Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International

Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

Effects of professional learning communities

on teacher collaboration, feedback provision,
job satisfaction and self-efficacy: Evidence from
Korean PISA 2018 data

Hawon Yoo & Jaehong Jang

To cite this article: Hawon Yoo & Jaehong Jang (2023) Effects of professional learning
communities on teacher collaboration, feedback provision, job satisfaction and self-efficacy:
Evidence from Korean PISA 2018 data, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education, 53:8, 1355-1372, DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2022.2036591

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2022.2036591

Published online: 04 Feb 2022.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1006

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccom20
COMPARE, 2023
VOL. 53, NO. 8, 1355–1372
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2022.2036591

Effects of professional learning communities on teacher

collaboration, feedback provision, job satisfaction and
self-efficacy: Evidence from Korean PISA 2018 data
a b
Hawon Yoo and Jaehong Jang
a
Department of Education, Korea University, Seoul, Korea; bDepartment of Education, Korea University,
Seoul, Korea

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
Although much research has emphasised the effect of professional Professional learning
learning communities (PLCs) on teachers’ collaboration, feedback community; teacher
provision, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy, few studies have focused collaboration; feedback
on South Korea’s unique context of government-led top-down poli­ provision; job satisfaction;
self-efficacy
cies to encourage PLCs. Using large-scale data representing all
regions and sectors in Korea in the Programme of International
Student Assessment (PISA) 2018, this study addressed the latent
means differences in factors of teacher collaboration, feedback pro­
vision, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy between groups of teachers
that had and had not participated in a PLC. All of the factors inves­
tigated were found to be higher among teachers that had partici­
pated in PLCs. Theoretical and policy implications are discussed.

Introduction
Teaching is an isolated profession in which individual teachers are often in charge of an
entire process, from designing to managing instruction and classes. Isolation can assure
teachers’ professional independence and autonomy; however, excessive isolation may
hinder teachers’ professional development and create obstacles for school reform
(Sarason 1996) while also inhibiting possibilities to cater to the diverse needs of students
(Lortie 2002). In the long term, isolation impacts negatively on teachers’ job satisfaction
and self-efficacy (Goddard and Kim 2018; Peterson, Park, and Sweeney 2008). Teacher
collaboration has been found to mitigate this feeling of isolation and its negative con­
sequences (Mora-Ruano, Heine, and Gebhardt 2019; Tatar and Horenczyk 2003). Studies
have revealed that systematic and cultural support by schools, administrators, and school
leaders contribute to creating a professional environment that encourages teacher colla­
boration (Bruce et al. 2010; Goddard, Goddard, and Tschannen-Moran 2007). Moreover,
structural and systematic support for teacher collaboration has become increasingly
important in addressing the effects of rapid diversification and transformation of tradi­
tional knowledge and environments in the fourth industrial revolution (Tichenor and
Tichenor 2018).

CONTACT Jaehong Jang onowend@naver.com Department of Education, Korea University, Seoul Korea
This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.
© 2022 British Association for International and Comparative Education
1356 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

Professional learning communities (PLCs) are one example of structurally organised

teacher collaboration. In general, teachers in PLCs engage in discussions and collabora­
tive activities to share a common vision and values in order to achieve better and
meaningful results for student learning and academic performance (e.g. DuFour 2004).
Studies have demonstrated positive correlations between PLCs and instructional
improvement (Matthews 2014), job satisfaction (Basak and Ghosh 2011; Fernet et al.
2012), self-efficacy (Goddard, Goddard, and Tschannen-Moran 2007) and, ultimately,
students’ achievement (e.g. DuFour 2004). However, research on the scope and dynamics
of factors affecting PLCs and their results is scarce (Fred et al. 2020). Interactions and
structural relationships between individual factors are also crucial to sustaining PLCs and
establishing goals and plans for future PLCs.
In South Korea, PLC participation has been widely encouraged by school boards,
leaders, and administrators through policies such as crediting PLCs as a source of
professional development (Lee and Kim 2016; Seo and Han 2012). In the past,
professional development in Korea tended to involve programmes on subjects irrele­
vant to teachers’ classrooms and a hurdle that teachers deem necessary for promotion
or to meet the bare minimum requirement to keep their jobs (Seo and Han 2012). In
recent years, however, measures for professional development have focused on ways
to provide more practical and engaging programmes for teachers (Seo 2009; So and
Kim 2013). PLCs have been suggested as an opportunity to help teachers engage in
authentic learning and reflect on their practices (Lee and Kim 2016). Accordingly,
Korea’s education agencies have organised an increasing number of in-school, school-
school, and district-district PLCs on topics ranging from instruction and student
management to school policies and professional development (Seo and Han 2012).
Moreover, since 2010 the Korean Ministry of Education has run a ‘Teacher Evaluation
for Professional Development’ programme to encourage teacher collaboration. As
a part of this policy, hours spent in PLCs count for teachers’ mandatory professional
development and teachers are provided with subsidies, incentives or favourable
performance evaluation points for participation. With such top-down policies at the
core of South Korea’s PLCs, these collaborations are bureaucratic in nature. These
policies are purported to induce changes in teachers through peer collaboration
focused on teachers’ professional development. Therefore, the effectiveness of these
top-down PLCs in Korea should examine the dynamic factors and relationships
affecting teacher collaboration, the effectiveness of such factors on teachers’ practices,
and affective factors such as teacher efficacy and satisfaction, key factors influencing
teacher retention. However, there is currently a dearth of studies that focus on the
effectiveness of PLCs and its relationship to these factors, especially in the South
Korean context.
We, therefore, aim to compare the effectiveness of PLCs on teacher collaboration,
feedback provision, job satisfaction, and teachers’ self-efficacy between teachers who had
participated in PLCs and those that had not. Using South Korean teachers’ survey from
the international panel data of the Programme of International Student Assessment
(PISA) 2018, we extended the analysis to the relationships between teacher collaboration
and feedback provision, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy. This study is particularly
meaningful in that we used a large, publicly available dataset to ensure generalisability
across different educational sectors and systems, facilitating objective insights in
 COMPARE 1357

introducing and conducting PLCs at the national or regional level (Lee and Kim 2016).
To provide specific implications for policy making, we compared the differences between
teachers who had and had not participated in a PLC.

