Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International

Education

ISSN: 0305-7925 (Print) 1469-3623 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

Does principal leadership make a difference in

teacher professional learning? A comparative
study China and Thailand

Philip Hallinger, Shengnan Liu & Patnaree Piyaman

To cite this article: Philip Hallinger, Shengnan Liu & Patnaree Piyaman (2017): Does
principal leadership make a difference in teacher professional learning? A comparative study
China and Thailand, Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education, DOI:
10.1080/03057925.2017.1407237

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1407237

Published online: 12 Dec 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 21

View related articles

View Crossmark data

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

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ccom20

Download by: [Universite Laval] Date: 17 December 2017, At: 23:24

 Compare, 2017
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057925.2017.1407237

Does principal leadership make a difference in teacher

professional learning? A comparative study China and
Thailand
Philip Hallingera,b‡, Shengnan Liuc and Patnaree Piyamand
a
Center for Research on Sustainable Leadership, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand; bDepartment
of Educational Leadership and Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa;
c
Department of Education, Ocean University of China, Qingdao, China; dDepartment of Educational Leadership
and Management, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This research explored the relationship of principal leadership and Learning-centered
teacher professional learning in China and Thailand. The authors leadership; teacher trust;
tested a conceptual model in which teacher trust and agency were teacher agency; teacher
proposed as mediators of the effects of the principal’s learning- professional learning; cross-
national comparison
centered leadership on teacher professional learning. Common survey
measures had been used to collect data from 1259 teachers in 38
schools in mainland China and 1071 teachers in 60 schools in Thailand.
Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis, multi-group structural
equation modelling, and bootstrapping were employed to compare
the proposed leadership and teacher learning processes in Chinese
and Thai schools. The results confirmed a similar model of strong,
statistically significant, ‘mediated effects’ of principal leadership on the
professional learning of teachers in the two societies. These findings
contribute to our understanding of leadership effects across societies
and offer insight into how policymakers and practitioners can support
school leadership, teacher development, and educational change.

The most recent generation of research on school leadership effects is oriented towards
identifying and exploring ‘paths’ through which school leaders influence student learning
and school improvement (Hallinger 2011; Leithwood and Louis 2011; Zheng et al. 2017). In
2008, Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe (2008) published a meta-analytic review of research on
school leadership that identified principal participation in and support for teacher learn-
ing as a high value, mediating path through which leaders impact student learning. This
unanticipated finding suggested a need for scholars to focus more explicitly on how school
leadership shapes the professional learning of teachers, previously under-developed line of
research (e.g. Printy 2008; Smylie and Hart 1999; Youngs and King 2002). During the ensuing
years, a new tributary of research has inquired into how school leadership practices influence
teacher capacity, teacher learning, teacher development, and professional learning communities

CONTACT  Philip Hallinger  hallinger@gmail.com

‡
Physical address: Center for Research on Sustainable Leadership, Mahidol University, 69 Vipavadhee Rangsit Road, Bangkok,
10400, Thailand
© 2017 British Association for International and Comparative Education
 2   P. HALLINGER ET AL.

(e.g.Drago-Severson 2012; Hallinger, Piyaman, and Viseshsiri 2017; Li and Hallinger 2016;
Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016; Schechter and Qadach 2012; Thoonen et al. 2012; Wang 2016).
This research found a welcome reception in several East Asian societies where researchers
had highlighted the importance of ‘indigenous teacher learning practices’ (e.g. Hairon and
Tan 2017; Paine and Fang 2006; Tran, Hallinger, and Truong 2017; Zhao 2010). For example,
virtually all schools in China feature ‘teacher research groups’ designed to solve teaching and
learning problems identified by the teachers (Paine and Fang 2006; Qian and Walker 2013). This
research on leadership and teacher professional learning has become especially salient during an
era when education reforms have become firmly fixed on changing modal approaches to teach-
ing and student learning in East Asia (Fry and Bi 2013; Paine and Fang 2006; Qian and Walker
2013; Somprach, Tang, and Popoonsak 2017; Tran, Hallinger, and Truong 2017; Zhao 2010).
Traditionally, however, ‘leadership’ has not figured into the formal role set of principals in
East Asia (e.g. Hallinger and Lee 2014; Liu and Hallinger 2017; Qian, Walker, and Li 2017;
Walker and Hallinger 2015). Nonetheless, over the past decade, an increasing number of
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

