Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Research paper

Facilitating teacher learning in professional learning communities

through action research: A qualitative case study in China
Licui Chen*
College of Education, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

h i g h l i g h t s

The study illustrates teachers’ learning experiences in the PLC process through action research.

The tension between bottom-up needs and top-down mandates can be balanced for teacher learning in communities in the Chinese context.

The mitigation of such tension can be explained by collective endeavours involving the teacher, school, and system levels.

Integrating action research and PLCs has great potential to promote teacher learning.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The study investigated teachers’ learning experiences in a subject-based professional learning commu-
Received 18 April 2022 nity by conducting collaborative action research in a junior secondary school in Shanghai, China. Drawing
Received in revised form on observations, documents, and interviews with nine teachers, the findings revealed that teachers
25 August 2022
developed new understandings and practices during the research process, despite the imposed task
Accepted 26 August 2022
Available online 15 September 2022
design. By integrating action research and professional learning communities, the findings suggest that
the tension between bottom-up needs and top-down mandates can be balanced for teacher learning in
communities through collective endeavours of external support, school leaders, and teachers in the
Keywords:
Professional learning communities
Chinese context.
Action research © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Teacher professional learning
China

1. Introduction
In this era of rapid change, supporting teachers' continuous
learning to enable them to take on new responsibilities and
develop innovative pedagogies for transforming school education is
a global concern (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017;
Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Over the past two decades, the concept of
professional learning communities (PLCs) has attracted increasing
interest internationally. Emerging research shows that when PLCs
are developed and implemented effectively, they can significantly
and systematically contribute to teachers’ professional learning and
student achievement (Bolam et al., 2005; Vangrieken et al., 2017;
Vescio et al., 2008). Policymakers, researchers, and practitioners in
many countries, including the US, UK, Singapore, and South Korea,
have invested effort in building and sustaining effective PLCs
* College of Education, Zhejiang University, 866 Yuhangtang Road, Hangzhou,
Zhejiang, 310058, China.
E-mail address: licuichen@hotmail.com.
(Bolam et al., 2005; DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hairon & Dimmock,
2012; Lee & Kim, 2016).
Despite ongoing debate around its definition, PLCs are
commonly understood as groups of teachers seeking to improve
student learning by regularly engaging in collaborative conversa-
tions, actively experimenting with alternative pedagogical strate-
gies, and critically reflecting on their experiences to develop their
individual and collective teaching capacity (Darling-Hammond
et al., 2017; Stoll et al., 2006; Vangrieken et al., 2017). While
some studies have reported that building effective PLCs improves
teachers' professional learning, others have found that imple-
menting PLCs entails several challenges, including tensions created
when teacher-led initiatives in PLCs clash with the school bu-
reaucracy, particularly where hierarchies are involved (Harris &
Jones, 2010; Lieberman & Miller, 2011; Vangrieken et al., 2017).
On the one hand, PLCs view teachers as professional agents taking
responsibility for self-initiated learning and improvement (Brodie,
2019; DuFour & Eaker, 1998); on the other hand, schools are
embedded in larger educational policy settings that stress

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2022.103875
0742-051X/© 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L. Chen
compliance to mandates with top-down control and external
monitoring, which may constrain teachers’ innovative practices
and professional learning in PLCs (DuFour & Eaker, 1998;
Lieberman & Miller, 2011; Toole & Louis, 2002). This has led to a
conflict over how PLCs can promote teacher-led professional
learning in hierarchical school organisations (Hairon & Tan, 2017;
Toole & Louis, 2002; Vescio et al., 2008). Addressing this tension in
the PLC process merits further exploration.
Although the notion of PLCs was borrowed from the West, the
practice has been institutionalised in China for seven decades as
Teaching Research Groups (TRGs). As a form of PLC, TRGs in China
provide a salient example for this inquiry, as they are top-down in
nature and aim at achieving teacher professional learning at the
grassroots level. Many studies have examined the TRG as an
effective model of the PLC for helping teachers acquire new
knowledge and skills for reform implementation (Gao & Wang,
2014; Sargent, 2015), and one that has ultimately contributed to
Chinese students' remarkable PISA performance (Tan, 2013; Tucker,
2011). Some, however, argue that the development of TRGs is
challenged by excessive administrative interventions, a high-stakes
accountability system, and China's authoritarian culture, which
influence teacher professional learning and teaching improvement
(Wong, 2010; Zhang et al., 2017). Therefore, further investigations
are needed to clarify whether teachers in TRGs can address their
practical needs and overcome the challenges brought by Chinese
school organisationsdtypically characterised as administration-led
and associated with strong organisational controlsdto achieve
professional learning.
To address this gap in the literature, the current study qualita-
tively examines teachers’ learning experiences in a subject-based
PLC through collaborative action research, i.e., a teacher-directed
inquiry-based professional activity (Berger et al., 2005; Burn,
2005; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992), a common practice for most
Chinese teachers. By explaining how teachers used the strengths of
action research to balance their practical needs with the top-down
mandates, this study aims to improve our understanding of teacher
professional learning in PLCs in China and inform educational re-
searchers and practitioners in other systems how to facilitate
teacher learning in school-based settings through action research
in the PLC process.
2. Theoretical framework
2.1. PLCs for teacher professional learning
In the past decades, influenced by sociocultural and situated
perspectives in learning theories (Lave, 2009; Wenger, 1998), the
conceptualisation of teacher professional learning has witnessed a
shift from a cognitive and individual paradigm to a situated and
interactive one (Borko, 2004; Darling-Hammond et al., 2017; Opfer
& Pedder, 2011). That is to say, teacher professional learning is no
longer viewed as a cognitive and individual construct, but one in
which the sociocultural context should be considered (Opfer &
Pedder, 2011). Following this line of research, the concept of
“community” has blossomed as it provides a rich and authentic
“context” for teachers to engage in social activities for learning
(Wenger, 1998).
The concept of the PLCs derives from learning organisation
(Senge, 1990) and community of practice (Wenger, 1998) theories.
In the literature, a wide range of terms, e.g., “teacher community”
(Little, 2003) and “teacher professional community” (Curry, 2008),
have been used in connection with PLCs. Five features character-
ising a PLC include: (1) shared values and vision: establishing a
credible yet realistic picture for PLC members; (2) collective re-
sponsibility for students' learning: for sustaining members'
2
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
commitment; (3) reflective professional inquiry: requiring teachers
to develop their practices through reflective dialogue and under
collective scrutiny; (4) individual and collective learning: promot-
ing teachers' professional learning; and (5) collaboration: empha-
sising teachers’ engagement in authentic collaborative activities
(Stoll et al., 2006). Focusing on these key characteristics, various
interpretations and practices of PLCs have emerged in different
contexts. For instance, in Western contexts like the US, PLCs are
usually teacher-driven and loosely organised (Hargreaves, 2007;
Lieberman, 2007; Vangrieken et al., 2017), while in some Asian
systems, such as those in Singapore, they follow a state-led
approach (Hairon & Dimmock, 2012).
However, building an effective PLC conducive to teacher pro-
fessional learning is complex and challenging. Despite PLCs' vary-
ing practices, their establishment and sustainment face both
practical and theoretical challenges. One prominent challenge
frequently mentioned in the literature concerns how to balance the
nature of PLCs as teacher-led initiatives with the hierarchical nature
of school administrations (Hairon & Goh, 2017; Harris & Jones,
2010; Lieberman & Miller, 2011; Vangrieken et al., 2017). On the
one hand, PLCs regard teachers as professional agents driving their
learning, valuing openness to new ideas and practices, and having
mutual accountability for learning. In PLCs, teachers are encour-
aged to take the initiative to highlight areas of weakness and use
their expertise within the community to address their practical
difficulties (Brodie, 2019). Their bottom-up changes are considered
a powerful driver of effective and sustained teacher learning
(Lieberman & Miller, 2011). On the other hand, researchers argue
that schools must create structural conditions (e.g., time and space)
to support and sustain the development of PLCs (Admiraal et al.,
2021; Fullan, 2005; Hairon & Dimmock, 2012; Hargreaves, 2013).