Literature review
PLCs and teacher collaboration
The literature offers no consensus in defining PLCs (e.g. Fred et al. 2020). Concepts
similar to PLCs have been labelled professional communities (Little 2003; Louis, Marks,
and Kruse 1996), communities of practice (Wenger 1998), and collegial inquiry com­
munities (Timperley et al. 2008). Chi (2013) defined PLCs as a group of teachers
organised to improve teachers’ learning and enhance their professional knowledge and
skills for teaching through sharing knowledge and visions, mutual collaborations, and
reflecting with teachers’ social network. De Neve, Devos, and Tuytens (2015) specified
further that a PLC involves a collective effort focused on an ongoing practice from
a critical point of view. The difference between a PLC and other types of teacher
collaboration is that a PLC involves a school-wide culture or establishment to improve
student outcomes or performance. Therefore, PLCs are naturally influenced by school
environments, government policies, and leadership (Hallam et al. 2015).
Numerous studies have shown the benefits of effective PLCs in terms of teachers’
instructional practices and students’ learning (e.g. Barton and Stepanek 2012). In Hughes
and Kritsonis (2007) three-year study, students in schools with PLCs showed higher
maths scores, with an over 5-percentile-point increase by year, compared to students in
schools whose teachers did not participate in PLCs. A meta-analysis showed that
students’ higher achievement was mediated by PLCs (Lomos, Hofman, and Bosker
2011). Moreover, as Graham (2007) noted, teachers in PLCs engaged in collaborative
learning and share understanding with peers. Hord (1997) and Kelchtermans (2006)
confirmed that teachers’ PLCs impacted the quality of teachers’ lesson planning and
professionalism in instructional practices. Studies have also shown that teachers involved
in PLCs have a sense of belonging and trust in their schools and their peers, which in turn
increases teachers’ job satisfaction (Gamoran, Gunter, and Williams 2005; Louis, Marks,
and Kruse 1996; Stoll et al. 2006). However, the specific link between students’ achieve­
ment and teachers’ instructional improvement through PLCs still remains ambiguous,
and requires further research (Hairon and Tan 2017; Voelkel and Chrispeels 2017).

The bureaucratic nature of PLCs in South Korea

PLCs have long been proposed by school boards and administrators as an alternative
means to develop authentic professional learning culture and environment for teachers
(Hargreaves 2019). As such, while they are top-down and centralised policies implemen­
ted by districts and school boards, the intention of their implementation was rooted in
research (Hargreaves 2019; Kruse and Louis 2007). They are often implemented as
a mandated programme involving teachers appointed by school leaders or school dis­
tricts with an aim to improve teachers’ instructional practices, provide professional
development opportunities, and ultimately enhance students’ academic performance.
1358 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

Focusing on US-based PLCs, Talbert (2009, 560) classified top-down approaches into
bureaucratic strategies versus professional strategies, with the former being managerial,
prescribed and rule-driven, and latter being professionally respectful, knowledge-based,
and democratic. With bureaucratic strategies, teachers participate in mandatory programmes
that negate teachers’ individual professionalism. Accordingly, argues Talbert, these PLCs
become additional administrative work, leading to resistance and anxiety among teachers. As
a result, productive conversations based on a shared vision for innovation and improvement
of school and students’ achievement is unlikely to happen. In contrast, with a professional
strategies approach, schools and administrators view teachers as professionals, involve them
in decision-making processes, and induce topics for collaboration, leading to increased
support for teachers with more effective collegiate learning opportunities.
In South Korea, top-down PLC implementation seems to incorporate more bureau­
cratic strategies than professional ones. Programmes and topics chosen for PLCs are
uniform and the teachers frequently lack a voice in decision-making process for topics.
For instance, in elementary schools, PLCs are organised by the grade level with a specific
topic or themes pre-set by administrators. Teachers are required to participate in
discussions with peer teachers for certain hours regularly. At times, external specialists
are invited to meetings. Teachers practice what has been discussed or newly learned in
their classrooms. At the end of each semester, teachers gather, share their experiences
and exchange feedback. Due to this approach, as was the case among US-based teachers
in Talbert’s (2009) study, scepticism is rife among South Korean teachers against these
bureaucratic, top-down policies. Perceiving the policies to be external control over
teachers’ professional practices, teachers may frequently degrade PLC participation to
earn professional development points (Seo 2009; So and Kim 2013).
In South Korea, teaching is considered one of the most secure professions, and
the teachers’ certification examination is nationally homogenous and highly compe­
titive, ensuring the uniformity of teachers’ qualifications and high educational
quality across the nation (Pont and Montt 2013). Although this homogenous
qualification of teachers’ professionalism would be a good basis for meaningful
and productive collaboration, the bureaucratic nature creates a roadblock to many
of the benefits expected from PLCs. Therefore, studying the effect of South Korean
teachers’ PLCs on teacher collaboration, feedback provision, self-efficacy, and satis­
faction would provide meaningful insight in the outcomes of bureaucratic imple­
mentation of PLCs. The results may provide policy implications for professional
development administrators in countries with similar cultural characteristics to
South Korea’s seeking to implement effective PLCs.

Teacher collaboration and feedback provision

Among the many factors that contribute to the effectiveness of teachers’ praxis, providing
feedback to learners is pivotal in understanding and investigating the knowledge gap
between teachers and students (Fiorella and Mayer 2016). Providing feedback to stu­
dents’ questions or reactions is closely related to teachers’ praxis or instructional prac­
tices. As a secondary protocol that follows initial instruction, feedback provision relates
to teachers’ pedagogical knowledge in finding problems and providing timely and
 COMPARE 1359

appropriate solutions within students’ learning processes (Carless and Winstone 2020).
Thus, among their many instructional practices, teachers’ provision of feedback is critical
to enhancing student achievement (Hattie and Timperley 2007).
Unfortunately, studies have found that in many cases, classroom teachers are not fully
attentive to providing feedback to facilitate students’ learning (Van den Bergh, Ros, and
Beijaard 2014) or in worst cases induce negative results by de-motivating students’
learning (Yang and Carless 2013). As such, teachers frequently find it difficult to improve
their practices to provide more meaningful feedback despite its importance in monitor­
ing and assessing students’ learning (Van den Bergh, Ros, and Beijaard 2013).
Most professional development programmes related to instructional practices
focus on teachers’ content knowledge and curriculum instruction rather than on
gauging student participation or observing their thinking (Kennedy 2016). However,
improving the quantity and quality of feedback in classrooms is not a simple process
that can be learned through information-transmission type or individual-based
professional development programmes (Van den Bergh, Ros, and Beijaard 2013).
Instead, as postulated by Van den Bergh, Ros, and Beijaard (2014), the provision of
more meaningful feedback could be enhanced through a collaborative professional
development environment in which teachers are shown exemplary videos or pro­
vided with reflective discussions on their classroom feedback provision. These social
components could provide teachers with practical and authentic ideas to probe
students’ learning and offer material support for both student and teacher learning
(Leclerc et al. 2012). Feedback is closely connected to student performance
(Newmann 1994) and professional development on improving feedback provision
may provide concrete solutions connected to student performance. To date, how­
ever, studies on the relationship between feedback provision and teacher collabora­
tion are still limited. This gap in the literature guided this study in exploring the
effect of PLCs and teacher collaboration on feedback.