East Asian societies have taken steps to reconfigure the role set of school administrators to
include leadership of teaching and learning (e.g. Hallinger and Lee 2014; Qian and Walker
2013; Qian, Walker, and Li 2017; Tran, Hallinger, and Truong 2017; Walker and Hallinger
2015). In addition, regional scholars have evidenced increased interest in studying how
school leadership influences teacher learning (e.g. Hairon and Tan 2017; Hallinger, Piyaman,
and Viseshsiri 2017; Li and Hallinger 2016; Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016; Qian, Walker,
and Yang 2016; Somprach, Tang, and Popoonsak 2017; Wang 2016).
The current study analysed secondary data on leadership and teacher learning collected
in China and Thailand, where education reforms have refocused policies to support school
leadership and teacher development. The authors had conducted parallel studies using the
same ‘mediated-effects model’ and measures of leadership effects on teacher professional
learning. In this comparative study, we address the following research questions:
(1) What is the relationship of learning-centered leadership, teacher trust, teacher
agency, and teacher professional learning in China and Thailand?
(2) Are there differences in leadership and teacher learning processes in China and
Thailand?
The researchers used inferential tests to analyse survey data collected from 38 primary
and middle schools in China and 60 primary schools in Thailand. This comparative approach
holds potential for contributing incrementally towards our understanding of the ‘univer-
sality’ of leadership, teacher learning, and related school improvement processes (Belchetz
and Leithwood 2007; Clarke and O’Donoghue 2017; Hallinger 2016).

Theoretical framework
In this section, we establish the conceptual model that guided the study. Then we review
literature related to our model of learning-centred leadership, teacher trust, teacher agency,
and teacher professional learning.

Conceptual framework
Prior to the turn of the millennium, the global knowledge base in educational administration
was largely homogenous, evidencing surprisingly little cross-cultural variegation (Belchetz
 COMPARE   3

and Leithwood 2007; Clarke and O’Donoghue 2017; Dimmock and Walker 2000; Hallinger
2016). Indeed, it is only in the past 20 years that scholars have begun to study educational
administration outside of a narrow set of Anglo-American societies (Dimmock and Walker
2000; Hallinger 2016). The current study reflects a growing recognition that the field will
only advance through systematic comparison of models, constructs, and practices across
societies (Belchetz and Leithwood 2007; Clarke and O’Donoghue 2017; Hallinger 2016).
As noted above, in recent years, the professional learning of teachers has assumed increas-
ing importance as a path through which school leaders are able to influence student learn-
ing (Drago-Severson 2012; Printy 2008; Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008). Consequently,
recent scholarship has sought to identify how school leaders motivate and engage teachers
in productive professional learning (Frost 2006; Hallinger, Piyaman, and Viseshsiri 2017;
Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016; Qian and Walker 2013; Tran, Hallinger, and Truong 2017;
Wang 2016). This body of research has highlighted ‘teacher attitudes’ (e.g. commitment,
trust, collective efficacy, agency, academic optimism) as potential ‘mediators’ of leadership
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

practices that engage teachers in professional learning.

Our conceptual framework proposed a ‘partial mediation model’ of learning-centred
leadership effects on teacher learning (see Figure 1). We focused on teacher trust and agency,
because they represent highly salient variables in hierarchical educational systems (Bryk
and Schneider 2002; Hallinger, Piyaman, and Viseshsiri 2017; Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016;
Shen 2015). A key challenge facing school leaders in strongly hierarchical education systems
is transforming system aims into school and classroom practices (Bryk and Schneider 2002;
Li and Hallinger 2016; Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016; Qian and Walker 2013; Wang 2016).
More specifically, leaders must find ways of motivating teachers to assume more responsi-
bility for their learning within systems where order-giving and order-taking represents the
norm (Dimmock and Walker 2000; Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016; Qian and Walker 2013;
Qian, Walker, and Yang 2016).
Our model proposes that leadership effects on teacher learning are comprised of direct,
as well as indirect effects, with teacher trust and agencies as mediating variables (Frost 2006;

Thailand China
Schools Schools

Teacher
Trust
(TT)

Learning- Teacher
Centered Professional
Leadership Learning
(LCL) (TPL)

Teacher
Agency
(TA)

Figure 1. Hypothesized model of leadership and teacher learning for schools in Thailand and China.
 4   P. HALLINGER ET AL.

Kwakman 2003; Li and Hallinger 2016; Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016; Printy 2008). We
further proposed that the internal mediation effects would flow from teacher trust through
teacher agency (Frost 2006; Li and Hallinger 2016; Printy 2008; Wang 2016).
Although the conceptual framework suggests that cultural/institutional contexts of
Thailand and China shape this process (Clarke and O’Donoghue 2017; Hallinger 2016),
we neither hypothesised nor analysed the impact of context features. The study’s reliance on
secondary data precluded the cross-cultural comparative analysis of ‘cultural moderators’.