Schools adhering to a bureaucratic model, however, usually “priv-
ilege compliance to mandates over reflection on practice and
external monitoring of benchmarks over peer review and feedback”
(Lieberman & Miller, 2011, p. 19). Emphasising top-down control
and command might underestimate teachers' practical needs,
reduce their autonomy and discretion, and impede their innovative
practices (Hairon & Goh, 2017; Hairon & Tan, 2017; Stoll et al., 2006;
Toole & Louis, 2002). Thus, maintaining an equilibrium between
teachers' bottom-up needs and schools’ top-down mandates for
teaching improvement is imperative for promoting teacher pro-
fessional learning in communities.
2.2. Action research as a means for professional learning
Action research is a process through which teachers study their
practices to solve practical problems and realise their professional
development (Corey, 1953). Generally, it is understood as a
powerful professional activity for improving teacher professional
learning, one that allows teachers to learn in and from their prac-
tices through self-directed and inquiry-based activities (Berger
et al., 2005; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992; Somekh, 2006).
According to the literature, action research can be carried out
individually or collaboratively. The strength of collaborative action
research has been well recognised as it harnesses a group of peo-
ple's power to focus on a common concern or issue. Although most
action research studies have focused on teachers' collaboration
with different stakeholders, particularly university researchers
(Mitchell et al., 2009), teachers' collaborative effort in conducting
action research holds promise for achieving educational change at
the grassroots level (Bleicher, 2014; Chou, 2011; Dodman, 2021;
Johannesson, 2020). For example, Chou (2011), who investigated
the learning experiences of elementary English teachers in a PLC
conducting action research, found that it is an effective way to help
teachers understand their practice; thus, a PLC is a useful platform
L. Chen
for teachers to learn from one another. More recently, Johannesson
(2020) explored the development of PLCs in Sweden, suggesting
that teachers develop a shared repertoire through action research
that facilitates peer collaboration. Similarly, Dodman (2021) argued
that the experience of leading action research in a voluntary PLC
contributes to novice teachers' professional learning and leadership
development. These studies suggest that both communities and
action research are valuable strategies showing that teachers can be
active learners at the centre of the professional learning process;
therefore, there has been growing interest in melding the compo-
nents of action research into PLCs in school-based settings both
conceptually and practically (Dimmock, 2016; Mertler, 2017).
Researchers agree that action research is a learning process that
follows a specific procedure. Kemmis and McTaggart's (1988) well-
established model divides action research into four major phases:
(1) planning: developing an improvement plan; (2) acting: imple-
menting the plan; (3) observing: observing and documenting the
effects of the plan; and (4) reflecting: reflecting on the processes,
problems, issues, and consequences of the plan for further planning
and action. Drawing on action research principles, Bleicher (2014)
proposed four key components of collaborative action research:
(1) motivation: teacher orientation and self-efficacy foundational
for successful action research; (2) knowledge: new knowledge for
teachers to learn about disciplines and students that is relevant to
teachers' interests during action research; (3) action: teachers'
collaborative enactment of new teaching strategies and resources
leading to improved student achievement; and (4) reflection: sus-
tainable changes in practice as fuel for new cycles of change. In
general, action research is a cyclical and systematic process pro-
moting teachers' reflective practice and teaching transformation,
while collaborative action research focuses on creating climates of
inquiry in communities, engaging teachers' collective participation,
and developing their shared knowledge or understandings of
practices in authentic settings (Mitchell et al., 2009). These
reviewed frameworks are helpful for analysing teachers' major
steps in implementing teacher-led action research to enhance their
professional learning. However, some researchers argue that the
actual processes of action research are inherently flexible and can
take various forms in different educational, social, cultural, and
political contexts (Burn, 2005; McNiff, 1988).
3. The Chinese context
Teacher professional learning is highly institutionalised in China
in the form of TRGs. A TRG is a group of teachers who teach the
same subject in the same school and have regular interactions for
educational improvement (Paine & Ma, 1993). A wide array of
professional activities, including joint lesson planning, peer ob-
servations, open lessons, and action research, are frequently and
regularly organised in TRGs. In addition to school-level TRGs,
teaching researchersdselected by provincial/municipal- and
county/district-level Teaching Research Offices (jiaoyanshi, TROs)
based on their outstanding teaching expertisedare responsible for
teaching innovations and professional learning activities in each
subject area within the TRO's jurisdiction. This formal TRG/TRO
infrastructure is well-established across China, even in resource-
constrained rural schools (Sargent, 2015).
Whether TRGs are a type of PLC is a matter of debate. Unlike the
voluntary and teacher-driven nature of PLCs found in Western
contexts (Hargreaves, 2007; Lieberman, 2007), TRGs in China have
been a structured, administration-led part of the schooling system
for seven decades (Chen, 2020). Due to their mandatory nature,
some researchers (e.g., Wang, 2002) have characterised TRGs as a
“contrived teaching organisation” (p.346). However, others (e.g.,
Wang, 2015) have found that teachers can still generate genuine
3
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
collaboration in the collective learning process, despite the pro-
fessional activities’ intentional design and organisational structure.
Several recent studies have found that, similar to PLCs in the West,
TRGs in China manifest such critical PLC features as shared visions
and values, collaborative learning, and a focus on student learning
(Zhang & Pang, 2016). Due to Chinese institutional and sociocul-
tural contexts, they also have distinctive features, such as an
emphasis on social harmony, the advocacy for models of teaching
practice, and acquiescence to authority (Qiao et al., 2018; Wong,
2010). Given their significant role in teacher professional learning,
the TRGs in the current study can be perceived as PLCs with Chinese
characteristics.
Researchers have noted a shift in the orientation of teachers'
collective work in TRGs from “teaching” to “research” (Chen, 2020;
Wang, 2015). With the promotion of the new curriculum reform
and advocacy for school-based teacher professional learning,
research has been emphasised as a way for teachers to reflect on
their practice and experiment with new teaching methods (Zheng
et al., 2021; Zhu & Pei, 2017). As such, teachers are not only ex-
pected to master subject knowledge and develop professional
expertise but also to conduct practice-based research, generate
evidence for their professional practices, and use the research
outcomes to improve their teaching practice (Chen, 2020; Gao et al.,
2011a). Several studies have explored how teachers conceive of the
drive for research and their participation in writing for publication,
suggesting that teachers are obliged to actively participate in
research-oriented activities, mainly for their personal honour as
well as for their schools' collective honour (Gao et al., 2011b; Wong,
2014). Recently, Zheng et al. (2021) investigated the learning pro-
cess of a group of teachers in a research-oriented community from
different school contexts. Despite the potential and increased
popularity of action research in China, few studies have focused on
how teachers conduct action research projects for professional
learning under the structure of TRGs, which is a major platform for
teachers' routine work and professional learning. To explore
teachers’ learning experiences in the PLC process through action
research, the present study is guided by the following question:
How do teachers learn from conducting collaborative action
research in a subject-based PLC?
4. Methodology
This study employed a case study design (Yin, 2003), using a
qualitative approach to capture a group of teachers' learning ex-
periences in collaborative action research within one school in
Shanghai. The case study design allows for a close examination of
complex issues, yielding an in-depth and contextualised under-
standing of a contemporary phenomenon (Merriam, 1998; Yin,
2003). This study's dataset was part of a larger research project
set in a Shanghai junior secondary school that investigated why and
how TRGs affect teacher professional learning.
4.1. Research context
The study was situated in Shanghai, the largest city in mainland
China. As an international and developed metropolis, Shanghai has
been a pioneer in national education reform and development.