Teacher collaboration and teachers’ job satisfaction

Teachers’ job satisfaction is defined as the relationship between teachers’ expectations
about their jobs and perceived achievement (Zembylas and Papanastasiou 2004). In other
words, it is the extent to which teachers feel that they are teaching what they like to teach.
Teachers with high levels of job satisfaction are known to show higher levels of job
commitment and are less likely to leave the profession (Heller, Rex, and Cline 1992).
Caprara et al. (2006) reported that job satisfaction is a mediating predictor of students’
academic performance.
Numerous studies have focused on ways to enhance teachers’ job satisfaction.
DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) theorised positive impacts from PLCs and
teacher collaboration on teachers’ job satisfaction. Ma and MacMillan’s (1999)
study suggested that collegial communities such as PLCs are effective predictors of
teachers’ job satisfaction. Studies show that in contexts that fail to promote teacher
collaboration, teachers feel isolated, resulting eventually in job dissatisfaction
(Johnson, Kraft, and Papay 2012; Leithwood, Leonard, and Sharratt 1998).
Banerjee et al. (2017) found a modest direct relationship between teachers’ job
satisfaction and students’ reading achievement among elementary school teachers
1360 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

and students and suggested that a strong collaborative culture in schools alleviates
the frustrations and challenges experienced by individual teachers from low student
achievement. However, they also noted that structural support by school leaders
with clear goals for participation is also required to provide genuine help for teacher
performance; otherwise, teachers can experience negative pressure, thereby dimin­
ishing their job satisfaction.

Teacher collaboration and teachers’ self-efficacy

Teachers’ self-efficacy is teachers’ beliefs in their competence to garner an expected
level of student outcomes (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, and Hoy 1998). It involves the
teaching goals that teachers set for themselves and for their instructional practices in
the classrooms (Wolters and Daugherty 2007; Woolfolk Hoy and Davis 2006).
Teacher self-efficacy is associated with improved instruction (Allinder 1994), job
satisfaction (Liu, Bellibaş, and Gümüş 2020), and importantly, student achievement
(Ashton and Webb 1986; Ross 1992; Tschannen-Moran and McMaster 2009).
Teachers with higher self-efficacy are motivated to seek ways to improve their
current teaching and develop their professional competence (Butler 2007;
Retelsdorf et al. 2010), and they are not afraid to challenge new instructional
approaches (Bruce et al. 2010).
Much research has been directed at factors related to increasing teachers’ self-
efficacy. Takahashi (2011) argued that changing teachers’ self-efficacy beliefs
required sociocultural and collaborative efforts based on shared decision making
on instructional practices and students’ achievement. Goddard and Kim (2018)
found that teachers’ collaborative work environment in instruction and professional
development had an indirect positive effect on teachers’ efficacy mediated by
instructional practices. In their studies on the seven-week-long teacher collaboration
programme in a girls’ high school in Singapore, Chong and Kong (2012) found that
systematic support on instructional development promoted teachers’ self-efficacy
about their competencies and performance. Duyar, Gumus, and Sukru Bellibas
(2013) study also found that peer discussions on teaching theories, methods, and
teaching and learning not only increased the teachers’ self-efficacy but also their job
satisfaction.
In this study, we aim to explore the impact of participation in a PLC on teachers’
collaboration, instructional practices, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy by comparing
groups of teachers who had and had not participated in a PLC, using data from the
PISA 2018 (Schleicher 2019). The following hypotheses guide this study:

(1) There are differences in latent means in teacher collaboration, instructional

practices (feedback provision), job satisfaction, and self-efficacy between teachers
who had and had not participated in a PLC.
(2) Teacher collaboration has different impacts on instructional practices (feedback
provision), job satisfaction, and self-efficacy between teachers who had and had
not participated in a PLC.
 COMPARE 1361

Method
Data and sample
To investigate the latent means and the influence of teacher collaboration, instructional
practice (feedback provision), teachers’ self-efficacy, and job satisfaction among teachers
who had and had not participated in a PLC, we carried out an analysis using the PISA
2018 dataset for South Korea. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD)’s PISA measures the level of academic achievement of 15-year-
old students, along with questionnaires formulated for teachers, parents, and adminis­
trators. The analysis for this study used data from 2,483 full-time middle school teachers
in South Korea (Female: 1,298(52.3%), Male: 1,185(47.7%)). Part-time teacher samples
were excluded to maintain the unity of samples to prevent incongruencies due to
flexibility in hours to participate in teacher collaboration. Participation in PLCs over
a duration of 12 months was investigated considering the yearly change of members and
topics at the end of school year. A total of 1,651 teachers (66.5%) had participated in
a PLC and 832 teachers (33.5%) had not. Moreover, school level variables which could
influence the results due to the bureaucratic nature of Korean PLCs were controlled.
Guided by prior research, school level attributes such as a school type (public or private)
and the community size of which the schools are located in (large cities, small cities and
rural areas) were included in the analyses as control variables. These control variables
were chosen to reflect the possible differences in employment and staff management
systems according to school types, and the implementation of PLC policies according to
the location of the schools. The teacher data were matched to the school level data
included in PISA 2018 for school level analysis.

Measures
Following the technical report of the PISA 2018, we first selected questions under each
construct and examined the internal consistency to check inter-item reliability (OECD
2018). The questions were divided into four areas. First, questions on teacher collabora­
tion related to the exchange of class and assessment materials and participation on team
conferences. Second, questions on feedback provision involved feedback provided for the
achievement of class objectives and academic performance, indicating the level of com­
munication that took place to improve students’ performance. Third, questions on job
satisfaction related to teachers’ satisfaction with the teaching profession and their current
job environment. Fourth, questions on teachers’ self-efficacy related to maintaining
positive relations with students, classroom management, and instructional settings.
Each of the variables and items are described in Table 1.

Table 1. List of constructs and corresponding items.