Overview of China and Thailand as contexts for school leadership

Space does not allow for an in-depth portrait of China and Thailand as ‘contexts for school
leadership’. Nonetheless, we wish to highlight features that may be relevant to the inter-
pretation of our findings. First, the education bureaucracies in China and Thailand both
operate in a strongly hierarchical fashion. Respect for age, experience, and rank are core
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

social values underlying normative behaviour in both societies. Indeed, hierarchical rela-
tions are fundamental to defining social relations inside and outside of the workplace in
China and Thailand (Dimmock and Walker 2000; Holmes, Tangtongtavy, and Tomizawa
1995; Wang 2016).
Both societies are collectivist (Dimmock and Walker 2000; Holmes, Tangtongtavy, and
Tomizawa 1995). This implies that people identify less as individuals (I/me) and more in
relation to referent groups. Collectivist norms shape workplace attitudes towards collabora-
tion, innovation, and risk-taking. Together, norms of hierarchy and collectivism influence
collaborative learning in the workplace (Holmes, Tangtongtavy, and Tomizawa 1995; Liu,
Hallinger, and Feng 2016; Qian and Walker 2013; Wang 2016).
The education reform platforms undertaken in China and Thailand share the goal of
reshaping teaching and learning processes (Fry and Bi 2013; Hallinger, Piyaman, and
Viseshsiri 2017; Qian and Walker 2013). Not surprisingly, although successful implemen-
tation of these reforms requires skillful ‘leadership’ from school principals, neither society
hosts a cadre of principals with formal preparation as ‘leaders of learning’ (Fry and Bi 2013;
Hallinger and Lee 2014; Qian and Walker 2013; Wang 2016; Zheng et al. 2017). Indeed, it
is only over the past decade or so that this role has begun to take shape in these and other
East Asian societies (e.g. Hallinger and Lee 2014; Somprach, Tang, and Popoonsak 2017;
Walker and Hallinger 2015; Wang 2016)

Learning-centred leadership
We defined learning-centred leadership as a process whereby school leaders motivate, guide,
and support teacher learning and school improvement (see also Hallinger and Lee 2014;
Leithwood and Louis 2011; Liu and Hallinger 2017; Printy 2008; Smylie and Hart 1999). We
conceptualised learning-centered leadership as comprised of four dimensions: (1) builds a
learning vision, (2) provides learning support, (3) manages the learning programme, modelling.
‘Builds a learning vision’ refers to leadership strategies and practices designed to inspire
teachers as learners and offer a meaningful purpose for their learning (Barth 1990; Liu and
Hallinger 2017; Qian and Walker 2013; Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008; Smylie and Hart
1999). ‘Provides learning support’ refers to strategies and practices that motivate teachers
learning by offering both intangible (e.g. inspiration, encouragement, trust, caring, respect)
 COMPARE   5

and tangible (e.g. resources, opportunities, feedback, time) forms of support (Drago-
Severson 2012; Geijsel et al. 2009; Printy 2008; Qian and Walker 2013; Saphier, King, and
Aurier 2006). ‘Manages the learning programme’ refers to strategies and practices that
place teacher development activities within a school-wide system of learning, ensure these
activities fit the needs of individuals and the school, and arrange support so that the results
of teacher learning become evident in transformations in teaching and learning practices
(Drago-Severson 2012; Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008; Wang 2016; Zhao 2010). Finally,
‘Modelling’ refers to the encouragement that leaders offer by articulating high expectations
for teacher learning, engaging in learning activities themselves, and sharing their learning
with teachers (Barth 1990; Frost 2006; Leithwood and Louis 2011; Saphier, King, and Aurier
2006; Qian, Walker, and Yang 2016).

Teacher trust
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

We defined trust as a psychological state comprising the intention to accept emotional

vulnerability based upon positive expectations of the intentions and behaviors of others
(Hoy and Tschannen-Moran 1999; McAllister 1995). As reflected in Figure 1, we made
three assumptions about the role of trust. First, we assumed that principal leadership can
directly influence the level of trust between the principal and teachers, as well as among
teachers (Bryk and Schneider 2002; Leithwood and Louis 2011; Li and Hallinger 2016; Louis
2007; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2000). Second, we assumed that when teachers work in a
task-focused, respectful, trusting environment, they will be more willing to exercise ‘agency’
as learners (Frost 2006; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran 1999; Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016;
Louis 2007; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2000). Finally, we assumed that trust is related to
levels of teacher engagement in professional learning (Hallinger, Piyaman, and Viseshsiri
2017; Hoy and Tschannen-Moran 1999; Leithwood and Louis 2011; Printy 2008; Timperley
2011; Tschannen-Moran and Hoy 2000).