Since its inclusion in the Programme for International Students
Assessment (PISA) from 2009, Shanghai has been one of the top
performers on the PISA league tables over the last decade (OECD,
2011, 2014, 2019). Researchers argue that the city's coherent and
comprehensive teacher professional learning system has contrib-
uted to its success (Liang et al., 2016; Tan, 2013). In particular,
Shanghai attaches great importance to school-based teacher
research, providing funding and setting awards at the municipal
L. Chen
and district levels for research projects focusing on school and
teaching improvement (Shanghai Municipal Education
Commission, 2014). Thus, school-based research projects are a
common means of teacher professional development in Shanghai.
According to Liang et al. (2016), in a survey of 153 Shanghai schools,
100 per cent of schools encouraged teachers to participate in
research projects. Therefore, Shanghai appears to be a suitable
venue for an investigation into how teachers participate in
research-based professional learning activities while gaining pro-
fessional growth.
A high-performing public schooldYangshan (pseudonym)d
serving junior secondary students from Grades 6 to 9 was selected
for this study. The school was named a Shanghai Municipal Pro-
fessional Development School for its remarkable school-based
teacher professional development programs and activities. The
school principal placed a high value on collaborative, school-based
research projects to facilitate teachers' professional learning and
promote teaching improvement. All teachers in the school were
organised into six TRGs based on their subjectsdChinese language,
Maths, English, Social Science, Science, and Artsdand were
required to conduct group-based action research projects for
teacher professional learning. According to Yangshan's principal, it
had been a tradition for teachers to conduct research to promote
collaborative teacher learning since he became the principal: “Our
purpose, in fact, is to lead TRG development through research. By
doing collaborative research projects, it forms a core topic to con-
nect our routine teaching research activities while addressing
disciplinary interests.”
4.2. Participants
A purposive sampling strategy (Patton, 2002), was adopted for
the following reasons. First, the sample of Chinese language
teachers came from a TRG in a school whose students consistently
outperformed those of other public schools in the district, earning
the TRG the district's Excellent Teaching Research Group title.
Second, teachers reported positive learning experiences when
conducting their group-based research project about the teaching
of writing, and they continued their practice in daily teaching even
after the project ended, resulting in a rich data source about their
learning experiences.
Within the TRG, participant recruitment was voluntary. In-
vitations were sent to all Chinese language teachers (n ¼ 11), and
nine consented to participate in the study. The participating
teachers included former and current TRG heads and regular
teachers with diverse teaching experiences ranging from two to
more than 20 years. All participants held at least a bachelor's de-
gree, and two were enrolled in MEd programs at education uni-
versities in Shanghai. Five of the nine teachers held middle-level
professional titles, and the other four were junior-level teachers.
The participants' background information is shown in Table 1.
Table 1
Demographic information of the participants in the study.
Participant (name) Gender Teaching experiences (year) Educational level
Li F 23 Bachelor
Huang F 18 Bachelor
Chen F 22 Bachelor
Zhao F 19 Bachelor
Hu F 9 Bachelor
Qi F 2 Bachelor
Zhang F 8 Bachelor
Lei F 3 Bachelor, Master student
Feng F 6 Bachelor, Master student
4
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
4.3. Data collection and analysis
After getting approval from the school principal, three kinds of
datadin-depth interviews, observations, and documentsdwere
collected in two data collection phases: from February to July 2016
and May to June 2017. Most of the data were collected in the first
round in 2016, when the teachers' project was nearly completed
after being conducted for about two years. A year later, after the
project ended, I revisited the school, conducted some supplemen-
tary interviews and observations, and reviewed additional docu-
ments to gather more information about the teachers’ project
learning.
The first data source was the participants’ in-depth interviews
with nine Chinese language teachers. Two rounds of individual
semi-structured interviews were conducted in two collection
phases with different foci. In the first, eight teachers were inter-
viewed about their perceptions of the group-based project, their
learning experiences in TRG activities, their challenges and diffi-
culties, their sense of community, and their daily practices con-
cerning the research project. The second round of interviews was
conducted with four teachers (including one newly recruited) to
supplement their reflections on the project, their sustained prac-
tices, and their newly-developed projects. Each interview lasted
from 40 to 120 min and was audio-recorded and transcribed. For
confidentiality, pseudonyms are used for all interviewees.
The second data source was observation and field notes. The
researcher participated in seven collective group activities
involving the teachers. Their collective activities mainly included
open lessons, joint lesson preparations, and reflective teaching
experience sharing. Observations focused on how teachers con-
ducted their research project and supported their colleagues. As
two TRG activities focusing on their newly-developed research
project were conducted during the second data collection period,
they were excluded from the data analysis, given the research's
focus on teachers' collaborative research experience of teaching
writing over the last two years.
Various artefacts including the research proposal, group
meeting records, open lesson plans, teachers' reflective papers,
teaching cases incorporating research ideas, and the teachers'
publications on their research projects, comprised the third data
source. Additional documents (e.g., another teacher publication
and the final research report) were collected in 2017 to gather more
information about the teachers’ project learning.
The data were collected and transcribed in Chinese and then
analysed using an inductive approach (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Informed by the literature on the action research process, interview
transcripts, observation notes, and documents were read repeat-
edly and then coded to identify emerging themes, using NVivo 12
software. During the initial coding phase, a list of open and in vivo
codesdsuch as “project initiation,” “classroom experimentation,”
“peer observation and evaluation,” “reflection,” and “theorisation”
Professional title Position
Middle level Former TRG head, Vice-Director of teaching affairs
Middle level TRG head
Middle level Teacher
Middle level Teacher
Middle level Teacher
Junior level Teacher
Junior level Teacher
Junior level Teacher
Junior level Teacher
L. Chen Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875

dwere generated (Saldan ~ a, 2013), with a focus on narratives and
incidents illustrative of teachers' sensemaking and implementation
of collaborative action research. Based on the action timeline, the
initial codes were further chronicled, categorised, and merged,
using the constant comparative method of analysis (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). The analysis led to a list of five important steps
reflecting teachers' research practices, i.e., teachers' attitudes to-
wards action research, project initiation, experimentation, evalua-
tion, and teachers' reflections and (re)planning. Once the coding
scheme was finalised, all materials were recoded to ensure con-
sistency. See Table 2 for the study's coding scheme presenting the
categories, codes, and examples. Member checking was conducted
by sending the larger study's research report to the teachers for
review (Stake, 1995).
5. Findings
Five major themes were identified in the data analysis indicating
five steps for understanding teachers’ practices during collabora-
tive action research for professional learning: (1) reaching a
consensus on the need for collective inquiry; (2) seeking endorse-
ment from the professional authority for project initiation; (3)
experimenting with the research project by classroom teaching; (4)
using peer feedback to adjust research-based practices; and (5)
developing theoretical and practical reflections and planning for
the next research project.
5.1. Reaching a consensus on the need for collective inquiry
Motivating teachers to reach a consensus is the first step for
collaborative action research (Bleicher, 2014). In the study,
although teachers acknowledged that conducting research was
mainly driven by external pressure, they reached a consensus on
the need for collective inquiry in their TRG.
Research has long been an important part of teachers' routine
work in China. Teachers in this study claimed that conducting
research was an obligatory task as participating in the research
projects and producing research outputs were important criteria
for career promotion. As Chen said in the interview, “Research is a
must condition for teachers to get a higher professional title.”
However, teachers acknowledged that they were not good at
research. Although some teachers (e.g., Li) “[like] to explore some
problems in our practice, [they] do not like to do research,” indi-
cating that they viewed research as being different from exploring
practical problems. They noted that research involved a systematic
inquiry beyond their research capacities. As Zhang stated, “we don't
know much about research. At most, we [teachers] did our disser-
tation for our bachelor degrees” (Zhang, interview). Thus, teachers
felt underprepared to conduct action research to improve their
teaching as they received little research training and could not
schedule extra time and prioritise research in their daily routine
due to their heavy workload: “Teaching rather than research was
our primary concern” (Zhang, interview).