Construct Items Sample item Reliability
TC 4 Engage in discussions about the learning development of specific students .836
FP 5 I tell students how they can improve their performance. .901
TS 8 The advantages of being a teacher clearly outweigh the disadvantages. .855
SE 10 Get students to believe they can do well in schoolwork .901
Source: The full text for items for each construct in the teacher questionnaire is available at: https://www.oecd.org/pisa/
data/2018database/CY7_201710_QST_MS_TCQ-G_NoNotes_final.pdf
1362 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

Data analysis
A data analysis was conducted using SPSS 26.0 and Mplus 8.3 using the following
procedures. First, a descriptive statistical and correlation analysis was performed to
check for multivariate normality by examining the skewness and kurtosis. The confir­
matory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to produce more valid and reliable mea­
surement scale.
Second, a latent means analysis (LMA) was performed to confirm differences in
teacher collaboration, feedback provision, self-efficacy, and job satisfaction according
to participation in a PLC. Latent means analysis is used to estimate the differences
between multiple groups where the means are compared by constraining measurement
errors. LMA has strengths in estimating model fit on latent means models, analysing the
correlations among measurement errors and describing the difference in latent means
between two groups (Aiken, Stein, and Bentler 1994; Hancock 1997; Hong, Malik, and
Lee 2003). To perform LMA, configural invariance, metric invariance, and scalar invar­
iance are imperative (Hong, Malik, and Lee 2003). LMA offers a more accurate means
comparison between groups than t-test and ANOVA.
Finally, multigroup analysis (MGA) was conducted to investigate the differences in
path coefficients between participating and non-participating groups and to examine the
impact of teacher collaboration on instructional practice (feedback provision), job
satisfaction and self-efficacy
Although χ2was considered fundamental, the root mean-square error of approximation
(RMSEA), standardised root mean residual (SRMR), comparative fix index (CFI), and
Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) were selected to complement sensitivities of sample size (Kline
2005). The missing data were treated using full information maximum likelihood (FIML).

Results
Multivariate normality
To verify between-group differences through latent mean analysis and multi-group
analysis, the normality of the measured variables was checked (Table 2). The skewness
values in the study ranged from |.03| to |.34| and the kurtosis ranged from |.10| to |.29|
which are within the range of satisfaction according to Kline (2011) which skewness
being lower than 3 and kurtosis being lower than 10. The correlations among the
variables were statistically significant (p < .01).

Table 2. Descriptive statistics, correlations of latent variables.

Measurement Variable 1 2 3 4
1.TC 1
2.FP .330** 1
3.TS .168** .179** 1
4.SE .284** .446** .356** 1
Mean 3.421 2.783 2.971 3.024
Standard Deviations 1.045 .605 .513 .476
Skewness .345 .182 −.115 .037
Kurtosis −.256 −.288 .100 .289
 COMPARE 1363

Table 3. CFA loadings for each construct.

Factor Variable Estimate STDY S.E. p-Value
TC TC1 1.000 .762 .000 -
TC2 1.051 .741 .030 .000
TC3 .968 .821 .025 .000
TC4 .902 .688 .028 .000
FP FP1 1.000 .702 .000 -
FP2 1.063 .734 .030 .000
FP3 1.207 .804 .032 .000
FP4 1.266 .883 .032 .000
FP5 1.225 .875 .031 .000
TS TS1 1.000 .711 .000 -
TS2 1.391 .750 .040 .000
TS3 .913 .618 .032 .000
TS4 .937 .507 .040 .000
TS5 1.021 .648 .035 .000
TS6 1.020 .611 .037 .000
TS7 .874 .626 .031 .000
TS8 1.054 .813 .029 .000
SE SE1 1.000 .699 .000 -
SE2 1.091 .741 .031 .000
SE3 1.176 .672 .038 .000
SE4 1.113 .716 .035 .000
SE5 1.076 .705 .034 .000
SE6 1.133 .703 .036 .000
SE7 1.000 .650 .033 .000
SE8 1.096 .664 .036 .000
SE9 .968 .655 .032 .000
SE10 1.177 .691 .037 .000

Confirmative factor analysis

CFA was conducted to verify the factor loading and found that each variable converged
to the factor. Table 3 shows the result that the factor loadings ranged from 0.60 to 0.89
which were significant across all items. Given this result, all items satisfied the criteria for
convergent reliability and all fitness indexes of the CFA model seemed desirable
(χ2 = 4994.118 (p < .001); df = 345; CFI = .865; TLI = .852; SRMR = .053; RMSEA = .074).
CFI and TLI values above .90 good models (Hu and Bentler 1999), RMSEA and SRMR
values below .05 mean good models, below .08 mean good fit, and below .10 mean
moderate levels (Browne and Cudeck 1993; Hu and Bentler 1999).

LMA according to participation in a PLC

To examine whether there was a latent means difference between the groups that
had and had not participated in a PLC, an LMA was conducted based on the
process of configural invariance, metric invariance and scalar invariance.
First, to test configural invariance, four alternative models were evaluated. The
model produced a good fit of the data. Second, to test metric invariance the model
used for configural invariance and the model in which the factor pattern coeffi­
cient was constrained were compared. Since the metric invariance model is nested
in the baseline model, the metric invariance can be tested through the differences
of χ2 using the degrees of freedom. Results revealed that although there was
a difference in χ2 (∆χ2 = 45.784, p < .01), there was no significant difference in
TLI and RMSEA. Therefore, the metric invariance was not supported. Since χ2
1364 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

difference test is highly influenced by the sample size as the χ2 test, other indices
such as RMSEA and TLI should also be considered. Because RMSEA and TLI take
into consideration of model simplicity, invariance is supported if the index of
a more restrictive model is not deteriorated (Anderson and Gerbing 1988; Marsh
and Grayson 1990; Steenkamp and Baumgartner 1998). Third, the scalar invar­
iance was tested. Although there was difference in χ2 value (∆χ2 = 45.128, p < .01),
there were no significant differences in TLI and RMSEA. Therefore, scalar
invariance was supported. Lastly, factor variance invariance was tested because
common standard deviation is applied when the variance of latent means of two
groups is equivalent. The χ2 difference test revealed no significant difference since
factor variance invariance was rejected. Additionally, there was no significant
difference in the TLI and RMSEA values. Therefore, factor invariance was sup­
ported (Table 4).
To compare the latent means, the PLC-participating group was set as the
reference group and the construct means was fixed to zero. Results indicated
a difference in means in teacher collaboration, feedback provision, job satisfaction,
and teachers’ self-efficacy (Table 5). That is, the means of the PLC-participating
group showed the largest difference in teacher collaboration (.648), feedback
provision (.156), teachers’ self-efficacy (.181), and job satisfaction (.194),
respectively.
Finally, the effect size of latent means differences was compared according to
the standard suggested by Cohen (1988) (Table 5). An effect size of .2 is con­
sidered small, .5 is medium, and .8 is large. Based on Cohen’s guidelines, all
values were larger than .5. The values were largest for teachers’ self-efficacy
(1.148), job satisfaction (.842), teacher collaboration (.774), feedback provision
(.670), respectively.

Table 4. Fit indices for invariance verification.