Teacher agency
Agency refers to a sense of confidence to meet challenges as well as the initiative and personal
accountability that flow from this feeling (Emirbayer and Mische 1998). We propose that
teacher agency is shaped both by leadership and by cultural norms (e.g. trust) of the school
(Barth 1990; Drago-Severson 2012; Frost 2006; Qian and Walker 2013; Wang 2016). There
is reason to believe that features of agency such as self-efficacy and autonomy influence
teacher motivation to engage in professional learning (Emirbayer and Mische 1998; Frost
2006; Kwakman 2003; Smylie and Hart 1999). This highlights the role of ‘workplace norms’
in shaping teacher collaboration and learning, both individually and collectively (Drago-
Severson 2012; Kwakman 2003; Louis 2007; Smylie and Hart 1999; Youngs and King 2002).
Thus, we propose that teacher agency mediates the effects of learning-centred leadership
and trust on teacher professional learning.

Teacher professional learning

Inspired by theories of adult learning and situated learning, teacher professional learn-
ing research and practice has increasingly shifted towards learning that is job-embedded,
 6   P. HALLINGER ET AL.

collaborative, situated in the school, and sustained over time (Drago-Severson 2012; Geijsel
et al. 2009; Louis 2007; Thoonen et al. 2012; Timperley 2011; Vescio, Ross, and Adams 2008).
Thus, professional learning is increasingly conceptualised as a dynamic, ongoing, interac-
tive process rather than as an episodic series of ‘sit and get’ activities (Little 2012; Liu and
Hallinger 2017; Parise and Spillane 2010; Printy 2008; Timperley 2011). This perspective
on professional learning emphasises the school as a learning environment for teachers as
well as students (Barth 1990; Drago-Severson 2012; Hairon and Tan 2017; Saphier, King,
and Aurier 2006; Vescio, Ross, and Adams 2008). We conceptualised teacher professional
learning as comprised of activities that take place in formal and informal settings, individ-
ually and/or collectively. Professional learning should reflect an openness to new ideas and
practices as well as the initiative to put them into practice and assess the results (Little 2012;
Parise and Spillane 2010; Timperley 2011; Vescio, Ross, and Adams 2008).

Methods
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

This study employed a cross-sectional comparative survey research design. In this section we
describe our variables and measures, procedures for collecting data, and analytical strategy.

Variables and measures

For the purposes of this secondary analysis, we provide a summary of necessary information
concerning the measures and refer readers to in-depth information contained in published
reports for the China (Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016) and Thailand studies (Hallinger,
Piyaman, and Viseshsiri 2017). The researchers began with English language forms of four
instruments related to the constructs. The instruments were translated into Chinese and
Thai using the ‘back translation method’ (Brislin 1970). Content validation procedures were
used in each setting to ensure that items would be meaningful to the respondents (Da’as
2017). For the purposes of this study, comparable measures consisted of 91 items distributed
over four scales (see Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016 for scale items).

Construct measures
The scale for learning centred leadership (LCL) consisted of 25 items. The scale for teacher
trust (TT) drew on items from Tschannen-Moran and Hoy (2000) and McAllister (1995),
and consisted of 17 items measured as a second-order construct. Our measure of teacher
agency drew on items developed by Shen (2015) and Peng et al. (2006), and consisted of
24 items measured as a second-order construct. The scale for teacher professional learning
(TPL) was a second-order measure consisting of 25 items drawn from several previously
developed scales (i.e. Evers et al. 2016; Kwakman 2003; Schechter and Qadach 2012; in de
Wal et al. 2014). All items were rated on 1–5 Likert scales where 1 represented a low rating
and 5 a high rating.

Sample and data collection

The Thailand sample of schools consisted of a sample of 60 medium sized, urban and rural
primary schools selected from four provinces (see Hallinger, Piyaman, and Viseshsiri 2017).
The Chinese sample consisted of 38 urban and rural primary and middle schools selected
 COMPARE   7

from four provinces (see Liu, Hallinger, and Feng 2016). We collected survey data from
1259 teachers in China and 1071 teachers in Thailand.
A comparison of the two samples did not reveal significant differences in teacher gender
or teaching experience. The Thai sample had attained a somewhat higher level of formal
education. Whereas 100% of the teachers in the Thailand sample had attained at least a
bachelor's degree, this figure was 70% in the China sample (not Tabled).