Interestingly, despite the external pressures and difficulties
facing them, all of the Chinese language teachers emphasised the
significance of collective inquiry; they strongly agreed it was
impossible to cover every aspect of classroom teaching in limited
group activities. Focusing on a common topic was necessary to
provide a clear direction for their collaborative efforts in the TRG. As
remarked by Chen: “Without a focus, people will do their own
[preferred] work. Or we do this today and change it tomorrow. But
now, we are solving a common problem by collective wisdom”
(Chen, interview).
Conducting research collaboratively seemed to guide teacher
professional learning and teaching improvement in the TRG.
Teachers such as Lei acknowledged that engaging in a collaborative
research project was valuable because “it provided a different di-
rection for me to think about teaching improvement in addition to
our routine work.” This suggests that collaborative action research
not only allowed TRG members to investigate a topic but also
helped them focus on their collective concerns in daily teaching,
providing a shared and actionable vision for all teachers in the
community.
5.2. Seeking endorsement from professional authority for project
initiation
Planning and initiating a research topic for all members of the
TRG to participate in is necessary for action research. At Yangshan,
topics such as “designing school-based exercise books”(xiaoben
zuoye sheji), or “developing stratified instruction objectives”
(jiaoxue mubiao fencheng sheji) were promoted to address teacher
professional learning issues schoolwide. Despite being provided
schoolwide topics, Huang noted that teachers could generate other

Table 2
Coding scheme: Teachers’ learning experience.

Category Code Example

Teachers' attitudes towards action
research
Project initiation
Project experimentation
Project evaluation
Reflections and (re)planning
External pressure
The lack of research capacity
The lack of time
The need to conduct collaborative
research
Drawing on authoritative
information
Fitting teachers' practical interests
Developing writing assessment
criteria
Building a model of classroom
teaching
Leveraging peer feedback
Adjusting research-based practices
Research outputs
Changes in practices
Understanding of teaching writing
Research is a must condition for teachers to get a higher professional title.
It is quite demanding for us to do research …
Teaching rather than research was our primary concern.
Without a focus, people will do their own [preferred] work. Or we do this today and change it
tomorrow.
We are doing this topic originally for catering to the municipal teaching researcher's
pleasure …
The topic is quite pratical and fits our teaching.
Now we have a clear set of writing assessment criteria.
The open lesson conducted by Zhang contributed the most to our research project …
Teachers in our group make substantive and constructive comments.
We were thinking about how to deepen her (Zhang's) framework and decided to focus on
one element.
I submitted several articles based on my teaching to journals. Some of them are now
published.
All teachers teaching our grade are using such a form in writing lessons.
It might be helpful to guide my teaching of writing, but it also limits students' creativity in
their writing.

5
L. Chen
research topics as “the school leaders were not that strict.” This
space for teachers' collective inquiry in their TRG was largely due to
disciplinary differences that prevented the school principal from
regulating each TRG's specific research topics (Huang, interview).
Teachers had room, albeit limited, to decide what to do for their
collective inquiry.
Despite having the space to address their disciplinary interests,
the teachers reported having no idea how to identify a “common,”
“authentic,” and “researchable” problem for inquiry due to their
lack of research training (Huang, Li, interview). Therefore, they
chose to develop their group-based project by drawing on infor-
mation sources from educational authorities at the municipal level.
According to Li, a former TRG head who was promoted to a middle
leadership position in the school, their project about the teaching of
narrative writing was inspired by a municipal teaching researcher, a
well-known expert in Chinese language teaching. Li detailed the
decision-making process for selecting the topic:
A few LPG heads went to listen to a municipal teaching
researcher. He mentioned that the teaching of writing is still a “gap”
to be addressed. We [five of us] on the spot reached an agreement
that we may have a try on this topic. Therefore, we did an explo-
ration of teaching writing. (Li, interview).
According to Li, they initially did a demonstration lesson about
teaching writing after the sharing for an educational inspection
attended by the municipal teaching researcher who “confirmed our
direction of exploration was worthwhile and encouraged us to
work on the topic further.”
The teachers claimed that they chose the writing topic to “cater
to the municipal teaching researcher's pleasure” (touqisuohao)
(Huang, interview). The teachers (e.g., Huang, Chen, Li) also felt the
topic addressed their practical Chinese language teaching concerns.
As Huang reflected, it was “quite practical and fit their teaching”
(Huang, interview). Subsequently, they decided to work on teach-
ing narrative writing by forming a collaborative research project
entitled “Developing self-assessment forms for student narrative
essay writing in a junior secondary school.”
It should be noted that the Chinese language teachers did not
normally have an opportunity to seek support from higher educa-
tional authorities. In some cases, teachers would determine group-
based research projects based on schoolwide topics mainly to
reduce their workload and receive more school support (e.g., re-
sources, bonuses) (Huang, interview). Therefore, sometimes their
previous research projects (e.g., designing school-based exercise
books) were aligned with the school's prescribed topics.
In sum, teachers seldom self-identified common problems by
reflecting on their teaching practices. They generally followed
either school- or higher-level educational authorities. Teachers
tended to draw on authoritative information to steer their collab-
orative action research, even when given disciplinary space. In
doing so, they knew what to do but expected to “receive some
professional support” from experts to face the challenges of action
research (Li, interview).
5.3. Experimenting with the research project by classroom teaching
Incorporating research ideas and experimenting with new
practices can place extra pressure on teachers. After the municipal
teaching researcher confirmed the value of their explorations, the
teachers created a model of teaching practice with professional
support from the teaching researchers at the municipal and district
levels; they then modified their teaching based on the model.
When executing their project, the teachers reported that their
first exploration in an open lesson was critical for them to under-
stand how to put their research project into practice. The lesson,
open to their teacher cohorts in Shanghai, was supported by
6
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
teaching researchers and well prepared by the group's teachers.
Zhang, a young and capable teacher, was chosen to teach the high-
level lesson. She recalled her experiences preparing the lesson.
We prepared for that open lesson for almost half a year. First, we
rehearsed the lesson based on our initial design. Then a district-
level teaching researcher came [to observe the lesson] and
changed the lesson [design]. She came twice, and we adjusted the
lesson twice accordingly. Then the municipal teaching researcher
came [to observe the lesson] and, again, the rehearsal lesson was
totally changed. In rounds of revision, we finally demonstrated that
lesson openly. (Zhang, interview).
Zhang and her TRG received much support from the teaching
researchers at the district and municipal levels whose professional
expertise facilitated the group-based action research project.
Teacher Zhang emphasised that having such an experience under
the teaching researchers’ guidance, particularly the municipal-level
teaching researcher, was a “precious learning opportunity”:
He supported me on how to conduct a lesson. He was not only
teaching me how to conduct the lesson but also broadening my
ways of teaching. We teachers are like frogs in the well (jindi
zhiwa)1. We don't know how teachers in other schools conduct
lessons. But teaching researchers are different. They observe tons of
school lessons and have the most advanced teaching methods. They
teach you the best way to teach. But this opportunity was not ready
for everyone. Probably that was the unique experience of my whole
teaching career. It was too rare. (Zhang, interview).
With their support, the research idea was solidified and con-
textualised. As the teachers reported, the crafting process of the
first lesson helped them develop clear teaching assessment criteria
and provided a new way of teaching narratives. Specifically,
teachers developed assessment forms containing narrative essay
writing criteria (e.g., clarity of the central idea, relevancy between
the central idea and the key stories or events, and language) that
were subsequently implemented into their classroom teaching at
different levels: “With such a form, we could adopt it in our daily
lessons” (Zhang, interview). Qi further commented on the role of
the lesson taught by Zhang: “In the past, we did not have a sys-
tematic way to teach narrative writing [until Zhang's lesson]. We
were not very clear about the assessment criteria to evaluate the
quality of student writing” (Qi, interview).