Model χ2 df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA ∆χ2 ∆df
Configural 5061.713 (<.001) 636 .868 .832 .045 .075
invariance
Metric 5107.497 (<.001) 659 .867 .837 .047 .074 45.784 23
invariance (p < .01)
Scalar 5152.625 (<.001) 682 .867 .837 .047 .073 45.128 23
invariance (p < .01)
Factor 5155.484 (<.001) 686 .867 .843 .048 .073 2.859 4
invariance (p = .581)

Table 5. Latent mean differences analysis.

Yes No

Factor Latent Mean Latent Mean p Variances Effect

TC .00 −.648 <.001 .837 .774
FP .00 −.156 <.05 .233 .670
TS .00 −.181 <.01 .215 .842
SE .00 −.194 <.01 .169 1.148
Controlled variables: school type, school location
 COMPARE 1365

Table 6. Fit indices for invariance verification.

Model χ2 df CFI TLI SRMR RMSEA ∆ χ2 ∆df
Full metric invariance 5153.926 685 .867 .842 .047 .073
(<.001)
Structural invariance 5152.625 682 .867 .842 .047 .073 1.301 (p = .728) 3
(<.001)

Multigroup analysis according to participation in a PLC

Multigroup analysis tests whether the path coefficient of one group is equivalent to that of
another. To compare multiple groups, the full metric invariance, and structural invar­
iance with cross-group equivalence constraints were tested (Byrne 2010). There was little
change of model fit by constraining all of the path coefficients (∆χ2 = 1.301, ∆CFI = .000,
∆TLI = .000, ∆RMSEA = .000). The full metric invariance was supported (Table 6).
The path analysis of full metric invariance model showed that teacher collaboration
affected feedback provision, teachers’ self-efficacy, and job satisfaction in both groups. In
both groups, the effect of teacher collaboration on feedback provision was the highest,
followed by self-efficacy and job satisfaction (Table 7).

Discussion
Although the literature suggests the importance of PLCs on teacher collaboration,
instruction, and affective factors, there is a dearth of research on the political and
contextual conformation nature of PLCs specific to South Korea. In this light, this
study addressed the effect of PLCs in relations to teacher collaboration, instructional
practice, and affective aspects using a large-scale dataset for South Korean middle school
teachers from the PISA 2018. For this analysis, we examined the latent mean differences
of teacher collaboration, feedback provision, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy between
the groups that had and had not participated in a PLC. We also looked at the differences
of teacher collaboration on feedback provision, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy between
the groups using multigroup analysis.
Results from our analysis showed that participating in a PLC positively affected
teacher collaboration, feedback provision, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy signifi­
cantly, supporting our first hypothesis. This finding is consistent with the evidence
provided by DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005), who postulated that the structured
system of a PLC could work to achieve higher effectiveness than individual-level
collaboration. Our finding suggests that in the South Korean PLC context, which is
unique in that these groups are formed primarily bureaucratically from top-down

Table 7. Result of multigroup comparison.

PLC YES PLC NO
Path Estimate (STDY) Estimate (STDY)
TC → FP .185*** (.362) .184*** (.349)
→ TS .093*** (.198) .065** (.129)
→ SE .132*** (.313) .128*** (.285)
***p < .001 **p < .01
Controlled variables: school type, school location
1366 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

recommendations from education boards rather than involving teachers in decision-

making processes, joining a PLC is still more effective than not joining one in terms of
enhancing the quality of feedback provision, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy of
teachers. This finding is also in line with the studies and reports on teachers’ satisfac­
tion and positive outcomes of participating in PLCs imposed by the administrators
(Elster 2009; Wong 2010).
Our results showed that while a collaborative culture of teachers sharing and
learning together had positive implications for teachers’ instructional practices and
affective aspects (Forte and Flores 2014; Richter et al. 2011) in both groups of
teachers, the results for all of the constructs were higher in the participating group,
supporting our second hypothesis. This finding means that even involuntary and
bureaucratic structural support and obligatoriness was proven to be effective in the
South Korean education context. However, considering the professionalism and
overall high teacher quality in South Korea, the results cannot point to
a conclusion that the involuntary and bureaucratic PLC is the perfect solution in
Korea. The results only looked at the differences between groups that did and
groups that did not participate in PLCs. As suggested by Hargreaves (2019),
autonomy or professional strategies (Talbert 2009) in choosing areas of learning
based on teachers’ own needs would likely help at the microlevel for more practical
and authentic outcomes and would likely motivate teachers to continue PLC parti­
cipation. Therefore, further studies are required to observe the effect of PLCs on
factors such as school climate and teachers’ decision-making authority and to
compare bureaucratic versus professional strategies in the South Korean context.
Moreover, our results showed that feedback provision was significantly higher in
groups that had participated in PLCs. This finding is particularly significant in that we
focused on a specific area of instructional practice to examine the effect of PLCs on
instructional development. The literature suggests the positive effects of PLCs and
collaborative efforts on instructional improvement and innovative pedagogies (Shachar
and Shmuelevitz 1997; Supovitz 2002); however, such research has remained at the
general level, without specifying areas of instructional practice in relations to students’
learning. We specifically looked at the provision of feedback in the classroom as a strategy
to facilitate students’ learning and a focus area of professional development from PLCs.
This focus is particularly significant because prior research suggested that providing
feedback is more effectively improved through collaboration with peers by sharing and
reflecting on their instructions compared to making individual efforts (Van den Bergh,
Ros, and Beijaard 2013, 2014). Therefore, our findings could contribute to establishing
specific goals and plans for PLCs as a professional development programme addressing
the role and importance of feedback provision to examine, understand and facilitate
students’ learning.
This study has important policy implications for evaluating the effect of PLCs, mana­
ging teacher collaboration or future PLCs, and specific topics for effective PLCs. It
highlights differences in teacher collaboration, feedback provision, job satisfaction, and
self-efficacy between teachers that had and had not participated in a PLC in South Korea.
Moreover, this study points to the need for PLC topics to develop teachers’ profession­
alism related to improving students’ learning. The policy implication from this study is
that collaborative professional development in the formation of PLCs may not only
 COMPARE 1367

increase teachers’ motivation but also their instructional practices, despite being imposed
through external policies. More importantly, PLCs should be encouraged regardless of its
bureaucratic or professional nature.