Data analysis
Our primary goals were to investigate if and how leadership and teacher learning varied
across the samples from China and Thailand. The ideal approach to testing our model
would aggregate the data to the group level (i.e. teachers nested within schools) and exam-
ine relationships using multi-level structural equation modeling (SEM). However, since
our variables were measured as second order constructs, this proved impractical within
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

the constraints imposed by the statistical software. Therefore, we analysed the data at the
individual teacher level.
The first step in comparative research is to establish construct comparability (Da’as 2017).
We used Cronbach’s alpha test of internal consistency to test the reliability of the four
constructs in both societies. Then we employed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test
construct, convergent, and discriminant validity as well as equivalency of the constructs
across the two societies (Vandenberg and Lance 2000).
Comparative fix index (CFI), standardised root mean square residual (SRMR), and
root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) were used to assess model fit. Fit was
deemed acceptable with CFI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, and RMSEA < 0.06 (Hu and Bentler
1999). Although Chi square is commonly used to test the fit of measurement models, it is
sensitive to sample size. Given the large size of our data-set, we omitted Chi square from
our analytical strategy (Hu and Bentler 1999).
In order to establish construct comparability across the two samples, we conducted
tests for configural invariance and metric invariance (Da’as 2017). In the first step (i.e. an
unrestricted model), each item was allowed to load on its factor, but the factor loadings
and covariances were allowed to vary across the two countries. In the second step (i.e. a
restricted model), each item was restricted to be invariant across the two countries, but the
covariances were free to vary across the two countries.
Differences between the China and Thailand models were tested by assessing the fit
indices of the data to the models for the two groups. Cheung and Rensvold (2002) con-
cluded that if the value of △CFI (△CFI = CFIconstr-CFI unconstr.) is smaller than or equal
to 0.01, the null hypothesis of invariance should not be rejected (p. 247). We used this as
our standard for assessing measurement invariance.
Next, we examined the mediation model of leadership and teacher learning (see Figure
1). We began by using SEM to analyse the paths within the two models. Then we tested the
configural invariance and path coefficient invariance of the leadership and teacher learning
models across the two groups.
We also used the bootstrapping method recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2008) to
verify these relationships. Bootstrapping provides a robust method of assessing the size of
the effects, obtaining confidence intervals for variable paths, and establishing significance
levels for the paths (Preacher and Hayes 2008).
 8   P. HALLINGER ET AL.

Finally, we sought to verify whether the national context (i.e. China/Thailand) acted
as a statistically significant ‘moderator’ of these relationships. Here we employed mul-
ti-group confirmatory factor analysis to examine the measurement invariance of the Thai
and Chinese models.

Results
Measurement properties of the scales
We found that the composite reliability values exceeded the threshold of 0.7 and all of the
average variance extracted (AVE) values were over 0.50 (see Table 1). This verified the
internal consistency of the scales.
To examine discriminant validity, AVE values were compared with the square of the
correlation between each pair of constructs. The squared multiple correlations did not
exceed AVE values, thereby verifying discriminant validity of the constructs (not Tabled).
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

Next we sought to establish the goodness-of-fit of the data to the conceptual model. Data
in Table 2 indicate a satisfactory model to data fit on x2, CFI, SRMR, and RMSEA for both
samples. These results indicate that the constructs could be employed with confidence in
subsequent analyses, and that the second-order structure could be employed as the baseline
model for subsequent invariance analyses.

Measurement model
We used multi-group CFA to test measurement invariance of the four variables across the
China and Thailand schools (Da’as 2017). Data presented in Table 2 affirm the measurement

Table 1. Mean, standard deviations, reliability, and construct validity statistics constructs.
Thailand China
Constructs Mean SD alpha CR* AVE Mean SD alpha CR* AVE
Learning-centered lead- 4.03 0.822 0.95 0.98 0.89 4.05 0.619 0.97 0.97 0.88
ership
Teacher agency 4.20 0.522 0.94 0.96 0.86 4.04 0.566 0.96 0.95 0.83
Teacher trust 4.04 0.569 0.94 0.96 0.88 4.25 0.598 0.96 0.96 0.88
Teacher professional 4.12 0.564 0.95 0.97 0.89 4.07 0.566 0.95 0.94 0.80
learning
Note: CR = composite reliability; AVE = average variance extracted.

Table 2. Model fit for the main variables in China (n = 1259) and Thailand (n=1071) samples.
Measure χ2 df P RMSEA (90%CI) CFI SRMR
Learning-centered leadership
China sample 1202.96 271 0.000 0.052 (0.049~0.055) 0.957 0.029
Thailand sample 2139.71 271 0.000 0.083 (0.079~0.086) 0.927 0.031
Teacher agency
China sample 1252.08 248 0.000 0.057 (0.054~0.060) 0.942 0.038
Thailand sample 1933.89 248 0.000 0.082 (0.079~0.085) 0.913 0.039
Teacher trust
China sample 351.481 116 0.000 0.040 (0.035~0.045) 0.976 0.024
Thailand sample 995.907 116 0.000 0.087 (0.082~0.092) 0.909 0.044
Teacher professional learning
China sample 1271.13 271 0.000 0.054 (0.051~0.057) 0.940 0.041
Thailand sample 3545.14 271 0.000 0.109 (0.106~0.113) 0.862 0.055
 Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