Zhang joked that she felt like “an executor” by preparing such a
lesson that was strictly based on district- and municipal-level
teaching researchers' support rather than her own ideas. The
open lesson she finally presented to the audience was completely
different from what she originally designed, leading her to say, “in
the end, I did not have any feeling for this lesson. The only task [for
teaching the open lesson] was to execute [the teaching re-
searchers’] design and not to disgrace them” (Zhang, interview).
To summarise, the open lesson taught by Zhang provided a
feasible model for teachers to incorporate innovative research-
related ideas into their daily practice; that is, it taught them
“how” to conduct a writing lesson by using an assessment form (e.g.
Lei, Feng, Qi, Huang, Chen, Li). However, the teachers’ perspectives
and ideas were largely underestimated in the process.
5.4. Using peer feedback to adjust their research-based teaching
An important step in action research is for teachers to evaluate
the effectiveness of their innovations devised in the research pro-
cess. In China, it is not uncommon for teachers to deprivatise their
teaching practices and engage in reflective professional dialogues
in collective activities. As a result, Chinese language TRG members’
main resource for evaluating and adjusting their practices is their
peers, some of whom were district-level teaching researchers.
Based on this model, teachers in the TRG took turns to conduct
L. Chen
open lessons or reflective sharing to experience research-based
practice as a research community. In the process, they adapted
their lessons according to their students’ characteristics, triggering
them to explore further about how to conduct such lessons in
specific grades and classrooms. For example, Lei, a young teacher,
shared how she modified her narrative writing lesson with the
support of peers and a district-level teaching researcher:
Last year, Zhang conducted a municipal-level open lesson [about
narrative writing]. I followed her model at beginning. But later we
[with the help of colleagues and the teaching researcher] found
that what her lesson provided was a framework, which was broad
to implement in the classroom. We were thinking about how to
deepen her framework and decided to focus on one element, that is
the relationship between the central idea and the events, according
to the characteristics of students in Grade 7. We improved our
teaching through trial lessons again and again. (Lei, interview).
Similarly, Feng conducted open lessons in Grade 6 on how to
understand and construct the central idea in a piece of narrative
writing. Hu focused on the relevance of materials and the motif of
writing in a Grade 8 lesson. Both received extensive support from
their colleagues, whose constructive comments helped them revise
lesson plans and polish trial lessons. Feng commented:
In our group, no matter who prepares the [open] lesson, other
teachers are willing to come to help [to polish the trial lesson]. It
takes them a lot of time, including at least a lesson period to
observe, and maybe several lesson periods to give suggestions and
think about how to improve the lesson together. (Feng, interview).
Besides providing the collegial support for preparing open les-
sons, the post-lesson conferences helped teachers reflect on the
teaching process and identify areas for further improvement. For
instance, in the post-lesson discussion of Zhao's school-level open
lesson describing scenery (chaired by the TRG head, Huang), when
Huang invited teachers to comment on this writing lesson, every
Chinese language teacher took turns critiquing the lesson. Taking
Qi's (the youngest teacher in the group) comments as an example,
Qi: I think it was too difficult for students to depict an object
without any context given. When Teacher Zhao asked, “what are
the characteristics of magnolia?” I could not come up with the
answers in the first place. I agree with other teachers that the
scenery description should serve the purpose of writing. I also
conducted a writing lesson describing scenery last semester, which
served as the basis for what happened next. We would have
different feelings when we see a scene in different contexts.
Therefore, students would feel confused and lost if the scene was
detached from the context. (Observation of a TRG activity).
Regardless of their teaching experiences, all teachers in the
group evaluated the specific lesson in relation to their research
project from different aspects. With their straightforward and
honest comments, teachers were “critical friends” discussing how
to best present a writing lesson and support their fellow teachers to
improve their teaching (Curry, 2008). Every teacher in the group
said they liked their TRG and felt their colleagues were constructive
and helpful in improving their peers' classroom instruction. Their
collaborative culture strengthened the teachers’ social bonds and
fostered trust so they could freely exchange experiences, knowl-
edge, and skills toward a common goal. Lei said, “we do not pursue
harmony for the sake of harmony. Teachers in our group make
substantive and constructive comments” (Lei, interview).
Peer feedback stimulated teachers’ thinking by sharing experi-
ences, raising questions, and developing constructive solutions
about adapting and applying research-based ideas in a specific
context. In addition, the connection between the TRG and district-
level teaching researchers deepened the implementation of the
research project.
7
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
5.5. Developing theoretical and critical reflections and planning for
the next research project
After nearly two years of experimentation, the teachers reported
they benefited a lot through conducting the research project in
both theoretical and practical aspects.
Regarding the theoretical reflections, teachers claimed that
producing research outputs and disseminating their research ex-
periences was a critical but challenging pathway towards theoris-
ing their research-based practices. As a routine task every semester,
every teacher in the school was required to submit a teaching case
focusing on their implementation strategies or reflecting on their
research-based teaching. For teachers, writing was arduous, as it
required theoretical reflections on the “how” and “why” of their
practice. The TRG head, Huang, recounted that “the theory part [of
writing] was quite difficult for us frontline teachers. We needed
literature reviews and theories to theorise our practical research”
(Huang, interview).
Noting the importance of producing research outputs for
teacher professional learning, career development, and school
evaluation, most teachers would write teaching cases based on
open lessons that they carefully designed, implemented, and sub-
mitted for publication. In the process, school leaders also provided
opportunities for teachers to publish and disseminate their
research outcomes (e.g., introducing journals to teachers, selecting
excellent cases for book publication, or organising research-based
sharing). In addition, research experts (e.g., university researchers
and those in charge of educational research in the district education
bureau) were invited to polish the research articles for publication.
Unsurprisingly, many teachers including Zhang, Feng, and Lei
published articles based on their writings during or after imple-
menting the project in provincial journals. As a collective research
output, some excellent teaching cases were also selected and rec-
ommended for publication in a book edited by the school principal.
The published papers and selected teaching cases mentioned the
role of “teacher assessment” and “student assessment” as theo-
retical reflections on classroom teaching (Zhang, Feng, and Lei's
journal publications). The final research report also revealed
teachers' reflections regarding the functions of the designed
writing assessment forms as noted here:
The design of the writing assessment forms must consider the
following three functions. The first is the evaluation function,
meaning whether it can accurately evaluate students' writing ca-
pacity. The second is the diagnostic function, which involves ana-
lysing students’ writing problems and their causes. The third is the
strategic function, which concerns providing ways and means to
solve problems. Reflecting on our practices, the third function is the
most difficult to achieve. (Group research report).
The theoretical reflections further stimulated teachers to learn
more about theory and how to apply it in their practice. Teachers
such as Feng saw writing as a process of “rethinking” practices to
“strengthen professionalism.” Qi also remarked:
Writing for publication is not only about practical reflection, but
also about learning educational theory. Doing such a project, we
have to search more literature to learn some theories and under-
stand how the theories can be applied to our practice. The process
is quite challenging but helps to improve our teaching. (Qi,
interview).
In addition to the research outputs, the teachers developed an
alternative way of teaching narrative essay writing, as mentioned
above. Some teachers (Zhang, Feng, Chen, Qi) recounted they would
extend their research-based practices into their daily teaching. For
example, Zhang said all teachers teaching her grade would attach a
form for students to self-evaluate their writings, while Chen
claimed she would use the form for almost every writing lesson.