Limitations of the study and directions for future research

Some limitations of this study should be addressed for future research. First, we focused
on feedback provision as an instructional practice. However, future research should
explore the effect of PLCs and other instructional practices, such as differentiated
instruction, classroom management, student and parent conferencing, and the connec­
tion of these factors to student outcomes. Such research could provide more goal-
oriented and detailed information in planning and executing PLCs.
Second, the participants in the study were limited to middle school teachers. As South
Korean middle school teachers teach specific academic subjects and a single school may
have just one or two teachers teaching the same subject, in-school PLCs would not
include subject-specific curriculum, teaching materials, or assessment (Hur 2011; Seo
and Han 2012). However, since middle school teachers teach multiple classes, they could
share common issues and problems in student management or school culture. In this
respect, collaborative activities may differ greatly from the case in elementary schools
where one teacher is responsible for one class of students. Therefore, future research is
required to analyse datasets from other school levels to find appropriate and effective
forms of PLCs.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Ksan Zoe Rubadeau for critical feedback and devoted editing. We also would
like to thank the two anonymous reviewers and editor for helpful comments.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCID
Hawon Yoo http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6963-5501
Jaehong Jang http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0733-2529

References
Aiken, L. S., J. A. Stein, and P. M. Bentler. 1994. “Structural Equation Analyses of Clinical
Subpopulation Differences and Comparative Treatment Outcomes: Characterizing the Daily
Lives of Drug Addicts.” Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (3): 488–499.
doi:10.1037/0022-006X.62.3.488.
Allinder, R. M. 1994. “The Relationship between Efficacy and the Instructional Practices of Special
Education Teachers and Consultants.” Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of
the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children 17 (2): 86–95.
doi:10.1177/088840649401700203.
1368 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A Review
and Recommended Two-step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin 103 (3): 411–423. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.103.3.411.
Ashton, P. T., and R. B. Webb. 1986. Making a Difference: Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy and Student
Achievement. New York: Longman.
Banerjee, N., E. Stearns, S. Moller, and R. A. Mickelson. 2017. “Teacher Job Satisfaction and
Student Achievement: The Roles of Teacher Professional Community and Teacher
Collaboration in Schools.” American Journal of Education 123 (2): 203–241. doi:10.1086/
689932.
Barton, R., and J. Stepanek. 2012. “The Impact of Professional Learning Communities.” Principal’s
Research Review 7 (4): 1–4.
Basak, R., and A. Ghosh. 2011. “School Environment and Locus of Control in Relation to Job
Satisfaction among School Teachers - A Study from Indian Perspective.” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 29: 1199–1208. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.11.354.
Browne, M. W., and R. Cudeck. 1993. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” In Testing
Structural Equations Models, edited by K. A. Bollen, and J. S. Long, 136–162, Newbury Park,
California: Sage.
Bruce, C. D., I. Esmonde, J. Ross, L. Dookie, and R. Beatty. 2010. “The Effects of Sustained
Classroom-embedded Teacher Professional Learning on Teacher Efficacy and Related Student
Achievement.” Teaching and Teacher Education 26 (8): 1598–1608. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2010.06.011.
Butler, R. 2007. “Teachers’ Achievement Goal Orientations and Associations with Teachers’ Help
Seeking: Examination of a Novel Approach to Teacher Motivation.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 99 (2): 241–252. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.241.
Byrne, B. M. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and
Programming. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.
Caprara, G. V., C. Barbaranelli, P. Steca, and P. S. Malone. 2006. “Teachers’ Self-efficacy Beliefs as
Determinants of Job Satisfaction and Students’ Academic Achievement: A Study at the School
Level.” Journal of School Psychology 44 (6): 473–490. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.09.001.
Carless, D., and N. Winstone. 2020. “Teacher Feedback Literacy and Its Interplay with Student
Feedback Literacy.” Teaching in Higher Education 1–14. doi:10.1080/
13562517.2020.1782372.
Chi, Y. 2013. “An Analysis of the Affecting Factors on the Level of Teachers Learning
Community.” Unpublished master’s thesis. Seoul National University.
Chong, W. H., and C. A. Kong. 2012. “Teacher Collaborative Learning and Teacher Self-efficacy:
The Case of Lesson Study.” The Journal of Experimental Education 80 (3): 263–283. doi:10.1080/
00220973.2011.596854.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
De Neve, D., G. Devos, and M. Tuytens. 2015. “The Importance of Job Resources and Self-efficacy
for Beginning Teachers’ Professional Learning in Differentiated Instruction.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 47: 30–41. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.12.003.
DuFour, R. 2004. “What Is a “Professional Learning Community”?” Educational Leadership 61 (8):
6–11.
DuFour, R., R. Eaker, and R. DuFour. 2005. “Recurring Themes of Professional Learning
Communities and the Assumptions They Challenge.” In On Common Ground: The Power of
Professional Learning Communities, edited by R. DuFour, R. Eaker, and R. DuFour, 7–30,
Bloomington, Indiana: Solution Tree.
Duyar, I., S. Gumus, and M. Sukru Bellibas. 2013. “Multilevel Analysis of Teacher Work Attitudes:
The Influence of Principal Leadership and Teacher Collaboration.” International Journal of
Educational Management 27 (7): 700–719. doi:10.1108/IJEM-09-2012-0107.
Elster, D. 2009. “Biology in Context: Teachers’ Professional Development in Learning
Communities.” Journal of Biological Education 43 (2): 53–61. doi:10.1080/
00219266.2009.9656152.
 COMPARE 1369