Table 3. Tests of invariance for the main variables in China (n = 1259) and Thailand (n = 1071).
Compare
Measure (S–B) χ2 df P RMSEA CFI SRMR model SBdiff Δdf ΔCFI
Learning-centered leadership
1 Model 1 Configural invar. 3431.35 538 0.000 0.055 (0.053–0.057) 0.946 0.030 – – –
2 Model 2 Metric invar. 3585.59 559 0.000 0.055 (0.053–0.057) 0.943 0.044 2 vs 1 154.24* 21 −0.003
Teacher agency
1 Model 1 Configural invar. 3210.13 492 0.000 0.057 (0.055–0.059) 0.935 0.037 – – –
2 Model 2 Metric invar. 3278.43 512 0.000 0.057 (0.054–0.059) 0.933 0.043 2 vs 1 67.59* 20 −0.002
Teacher trust
1 Model 1 Configural invar. 1976.09 232 0.000 0.063 (0.060–0.067) 0.946 0.034 – – –
2 Model 2 Metric invar. 2042.15 246 0.000 0.063 (0.060–0.066) 0.944 0.040 2 vs 1 66.06*** 14 −0.002
Teacher professional learning
1 Model 1 Configural invar. 4740.89 538 0.000 0.068 (0.066–0.070) 0.906 0.045 – – –
2 Model 2 Metric invar. 4860.99 559 0.000 0.068 (0.066–0.070) 0.903 0.054 2 vs 1 120.1* 21 −0.003
*p < 0.001.
COMPARE 
 9
 10   P. HALLINGER ET AL.

invariance of the four constructs using the standards elaborated earlier. Configural invar-
iance serves as the baseline against which the models were compared to assess invariance.
Change in the CFI values of the four main constructs ranged from −.002 to −0.003, indi-
cating negligible to minimal metric invariance (see Table 3). The configural and metric
invariance indices also revealed satisfactory fit, even after constraining parameters and factor
loading across the two groups (see Table 3). We concluded that there were no meaningful
discrepancies in model fit for the four constructs between the Chinese and Thai samples.
Given the conclusion of scalar invariance of the constructs for China and Thailand we
next compared their latent factor means (see Table 1). The latent mean differences between
China and Thailand were generally very small and not meaningful.

Are leadership and teacher learning in China and Thailand similar or different?
In order to address our first research question, we developed an SEM of leadership and
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

teacher learning consistent with Figure 1. The partial mediation models for the pooled
sample, China sample, and Thailand sample all met the designated standards for ‘acceptable
fit’ (see Table 4).
We used SEM to analyse the paths within the model. The standardised parameter esti-
mates shown in Figure 2 provide effect sizes associated with the two partial mediation
models. The scale for learning centred leadership had a strong, statistically significant,
direct effect on teacher trust (TT) and teacher agency (TA) in both Chinese (β = 0.728, p <
0.001) and Thai schools (β = 0.824, p < 0.001). It had statistically significant, but somewhat
weaker direct effects on TA in both sets of schools (China, β = 0.344, p < 0.01; Thailand, β
= 0.183, p < 0.01). Learning centred leadership evidenced a mixed pattern of statistically
significant, moderate direct effects on TPL in the Chinese schools (β = 0.411, p < 0.001),
but no significant direct effect on TPL in the Thai schools (β = 0.075, not significant).
The SEMs evidenced a similar pattern in the flow of mediated effects from LCL through
TT to TA and then to TPL. In addition, although TT demonstrated a moderate to strong
relationship with TA in both models, it did not show a meaningful relationship to effect
on TPL in either model. These patterns were validated by tests of invariance which found
no significant differences in the mediation paths between the Chinese and Thai models
(not Tabled).
Within this broad pattern of similarities in the Thailand and China models, we did,
however, note two interesting differences. First, whereas there was a moderate ‘direct effect’

Table 4. Goodness-of-fit for invariance of variable relationships for China/Thailand schools.

χ2/ (S–B Compare
Model χ2) df P RMSEA CFI SRMR Model SBdiff Δdf ΔCFI
Pooled 17285.110 3983 .000 .038 (.037–038) .918 .038
sample
Thailand 16544.430 3983 .000 .054 (.053–055) .868 .044
sample
China 9715.970 3983 .000 .034 (.033–035) .926 .039
sample
ConFig. 21440.665 7982 .000 .038 (.037–039) .901 .043 – – – –
invar
Path coeff 21532.977 7987 .000 .038 (.038–039) .901 .046 2 VS 1 92.312 5 0
invar
 COMPARE   11
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

Figure 2. Mediation model of leadership and teacher learning in Thailand and China schools.
** = p < .01, ***p < .001; Th=Thailand, Ch=China.