L. Chen
Teachers reported that through the implementation of the
research project, they developed critical reflections on the limita-
tions of the project, a better understanding of how to foster stu-
dents' writing skills, and a clearer direction for expanding students'
reading in the next round of action research. The teachers claimed
that using assessment forms might restrict students’ creativity.
Some teachers (e.g., Huang, Qi) reflected that although the criteria
provided scaffolding for some students, the specific writing
guidelines were likely to teach students how to write “an eight-
legged essay” (baguwen). From their perspective, following a spe-
cific procedure could restrict the creativity of students who were
good at writing.
The teachers (e.g., Zhao, Chen, Hu) also observed that while the
assessment forms facilitated student writing, writing involves more
than mastering “techniques” and requires more sophisticated “in-
puts,” such as extensive reading and students' observations of, and
reflections about their daily life (Zhao, interview). As illustrated by
Chen, “we cannot promote students’ writing merely by these
techniques. Contents matter. If they do not have enough reading or
deep feelings about daily life, they cannot write fascinating narra-
tive essays” (Chen, interview). Based on their practical reflections,
the teachers initiated a new action research project promoting
reading, aiming to teach students how to read a book while
encouraging them to read more often.
6. Possible explanations and discussion
This study explored the lived learning experiences of teachers
who conducted a collaborative action research project in a subject-
based PLC in a Chinese school. While driven by external pressures
and facing difficulties conducting research, teachers reached a
consensus on the need for collective inquiry, sought the endorse-
ment of professional authorities to initiate a project, experimented
with the project with support from teaching researchers, adjusted
their teaching through peer observation, developed theoretical and
practical reflections on their project, sustained their research-based
practice, and initiated a new round of action research. Analysing
collaborative action research in a PLC highlights the unique affor-
dances of action research for teacher professional learning.
The existing literature reveals that one of the biggest obstacles
preventing teacher-led initiatives in PLCs is the bureaucratic school
culture (Admiraal et al., 2021; Hairon & Tan, 2017; Lieberman &
Miller, 2011). In this study, although collaborative action research
was a result of administrative mandates, the teachers approached
“research” not merely as an administrative task to follow but also as
a means to address common concerns in their daily teaching and
for their professional learning and improvement. The administra-
tive design of learning activities in a PLC setting did not influence
their critical role in teacher professional learning. Instead, the
explicit design of collaborative action research facilitated the
teachers’ collaboration on specific, concrete, and practical instruc-
tion and student learning issues they could apply to make changes
in their classroom practices. The findings further showed that
enabling subject-based PLCs to conduct action research may be a
promising way to mitigate the tension between teacher-led ini-
tiatives and the administrative hierarchy in the Chinese context.
The following section offers possible explanations for such miti-
gation from collective endeavours at the teacher, school, and sys-
tem levels.
First, the study revealed that teachers’ consensus on the need
for collaborative inquiry, agentic actions, and collaborative culture
largely explained why they could achieve professional learning in
communities through action research.
Despite being required to conduct research collectively, the
teachers shared the common understanding that collaborative
8
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
research projects served their common professional learning needs.
They agreed that such projects were a necessary collective focus for
engaging themselves in professional activities. Aligned with the
international literature, reaching a consensus about the need for
collaborative learning is the starting point for teachers’ collabora-
tive action research (Bleicher, 2014) and a prerequisite for pro-
ductive professional learning in PLCs (Bolam et al., 2005; Stoll et al.,
2006).
Although the teachers tended to seek extra-school-level
educational authorities' endorsement, they did not blindly follow
them. Teachers felt their project initiation was inspired by their
needs rather than being foisted on them by the educational au-
thorities. Navigating a project focus that was relevant to their
teaching and benefited everyone reflected the teachers’ collective
agency to achieve professional learning (see Bandura, 2006; Brodie,
2019). The practice-based nature of their research project
addressed their disciplinary concerns and their willingness to
commit themselves to research-based learning activities.
The findings also revealed that the group's culture of collabo-
ration generated the teachers' deep commitment to their peers'
learning. Influenced by China's traditional collectivist culture, the
teachers recognised the value of collaboration (the essence of PLCs
(Hargreaves, 2013)) and were easily accustomed to collective ac-
tivities. Teachers' beliefs in the value of teamwork ensured their
willing and active participation in action research as a collaborative
activity, despite its mandatory nature (Wong, 2010; Zhang & Pang,
2016). Moreover, teachers might feel more supported and less
stressed if they could do research collaboratively rather than alone,
particularly if they were not good at it (Xu, 2015).
Second, teachers' positive learning experiences were supported
by the school's leadershipdproviding room for subject-based
research practice, integrating various professional activities for
action research, and providing resources for teachers at different
stages of their research.
Although teachers were provided with board school topics, the
school leaders did not require every subject-based group to strictly
follow school instructions perhaps because action research is a
teacher-directed, inquiry-based professional activity (see Berger
et al., 2005; Burn, 2005; Lytle & Cochran-Smith, 1992), which
gave them room to address disciplinary interests. Teachers in China
are often reported to have limited professional autonomy (Lo,
2019); however, they do have some decision-making space
regarding which teaching issues to research at the group level
which enables a realistic and actionable vision for teacher profes-
sional learning in PLCs.
Researchers have argued that administrative pushing or
“nudging” is sometimes necessary to ensure teachers work
together (Hargreaves, 2013). In the present study, the teachers were
provided logistical conditions (time, space, and activities) to
interact and participate in collaborative action research. More
importantly, various routine school-based learning opportunities
(e.g., open lessons, collective lesson preparation, and teacher re-
flections) and learning requirements for action research (e.g., pro-
ducing research outputs and writing teaching cases) were carefully
designed and interconnected by the school leaders to regulate the
teachers' participation in routine activities. In addition, the careful
task design fit teachers' career advancement needs specified in
China's teacher professional title system (Gao et al., 2011a). The
close link between the need to conduct research for career pro-
motion and the design of the teachers' routine activities enhanced
school-based learning activities' effectiveness for teacher profes-
sional learning without creating additional burdens for the teach-
ers and increased their motivation to participate in research
activities and produce outcomes.
The teachers noted that the school leaders played a supportive
L. Chen
role in their research-based learning process beyond giving
administrative instructions. Although the teachers did not receive
direct professional support from the school leaders due to differ-
ences in subject expertise, they were provided with various types of
support to maximise their professional learning (e.g., inviting
external support and recommending publishing teachers’ papers),
further facilitated their research engagement.
Third, the study highlighted the municipal- and district-level
teaching researchers' role as “external agents” in improving
teachers' practices while facilitating teacher professional learning
(Stoll et al., 2006). Previous studies have confirmed that strong PLCs
are not self-contained. Collaboration with external experts enriches
teachers' interactions, enabling them to gain new perspectives on
teaching, develop alternative routes to solve problems, challenge
their own assumptions, and even experiment with innovative
practices (Bolam et al., 2005; Hargreaves, 2007; Wenger, 1998). This
study reveals that professional support from higher educational
authorities who share their teaching experiences and understand
the practical problems confronting frontline teachers is critical for
helping the teachers identify practical issues, operationalise inno-
vative research-based ideas, and adjust them to suit specific
classroom contexts. However, providing adequate support without
impairing teachers’ professional discretion is challenging (as dis-
cussed later).
The findings showed that efforts were mobilised at different
levels to promote teacher professional learning through action
research in PLCs. Whilst the teachers, school administration and
leadership, and system-level professional support contributed to
teacher learning, it was their combined effects that balanced
teacher-led initiatives with the administrative hierarchy to achieve
the teachers' positive collaborative learning experiences. Teacher
learning in communities cannot effectively occur without each
level's support, echoing the systematic approach required to build
PLCs for teacher professional learning in previous research (Fullan,
2005; Opfer & Pedder, 2011). Fullan (2005) noted that without
attention to the educational system, PLCs' success in schools is
“largely a matter of luck or serendipity” and hard to sustain (p.212).