Fernet, C., F. Guay, C. Senécal, and S. Austin. 2012. “Predicting Intraindividual Changes in
Teacher Burnout: The Role of Perceived School Environment and Motivational Factors.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 28 (4): 514–525. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.11.013.
Fiorella, L., and R. E. Mayer. 2016. “Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning.” Educational
Psychology Review 28 (4): 717–741. doi:10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9.
Forte, A. M., and M. A. Flores. 2014. “Teacher Collaboration and Professional Development in the
Workplace: A Study of Portuguese Teachers.” European Journal of Teacher Education 37 (1):
91–105. doi:10.1080/02619768.2013.763791.
Fred, H., V. Meeuwen Pierre, R. Ellen, and V. Marjan. 2020. “How to Enhance Teachers’
Professional Learning by Stimulating the Development of Professional Learning
Communities: Operationalising a Comprehensive PLC Concept for Assessing Its
Development in Everyday Educational Practice.” Professional Development in Education
46 (5): 751–769. doi:10.1080/19415257.2019.1634630.
Gamoran, A., R. Gunter, and T. Williams. 2005. “Professional Community by Design: Building
Social Capital through Teacher Professional Development.” In The Social Organization of
Schooling, edited by L. V. Hedges, and B. Schneider, 111–126, New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Goddard, Y. L., R. D. Goddard, and M. Tschannen-Moran. 2007. “A Theoretical and Empirical
Investigation of Teacher Collaboration for School Improvement and Student Achievement in
Public Elementary Schools.” Teachers College Record 109 (4): 877–896.
Goddard, Y. L., and M. Kim. 2018. “Examining Connections between Teacher Perceptions of
Collaboration, Differentiated Instruction, and Teacher Efficacy.” Teachers College Record: The
Voice of Scholarship in Education 120 (1): 1–24. doi:10.1177/016146811812000102.
Graham, P. 2007. “Improving Teacher Effectiveness through Structured Collaboration: A Case
Study of A Professional Learning Community.” RMLE Online 31 (1): 1–17. doi:10.1080/
19404476.2007.11462044.
Hairon, S., and C. Tan. 2017. “Professional Learning Communities in Singapore and Shanghai:
Implications for Teacher Collaboration.” Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International
Education 47 (1): 91–104. doi:10.1080/03057925.2016.1153408.
Hallam, P. R., H. R. Smith, J. M. Hite, S. J. Hite, and B. R. Wilcox. 2015. “Trust and Collaboration
in PLC Teams: Teacher Relationships, Principal Support, and Collaborative Benefits.” NASSP
Bulletin 99 (3): 193–216. doi:10.1177/0192636515602330.
Hancock, G. R. 1997. “Structural Equation Modeling Methods of Hypothesis Testing of Latent
Variable Means.” Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development 30 (2): 91–105.
doi:10.1080/07481756.1997.12068926.
Hargreaves, A. 2019. “Teacher Collaboration: 30 Years of Research on Its Nature, Forms, Limitations
and Effects.” Teachers and Teaching 25 (5): 603–621. doi:10.1080/13540602.2019.1639499.
Hattie, J., and H. Timperley. 2007. “The Power of Feedback.” Review of Educational Research
77 (1): 81–112. doi:10.3102/003465430298487.
Heller, H. W., J. C. Rex, and M. P. Cline. 1992. “Factors Related to Teacher Job Satisfaction and
Dissatisfaction.” ERS Spectrum 10 (1): 20–24.
Hong, S., M. L. Malik, and M. K. Lee. 2003. “Testing Configural, Metric, Scalar, and Latent Mean
Invariance across Gender in Sociotropy and Autonomy Using a Non-western Sample.”
Educational and Psychological Measurement 63 (4): 636–654. doi:10.1177/0013164403251332.
Hord, S. 1997. Professional Learning Communities: Communities of Continuous Inquiry and
Improvement. Austin, Australia: Southwest Educational Laboratory.
Hu, L. T., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure
Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling:
A Multidisciplinary Journal 6 (1): 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hughes, T. A., and W. A. Kritsonis. 2007. “Professional Learning Communities and the Positive
Effects on Student Achievement: A National Agenda for School Improvement.” The Lamar
University Electronic Journal of Student Research 4: 1–5.
Hur, J. 2011. “Sustainability of Professional Development in a Post-reform Context: A Qualitative
Study of Shared Leadership.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Minnesota.
1370 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

Johnson, S. M., M. A. Kraft, and J. P. Papay. 2012. “How Context Matters in High-need Schools:
The Effects of Teachers’ Working Conditions on Their Professional Satisfaction and Their
Students’ Achievement.” Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education
114 (10): 1–39. doi:10.1177/016146811211401004.
Kelchtermans, G. 2006. “Teacher Collaboration and Collegiality as Workplace Conditions. A
Review.” Zeitschrift Für Pädagogik 52 (2): 220–237.
Kennedy, M. M. 2016. “How Does Professional Development Improve Teaching?” Review of
Educational Research 86 (4): 945–980. doi:10.3102/0034654315626800.
Kline, R. B. 2005 . Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling 2nd . New York:
Guilford Press.
Kline, R. B. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York:
Guilford Press.
Kruse, S. D., and K. S. Louis. 2007. “Developing Collective Understanding over Time: Reflections
on Building Professional Community.” In Professional Learning Communities: Divergence,
Depth and Dilemmas, edited by L. Stoll, and K. Seashore Louis. Berkshire, England: Open
University Press 106.
Leclerc, M., A. C. Moreau, C. Dumouchel, and F. Sallafranque-St-Louis. 2012. “Factors that
Promote Progression in Schools Functioning as a Professional Learning Community.”
International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership 7 (7): 1–14. doi:10.22230/
ijepl.2012v7n7a417.
Lee, M., and J. Kim. 2016. “The Emerging Landscape of School-based Professional Learning
Communities in South Korean Schools.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36 (2): 266–284.
doi:10.1080/02188791.2016.1148854.
Leithwood, K., L. Leonard, and L. Sharratt. 1998. “Conditions Fostering Organizational Learning
in Schools.” Educational Administration Quarterly 34 (2): 243–276. doi:10.1177/
0013161X98034002005.
Little, J. W. 2003. “Inside Teacher Community: Representations of Classroom Practice.” Teachers
College Record 105 (6): 913–945. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00273.
Liu, Y., M. Ş. Bellibaş, and S. Gümüş. 2020. “The Effect of Instructional Leadership and Distributed
Leadership on Teacher Self-efficacy and Job Satisfaction: Mediating Roles of Supportive School
Culture and Teacher Collaboration.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership
1–24. doi:10.1177/1741143220910438.
Lomos, C., R. H. Hofman, and R. J. Bosker. 2011. “Professional Communities and Student
Achievement–a Meta-analysis.” School Effectiveness and School Improvement 22 (2): 121–148.
doi:10.1080/09243453.2010.550467.
Lortie, D. C. 2002. Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Louis, K. S., H. M. Marks, and S. Kruse. 1996. “Teachers’ Professional Community in
Restructuring Schools.” American Educational Research Journal 33 (4): 757–798. doi:10.3102/
00028312033004757.
Ma, X., and R. B. MacMillan. 1999. “Influences of Workplace Conditions on Teachers’ Job
Satisfaction.” The Journal of Educational Research 93 (1): 39–47. doi:10.1080/
00220679909597627.
Marsh, H. W., and D. Grayson. 1990. “Public/Catholic Differences in the High School and beyond
Data: A Multigroup Structural Equation Modeling Approach to Testing Mean Differences.”
Journal of Educational Statistics 15 (3): 199–235. doi:10.3102/10769986015003199.
Matthews, S. H. 2014. “A Study of Professional Learning Communities and the Effect on Teacher
Practice.” Doctoral dissertation, Capella University. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Accessed 3
Mar 2020. http://ezproxy.cul.columbia.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/
1527094377?accountid=10226USD%5C$nhttp://rd8hp6du2b.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx%
7B_%7Dver=Z39.88-2004%7B&%7Dctx%7B_%7Denc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8%7B&%7Drfr%7B_%
7Did=info:sid/ProQue
 COMPARE 1371