Table 5. Bootstrapping results for mediation models of leadership and teacher learning for China and
Thailand schools.
Product of coefficients 95% Bootstrap CI
Two-tailedSig
Estimate SE Z Lower Upper (P)
Standardized total effects
LCL-TPL (China) 0.807 0.016 51.707 0.795 0.847 **
LCL-TPL (Thailand) 0.762 0.023 33.263 0.622 0.735 **
Standardized total indirect effects
LCL-TPL (China) 0.710 0.032 12.785 0.357 0.462 **
LCL-TPL (Thailand) 0.682 0.030 22.866 0.622 0.735 **
Specific indirect effects of LCL→TA→TPL
LCL-TPL (China) 0.448 0.022 6.466 0.105 0.176 **
LCL-TPL (Thailand) 0.157 0.048 3.281 0.035 0.244 *
Specific indirect effects of LCL→TT→TPL
LCL-TPL (China) 0.150 0.031 3.116 0.045 0.147 **
LCL-TPL (Thailand) 0.068 0.036 1.875 −0.008 0.139 –
Note: 2000 bootstrapped samples. CI = confidence-interval; LCL = learning-centered leadership; TT = teacher trust; TA =
teacher agency; TPL = teacher professional learning. Standardised indirect effects 95% CI does not include zero.
*p < .01; **p < 0.001.

of LCL on TPL (β = 0.411, p < .001) in the Chinese schools, the effect of LCL on TPL in the
Thai schools was ‘fully mediated’ by teacher trust and agency (see Figure 2). Second, there
was a somewhat stronger effect of LCL on TA in the Chinese schools (β = 0.344, p < .01).
than in the Thai schools (β = 0.183, p < .01).
We next used bootstrap analysis to gain additional insight into these patterns (Preacher
and Hayes 2008). The bootstrap analysis identified a ‘joint mediating effect’ of TT and TA in
both sets of schools (see Table 5). We reconfirmed the direction of this effect by testing an
 12   P. HALLINGER ET AL.

alternative model (i.e. TA to TT). However, the path was non-significant and the model fit
was weaker than for the proposed model shown in Figures 1 and 2 (not Tabled). This sug-
gests that the effects of learning-centered leadership accrued through a process of building
trust, which acted as a foundation for teacher agency, leading to higher teacher motivation
and engagement in professional learning.
Bootstrap analysis also offered insight into the strength of effects in the mediation mod-
els. The ‘total effect’ (β) of LCL on TPL was 0.807 (p < .001) in the China schools and 0.767
(p < .001) in the Thailand schools. These represent very strong effects sizes and convey
the message that learning-centered leadership plays an important role in shaping teacher
professional learning in both societies.

Discussion
This study compared the effects of learning-centred leadership on teacher professional
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

learning in China and Thailand. In this final section of the paper we review methodological
limitations, offer our interpretation of the findings, and highlight implications for research
and practice.

Limitations
The cross-sectional design and single source method of data collection limit conclusions
concerning causal relationships in our model. In addition, although we guaranteed ano-
nymity to the respondents, Thailand and China are hierarchical societies where respondents
are prone to offer ‘socially desirable responses’. We employed Harman’s single factor test to
analyse common method variance and qualitative data to check the validity of the teacher
responses. These additional data analyses (not Tabled) supported the quantitative findings
reported in this report.
We also wish to re-emphasise the boundaries of this research focusing on leadership
and teacher learning. Our focus on ‘teacher professional learning’ was justified through
reference to its impact on education reform and school improvement (e.g. Barth 1990;
Lieberman and Pointer Mace 2008; Parise and Spillane 2010; Printy 2008). Nonetheless, this
study did not ‘close the loop’ by linking teacher learning to changes in teaching practices or
student learning. Moreover, given differences between the learning of adults and children,
the results from this study cannot necessarily be transferred to our understanding of how
principals and teachers impact the learning of children. These stand as limitations of the
current study and challenges for future research.

Interpretation of the findings

This research compared leadership and teacher learning processes in Thailand and China.
As noted earlier, the inclusion of ‘leadership’ in the role set of principals in these and other
developing societies is a relatively recent phenomenon (Hallinger and Lee 2014; Qian and
Walker 2013; Somprach, Tang, and Popoonsak 2017; Walker and Hallinger 2015; Zheng
et al. 2017). Our results affirm the efficacy of adopting ‘leadership for learning’ as a means
of enhancing teacher learning and school improvement (Drago-Severson 2012; Printy 2008;
Saphier, King, and Aurier 2006; Smylie and Hart 1999). We wish to re-emphasise that our
 COMPARE   13

model of LCL-integrated features of instructional, transformational, and learning-focused

leadership (see Leithwood and Louis 2011; Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008). Thus, our
findings are supportive of a general ‘leadership for learning perspective’ rather than the
particular model adopted in this study.
The study demonstrated strong measurement invariance of a common set of leadership
and relational processes across two societies. This represents an incremental step forward in
comparative research in educational leadership and management. The fact that these socie-
ties share some common cultural (e.g. power distance, collectivism) and institutional (high
centralisation) characteristics could account for similarities in these processes. However,
since data were not collected on the societal contexts, we are cannot speculate on the forces
that shape these leadership and learning processes.
As noted earlier, leadership scholars are currently engaged in a global effort to hone in
on features of leadership that are universal versus those which are context-bound or soci-
ety-specific (Belchetz and Leithwood 2007; Clarke and O’Donoghue 2017; Dimmock and
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