The study confirms the importance of building the PLCs' infra-
structure, which operates at the subject-based department level in
individual schools, and the system level to systematically support
teachers. Teachers cannot successfully enact a research project
without teaching researchers' consistent professional support, and
their learning may be compromised without administrative sup-
port or a push from school leaders. Whether external support can
be used to transform teachers' practices is largely dependent on the
PLC's “absorptive capacity” (Cohen & Levinthal, 1990; Farrell et al.,
2019). Teachers cannot experience productive learning without a
shared understanding of the value of collaborative action research,
agentic actions towards adopting external expertise, or authentic
collaboration among peers. These collective endeavours at three
levels do not constitute an exhaustive list but act as a guide for
further inquiries into the features that best support teachers'
engagement in collaborative action research-based learning.
This study, however, does not argue that the case of teachers in
Shanghai represents a perfect model. Even when the teachers were
empowered to conduct their research project, the authorities
(teaching researchers or school leaders) maintained a firm grip on
their teaching and collaborative learning. Given the space to
address disciplinary concerns, teachers tended to seek education
authorities' endorsement to obtain community resources aiming to
carry out the ideas the authorities delivered. When interacting with
the authorities, the teachers' own perspectives were easily
neglected due to the authoritarian culture (Wong, 2010). The con-
formity to educational authority could also be explained by their
limited capacity to innovate their teaching and the tight teacher
9
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
evaluation system (Gao et al., 2011a). Teachers confirmed that their
collective agency was constrained by their lack of training in action
research projects, further suggesting that it is extremely difficult for
teachers to conduct ground-up research projects in a highly
bureaucratic system when teachers’ capacities are insufficient for
negotiating the space for their own interests (Philpott & Oates,
2017).
7. Conclusion and implication
This study provides an empirical example of teachers’ enacted
practices when conducting action research in a PLC in China. Based
on the Chinese experience, the study shows that collaborative ac-
tion research can be a meaningful mechanism for teacher learning
in PLCs. The findings indicate that combining the strength of action
research with the power of PLCs has great potential for meeting the
challenge of balancing teacher-initiated professional learning in
communities with bureaucratic school organisations.
The study's findings have implications for policymakers and
school leaders interested in PLCs and teacher action research for
fostering teacher professional learning. First, in some Western
contexts, PLCs are perceived as teacher-led initiatives that address
practical issues, to which bureaucratic school organisations can be a
major obstacle (Hargreaves, 2013; Lieberman, 2007; Lieberman &
Miller, 2011). As this study has shown, empowering teachers to
conduct action research in the PLC process may be a practical way
to mitigate the tension between bottom-up needs and top-down
administration. Teachers' practical needs can be addressed in hi-
erarchical educational systems like China's, and top-down support
is needed to facilitate the PLC process (Hairon & Tan, 2017). These
findings can inform educational policymakers and practitioners in
international societies with similar educational and cultural con-
texts, such as Singapore, Malaysia, and Vietnam.
Second, building an effective PLC involves more than merely
putting teachers in touch with each other (Levine & Marcus, 2010).
In addition to the structural conditions commonly advocated in the
literature, school administration and leadership can do more to
provide professional support to ensure the effectiveness of teacher
professional learning in PLCs, such as carefully designing collective
tasks for teachers, integrating fragmented professional activities
into teacher career advancement requirements, and providing
continuous support for teachers' collective learning process
(Admiraal et al., 2021; Borko, 2004). In particular, establishing and
expanding teachers' advice-seeking networks can be critical re-
sources for teachers to experiment with innovative practices and
deepen their reflections on teaching (Stoll et al., 2006). Given
China's authoritarian culture, maintaining teachers' professional
discretion despite the external guidance of higher educational au-
thorities needs further consideration.
Finally, enhancing teachers' research competency is urgently
needed to empower teachers’ uptake of teacher-led research ini-
tiatives. As noted in the findings, without sufficient training, con-
ducting research projects is a paramount challenge to teachers.
Thus, it is necessary to equip them with a better understanding of
how to use their research to reflect on their teaching and a range of
research skills they could apply in their action research for pro-
fessional learning (Gao et al., 2011b).
This study is not without limitations. First, as only a single group
of Chinese language teachers in one junior secondary school were
examined, the findings cannot be generalised to other PLCs,
schools, or regions in China. Even within the same PLC, teachers'
research projects were not static with teachers having different
learning experiences in new action research cycles. In addition, the
study focused only on teachers teaching key subject areas.
Exploring teachers’ learning experiences in mix-subject PLCs with
L. Chen
lighter examination pressure might be interesting. Moreover, con-
ducting action research in collaboration with different stakeholders
(e.g., teaching experts, university researchers, or school adminis-
trators) may present different possibilities (Berger et al., 2005).
Thus, more research in various collaborative networks may enrich
our understanding of teacher learning in communities.
Note
1 R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional
A Chinese idiom describing a person with a very limited
outlook and little experience.
Funding
This work was supported by the National Office for Education
Sciences Planning of China (grant number: CHA220290).
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the anonymous reviewers and Dr. Jia Jiang for
their insightful comments. Sincere thanks also go to all the par-
ticipants for their kind support during the fieldwork.
References
Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., Jong, L. D., Emmelot, Y., & Sligte, H. (2021). Schools as
professional learning communities: What can schools do to support profes-
sional development of their teachers? Professional Development in Education,
47(4), 684e698. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1665573
Bandura, A. (2006). Towards a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science, 1(2), 164e180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
6916.2006.00011.x
Berger, J. G., Boles, K. C., & Troen, V. (2005). Teacher research and school change:
Paradoxes, problems, and possibilities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21(1),
93e105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2004.11.008
Bleicher, R. E. (2014). A collaborative action research approach to professional
learning. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 802e821. https://doi.org/
10.1080/19415257.2013.842183
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A.,
Hawkey, K., Ingram, M., Atkinson, A., & Smith, M. (2005). Creating and sustaining
effective professional learning communities (Report No. RR637). University of
Bristol.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the
terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3e15. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0013189X033008003
Brodie, K. (2019). Teacher agency in professional learning communities. Professional
Development in Education. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1689523
Burn, A. (2005). Action research: An evolving paradigm? Language Teaching, 38,
57e74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444805002661
Chen, L. (2020). A historical review of professional learning communities in China
(1949-2019): Some implications for collaborative for collaborative teacher
professional development. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 40(3), 373e385.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2020.1717439
Chou, C. (2011). Teachers' professional development: Investigating teachers'
learning to do action research in a professional learning community. The Asia-
Pacific Education Researcher, 20(3), 421e437.
Cohen, W. M., & Levinthal, D. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on
learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128e152.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553
Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Sage.
Corey, S. M. (1953). Action research to improve school practices. Columbia University.
Curry, M. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations
embedded in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional
improvement and school reform. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 733e774.
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810811000401
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher profes-
sional development. Learning Policy Institute.
Dimmock, C. (2016). Conceptualising the researchepracticeeprofessional devel-
opment nexus: Mobilising schools as ‘research-engaged’ professional learning
10
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
communities. Professional Development in Education, 42(1), 36e53. https://
doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.963884
Dodman, S. L. (2021). Learning, leadership, and agency: A case study of teacher-
initiated professional development. Professional Development in Education.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1955731
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best
practices for enhancing student achievement. Solution Tree.
Farrell, C. C., Coburn, C. E., & Chong, S. (2019). Under what conditions do school
districts learn from external partners? The role of absorptive capacity. American
Educational Research Journal, 56(3), 955e994. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0002831218808219
Fullan, M. (2005). Professional learning communities writ large. In R. DuFour,
learning communities (pp. 209e223). National Education Service.
