educational Change
(pp. 243–258). Cambridge, Mass: Harvard Education Press.

Lin, N. (2001). Building a Network Theory of Social Capital. In N. Lin, K. S. Cook, & R. S.
Burt (Eds.), Social capital: theory and research (pp. 3–29). New York: Aldine de
Gruyter.

Marshall, S. G., (2012). Educational middle change leadership in New Zealand: the meat in the
sandwich. International Journal of Educational Management. 26(6), 502-528

Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: an interactive approach. Thousand Oaks,

California: SAGE Publications.

Moolenaar, N. M. (2012). A social network perspective on teacher collaboration in schools:

theory, methodology, and applications. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 7–39.

Parise, L., & Spillane, J. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: how formal and
on-the-job learning opportunities predict change in elementary school teachers'
practice. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323-346.
 34

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage Publications, Inc.

Pralett, M. & Hamilton, D. (1976). Evaluation as illumination; a new approach to the study of
innovative programmes. In G. Glass (Ed.), Evaluation Studies Review Annual, 1, 140-
157.

Prell, C. (2012). Social Network Analysis: History, Theory & Methodology. London: Sage

Robins, G., Pattison, P. & Woolcock, J. (2004). Missing data in networks: exponential random
graph (p*) models for networks with non-respondents. Social Networks, 26, 257–283.

Saldaña, J. (2013). The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. London: Sage

Shaked, H., & Chen S. (2017). Systems thinking among school middle leaders. Educational
Management Administration & Leadership, 45 (4), 699–718.

Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2017). Systems thinking among school middle leaders.
Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 45 (4), 699–718.

Shirrell, M., Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. (2019). Educational infrastructure, professional
learning, and changes in teachers’ instructional practices and beliefs. Professional
Development in Education, 45(4), 599-613.

Song, H. (2012). The role of teachers’ professional learning communities in the context of
curriculum reform in high schools. Chinese Education and Society, 45(4), 81-89.

Spillane, J. P. (2006) Distributed Leadership. San Franciso, CA:Jossey-Bass

Spillane, J. P., & Coldren, A. F. (2011). Diagnosis and design for school improvement: using
a distributed perspective to lead and manage change. New York: Teachers College
Press.

Spillane, J. P., & Diamond, J. B. (Eds.). (2007). Distributed Leadership in Practice. New York:
Teachers College Press.

Spillane, J. P., Camburn, E. M., Pustejovsky, J., Paraja, A. S., & Lewis, G. (2008). Taking a
distributed perspective: epistemological and methodological tradeoffs in
operationalising the leaders-plus aspect. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(2),
189-213.
 35

Thurlings, M., Evers, A. T., & Vermeulen, M. (2015). Toward a Model of Explaining
Teachers’ Innovative Behavior: A Literature Review. Review of Educational
Research, 85(3), 430–471.

Trabona, K., Taylor, M., Klein, E., Munakata, M., & Rahman, Z. (2019) Collaborative
professional learning cultivating science teacher leaders through vertical communities
of practice. Professional Development in Education, 45(3), 472-487.

Tschannen-Moran, M. (2001).Collaboration and the need for trust. Journal of Educational

Administration, 39(4), 308–331.

Van Waes, S., De Maeyer, S., Moolenaar, N. M., Van Petegem, P., & Van den Bossche, P.
(2018) Strengthening networks: A social network intervention among higher
education teachers. Learning and Instruction, 53, 34-49.

Van Waes, S., Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., Heldens, H. H. P. F., Donche, V., Van Petegem,
P., & Van den Bossche, P. (2016). The networked instructor: The quality of networks
in different stages of professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 59,
295-308.

Walker, A., & Qian, H. (2019). Leadership and culture. In T. Bush, L. Bell, & D. Middlewood
(Eds.), Principles of Educational Leadership and Management (3rd ed., pp. 311-330).
London: Sage.

Weiss, C. (1993). Shared Decision Making About What? A Comparison of Schools With and
Without Teacher Participation. Teachers College Record, 95(1): 69–92.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case Study Research: Design And Methods(3rd ed)., Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.

Yousefi-Nooraie, R. E., E. M. Sale, J., Marin, A., & Ross, L. (2018). Social network analysis:
an example of fusion between quantitative and qualitative methods. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research. 1-15

View publication stats