Mora-Ruano, J. G., J. H. Heine, and M. Gebhardt. 2019. “Does Teacher Collaboration Improve
Student Achievement? Analysis of the German PISA 2012 Sample.” Frontiers in Education 4: 85.
doi:10.3389/feduc.2019.00085.
Newmann, F. 1994. “School-wide Professional Community.” Issues in Restructuring Schools 6: 2–19.
OECD. 2018. “Teachers’ Questionnaire for PISA 2018 Test Language Teachers (International
Option) Main Survey Version Accessed 3 March 2020.” https://www.oecd.org/pisa/data/
2018database/CY7_201710_QST_MS_teachercollaborationQ-TL_NoNotes_final.pdf
Peterson, C., N. Park, and P. J. Sweeney. 2008. “Group Well-being: Morale from a Positive
Psychology Perspective.” Applied Psychology 57: 19–36. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00352.x.
Pont, B., and G. Montt. 2013. “Education Policy Outlook Accessed 3 March 2020.” https://www.
oecd.org/education/policy-outlook/country-profile-France-2020.pdf
Retelsdorf, J., R. Butler, L. Streblow, and U. Schiefele. 2010. “Teachers’ Goal Orientations for
Teaching: Associations with Instructional Practices, Interest in Teaching, and Burnout.”
Learning and Instruction 20 (1): 30–46. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.01.001.
Richter, D., M. Kunter, U. Klusmann, O. Lüdtke, and J. Baumert. 2011. “Professional Development
across the Teaching Career: Teachers’ Uptake of Formal and Informal Learning Opportunities.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (12): 116–126. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.07.008.
Ross, J. A. 1992. “Teacher Efficacy and the Effects of Coaching on Student Achievement.”
Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de L’education 17: 51–65. doi:10.2307/
1495395.
Sarason, S. B. 1996. Revisiting “the Culture of the School and the Problem of Change“. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Schleicher, A. 2019. PISA 2018: Insights and Interpretations. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
Seo, K. H. 2009. “Teacher Learning Communities and Professional Development.” The Journal of
Korean Teacher Education 26 (2): 243–276. doi:10.24211/tjkte.2009.26.2.243.
Seo, K., and Y. K. Han. 2012. “The Vision and the Reality of Professional Learning Communities in
Korean Schools.” KEDI Journal of Educational Policy 9: 2.
Shachar, H., and H. Shmuelevitz. 1997. “Implementing Cooperative Learning, Teacher
Collaboration and Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy in Heterogeneous Junior High Schools.”
Contemporary Educational Psychology 22 (1): 53–72. doi:10.1006/ceps.1997.0924.
So, K., and J. Kim. 2013. “Informal Inquiry for Professional Development among Teachers within
A Self-Organized Learning Community: A Case Study from South Korea.” International
Education Studies 6 (3): 105–115. doi:10.5539/ies.v6n3p105.
Steenkamp, J. E. M., and H. Baumgartner. 1998. “Assessing Measurement Invariance in
Cross-National Consumer Research.” Journal of Consumer Research 25 (1): 78–90.
doi:10.1086/209528.
Stoll, L., R. Bolam, A. McMahon, M. Wallace, and S. Thomas. 2006. “Professional Learning
Communities: A Review of the Literature.” Journal of Educational Change 7 (4): 221–258.
doi:10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8.
Supovitz, J. A. 2002. “Developing Communities of Instructional Practice.” Teachers College Record
104 (8): 1591–1626. doi:10.1111/1467-9620.00214.
Takahashi, S. 2011. “Co-constructing Efficacy: A “Communities of Practice” Perspective on
Teachers’ Efficacy Beliefs.” Teaching and Teacher Education 27 (4): 732–741. doi:10.1016/j.
tate.2010.12.002.
Talbert, J. E. 2009. “Professional Learning Communities at the Crossroads: How System Hinder or
Engender Change.” In Second International Handbook of Educational Change, edited by
A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan, and D. Hopkins, 555–571. London, England:
Springer Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-90-481-2660-6.
Tatar, M., and G. Horenczyk. 2003. “Diversity-related Burnout among Teachers.” Teaching and
Teacher Education 19 (4): 397–408. doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(03)00024-6.
Tichenor, M., and J. Tichenor. 2018. “The Many Sides of Teacher Collaboration.” Kappa Delta Pi
Record 54 (3): 139–142. doi:10.1080/00228958.2018.1481663.
Timperley, H., A. Wilson, H. Barrar, and I. Fung. 2008. “Teacher Professional Learning and
Development.” (Educational Practices Series 18). International Academy of Education.
1372 HAWON YOO AND JAEHONG JANG

Tschannen-Moran, M., A. W. Hoy, and W. K. Hoy. 1998. “Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning and
Measure.” Review of Educational Research 68 (2): 202–248. doi:10.3102/
00346543068002202.
Tschannen-Moran, M., and P. McMaster. 2009. “Sources of Self-efficacy: Four Professional
Development Formats and Their Relationship to Self-efficacy and Implementation of a New
Teaching Strategy.” The Elementary School Journal 110 (2): 228–245. doi:10.1086/605771.
Van den Bergh, L., A. Ros, and D. Beijaard. 2013. “Teacher Feedback during Active Learning:
Current Practices in Primary Schools.” British Journal of Educational Psychology 83 (2):
341–362. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8279.2012.02073.x.
Van den Bergh, L., A. Ros, and D. Beijaard. 2014. “Improving Teacher Feedback during Active
Learning: Effects of a Professional Development Program.” American Educational Research
Journal 51 (4): 772–809. doi:10.3102/0002831214531322.
Voelkel, R. H., Jr, and J. H. Chrispeels. 2017. “Understanding the Link between Professional
Learning Communities and Teacher Collective Efficacy.” School Effectiveness and School
Improvement 28 (4): 505–526. doi:10.1080/09243453.2017.1299015.
Wenger, E. 1998. “Communities of Practice: Learning as a Social System.” Systems Thinker 9 (5):
2–3.
Wolters, C. A., and S. G. Daugherty. 2007. “Goal Structures and Teachers’ Sense of Efficacy: Their
Relation and Association to Teaching Experience and Academic Level.” Journal of Educational
Psychology 99 (1): 181–193. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.181.
Wong, J. L. N. 2010. “Searching for Good Practice in Teaching: A Comparison of Two
Subject-based Professional Learning Communities in A Secondary School in Shanghai.”
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 40 (5): 623–639.
doi:10.1080/03057920903553308.
Woolfolk Hoy, A., and H. A. Davis. 2006. “Teacher Self-efficacy and Its Influence on the
Achievement of Adolescents.” In Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, edited by F. Pajares, and
T. Urdan, 117e137, Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age.
Yang, M., and D. Carless. 2013. “The Feedback Triangle and the Enhancement of Dialogic
Feedback Processes.” Teaching in Higher Education 18 (3): 285–297. doi:10.1080/
13562517.2012.719154.
Zembylas, M., and E. Papanastasiou. 2004. “Job Satisfaction among School Teachers in Cyprus.”
Journal of Educational Administration 42: 357–374. doi:10.1108/09578230410534676.