Gao, X., Barkhuizen, G., & Chow, A. W. K. (2011a). Research engagement and
educational decentralisation: Problematising primary school English teachers'
research experiences in China. Educational Studies, 37(2), 207e219. https://
doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.506338
Gao, X., Barkhuizen, G., & Chow, A. (2011b). ‘Nowadays, teachers are relatively
obedient’: Understanding primary school English teachers’ conceptions of and
drives for research in China. Language Teaching Research, 15(1), 61e81. https://
doi.org/10.1177/1362168810383344
Gao, S., & Wang, J. (2014). Teaching transformation under centralised curriculum
and teacher learning community: Two Chinese chemistry teachers' experiences
in developing inquiry-based instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 44,
1e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2014.07.008
Hairon, S., & Dimmock, C. (2012). Singapore schools and professional learning
communities: Teacher professional development and school leadership in an
Asian hierarchical system. Educational Review, 64(4), 405e424. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00131911.2011.625111
Hairon, S., & Goh, J. W. P. (2017). Teacher leaders in professional learning commu-
nities in Singapore: Challenges and opportunities. In A. Harris, M. Jones, &
J. B. Huffman (Eds.), Teachers leading educational reform: The power of profes-
sional learning communities (pp. 86e99). Routledge.
Hairon, S., & Tan, C. (2017). Professional learning communities in Singapore and
Shanghai: Implications for teacher collaboration. Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education, 47(1), 91e104. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03057925.2016.1153408
Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll, &
K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and di-
lemmas (pp. 181e195). McGraw-Hill Education.
Hargreaves, A. (2013). Push, pull and nudge: The future of teaching and educational
change. In X. Zhu, & K. Zeichner (Eds.), Preparing teachers for the 21st century,
new frontiers of educational research (pp. 217e236). Springer.
Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system
improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172e181. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1365480210376487
Johannesson, P. (2020). Development of professional learning communities through
action research: Understanding professional learning in practice. Educational
Action Research, 1e16. https://doi.org/10.1080/09650792.2020.1854100
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (1988). The action research planner (3rd ed.). Deakin
University Press.
Lave, J. (2009). The practice of learning. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of
learning (pp. 200e208). Routledge.
Lee, M., & Kim, J. (2016). The emerging landscape of school-based professional
learning communities in South Korean schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education,
36(2), 266e284. https://doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2016.1148854
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. S. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers'
collaborative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26(3), 389e398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.03.001
Liang, X. Y., Kidwai, H., & Zhang, M. X. (2016). How Shanghai does it: Insights and
lessons from the highest-ranking education system in the world. World Bank.
Lieberman, A. (2007). Professional learning communities: A reflection. In L. Stoll, &
K. S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and di-
lemmas (pp. 199e203). McGraw-Hill Education.
Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2011). Learning communities: The starting point for
professional learning is in schools and classrooms. Journal of Staff Development,
32(4), 16e20.
Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom prac-
tice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913e945. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9620.00273
Lo, L. N. K. (2019). Teachers and teaching in China: A critical reflection. Teachers and
Teaching, 25(5), 553e573. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2019.1632823
Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1992). Teacher research as a way of knowing. Har-
vard Educational Review, 62(4), 447e475. https://doi.org/10.17763/
haer.62.4.4lm3811r1033431n
McNiff, J. (1988). Action research: Principles and practice. Routledge.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education.
Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C. A. (2017). Action research communities: Professional learning, empower-
ment, and improvement through collaborative action research. Routledge.
Mitchell, S. N., Reilly, R. C., & Logue, M. E. (2009). Benefits of collaborative action
research for the beginning teacher. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(2),
344e349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.06.008
OECD. (2011). Lessons from PISA for the United States: Strong performers and
L. Chen
successful reformers in education. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/
9789264096660-en
OECD. (2014). PISA 2012 results in focus: What 15-year-olds know and what they can
do with what they know. OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/pisa/
keyfindings/pisa-2012-results-overview.pdf.
OECD. (2019). Pisa 2018: Insights and interpretations. OECD Publishing. http://www.
oecd.org/pisa/PISA%202018%20Insights%20and%20Interpretations%20FINAL%
20PDF.pdf.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualising teacher professional learning.
Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376e407. https://doi.org/10.3102/
0034654311413609
Paine, L., & Ma, L. (1993). Teachers working together: A dialogue on organisational
and cultural perspectives of Chinese teachers. International Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 19(8), 675e697. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(93)90009-9
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Philpott, C., & Oates, C. (2017). Teacher agency and professional learning commu-
nities; what can Learning Rounds in Scotland teach us? Professional Develop-
ment in Education, 43(3), 318e333. https://doi.org/10.1080/
19415257.2016.1180316
Qiao, X., Yu, S., & Zhang, L. (2018). A review of research on professional learning
communities in mainland China (2006e2015): Key findings and emerging
themes. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 713e728.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217707523
Saldan ~ a, J. (2013). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage.
Sargent, T. C. (2015). Professional learning communities and the diffusion of
pedagogical innovation in the Chinese education system. Comparative Education
Review, 59(1), 102e132. https://doi.org/10.1086/678358
Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organi-
sation. Doubleday.
Shanghai Municipal Education Commission. (2014). Jiaqiang Shanghaishi jichu jiaoyu
kexue yanjiu gongzuo de tongzhi [Opinions on strengthening the scientific research
work of basic education in Shanghai]. http://edu.sh.gov.cn/xxgk_jyyw_xxky_5/
20200515/0015-gw_412022014006.html.
Somekh, B. (2006). Constructing intercultural knowledge and understanding
through collaborative action research. Teachers and Teaching, 12(1), 87e106.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13450600500365460
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional
learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change,
7(4), 221e258. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
Tan, C. (2013). Learning from Shanghai: Lessons on achieving educational success.
Springer.
Toole, J. C., & Louis, K. S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in
international education. In K. Leithwood, & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second
11
Teaching and Teacher Education 119 (2022) 103875
international handbook of educational leadership and administration (pp.
245e279). Springer.
Tucker, M. S. (2011). Surpassing Shanghai: An agenda for American education built on
the world's leading systems. Harvard Education Press.
Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a
context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 61, 47e59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80e91. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.tate.2007.01.004
Wang, J. (2002). Learning to teach with mentors in contrived contexts of curriculum
and teaching organisation: Experiences of two Chinese novice teachers and
their mentors. Journal of In-Service Education, 28(2), 339e374. https://doi.org/
10.1080/13674580200200186
Wang, T. (2015). Contrived collegiality versus genuine collegiality: Demystifying
professional learning communities in Chinese schools. Compare: A Journal of
Comparative and International Education, 45(6), 908e930. https://doi.org/
10.1080/03057925.2014.952953
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cam-
bridge University Press.
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),
623e639. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057920903553308
Wong, J. L. N. (2014). Career advancement or teacher development? Teachers'
perceptions of writing publications in China. International Journal of Educational
Management, 28(3), 306e318. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2013.864019
Xu, H. (2015). The development of teacher autonomy in collaborative lesson
preparation: A multiple-case study of EFL teachers in China. System, 52,
139e148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2015.05.007
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Sage.
Zhang, J., & Pang, N. S.-K. (2016). Exploring the characteristics of professional
learning communities in China: A mixed-method study. Asia-Pacific Education
Researcher, 25(1), 11e21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40299-015-0228-3
Zhang, J., Yuan, R., & Yu, S. (2017). What impedes the development of professional
learning communities in China? Perceptions from leaders and frontline
teachers in three schools in Shanghai. Educational Management Administration
& Leadership, 45(2), 219e237. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143215617945
Zheng, X., Yin, H., & Wang, X. (2021). Doing authentic research” with artifacts to
facilitate teacher learning across multiple communities. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 105, Article 103394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103394
Zhu, X. D., & Pei, M. (2017). Research on teacher learning models: Experiences from
China. Beijing Normal University Publishing Group.