Walker 2000; Hallinger 2016; Hallinger and Walker 2017; Qian, Walker, and Li 2017; Walker
and Hallinger 2015). Our findings affirm Belchetz and Leithwood’s (2007) contention that
core leadership practices may be applicable across societies, with differences in how they
are adapted in different contexts. For example, despite broad similarity in our results for
Thailand and China, we also found differences. Direct effects of principal leadership on
teacher agency and learning evident in the Chinese schools were absent in the Thai schools.
While this did not change the main conclusion of model invariance across the two societies,
it demonstrates how a broadly similar model may also be adaptive to different contexts.
The fact that this research focused on ‘developing societies’ offers a useful extension of
the ‘Western literature’ on leadership and learning (e.g. Drago-Severson 2012; Geijsel et
al. 2009; Leithwood and Louis 2011; Parise and Spillane 2010; Printy 2008; Qian, Walker,
and Li 2017; Smylie and Hart 1999; Thoonen et al. 2012). For example, offer a refined
perspective on the role of trust, at least within these two societies. Although we identified
strong effects of principal leadership on teacher trust, trust did not evidence ‘meaningful
direct effects’ on teacher professional learning in either society. Only after teachers’ sense of
agency had been ‘activated’ did the effects of trust become evident in teacher engagement
in professional learning (see Frost 2006; Kwakman 2003). This finding seems significant
because in East Asian societies trust and harmony are frequently held up as desirable goals
in and of themselves (Dimmock and Walker 2000; Holmes, Tangtongtavy, and Tomizawa
1995). We suggest that learning-centred leadership may play a key role by transforming
trust into agency and teacher learning (see also Peng et al. 2006; Qian, Walker, and Yang
2016; Wang 2016; Zhao 2010).

Implications of the findings

Our findings highlight the role of leadership in creating conditions that motivate, engage and
sustain the continued learning of teachers. In an era of rapid change, sustainable education
reform must be grounded in the continuous learning and development of teachers (Barth
1990; Lieberman and Pointer Mace 2008; Louis 2007; Parise and Spillane 2010; Timperley
2011; Vescio, Ross, and Adams 2008). Gaining additional insight into the ‘catalytic effects’
of leadership in fostering teacher trust, agency, and learning represents an important line
of future inquiry. Our findings should be verified and elaborated by detailed qualitative
 14   P. HALLINGER ET AL.

descriptions of leadership and teacher learning practices and interactions (e.g. Liu and
Hallinger 2017; Tran, Hallinger, and Truong 2017).
Policymakers may consider reorienting the formal role of principals to include ‘leadership
for learning’. This seems especially salient in developing societies where principals have
not traditionally assumed this role (Hallinger and Lee 2014; Hallinger and Walker 2017;
Tran, Hallinger, and Truong 2017; Walker and Hallinger 2015). We wonder, for example,
how many principals in developing societies are fully aware of the impact that they can
have on the learning of their teachers (and students). This reorientation of the principal’s
role requires training and socialisation experiences that develop perspectives and skills
relevant to this role.
This research also highlights conditions that principals can create to support the pro-
fessional learning of their teachers (Drago-Severson 2012; Liu and Hallinger 2017; Tran,
Hallinger, and Truong 2017). Collaborative school-based learning requires a foundation of
trust between the principal and teachers, and among teachers (Bryk and Schneider 2002;
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

Hoy and Tschannen-Moran 1999; Louis 2007; Qian and Walker 2013; Wang 2016; Youngs
and King 2002). However, in order for trust to support collaborative learning, school leaders
must activate a sense of ‘agency’ among their teachers (Barth 1990; Frost 2006; Kwakman
2003; Tran, Hallinger, and Truong 2017; Youngs and King 2002).
School leaders foster teacher agency by involving teachers in making decisions on learn-
ing priorities and budget allocation (Drago-Severson 2012; Frost 2006; Kwakman 2003;
Smylie and Hart 1999). They take time to understand the varying needs of different teachers
and provide tangible support for development (Liu and Hallinger 2017; Printy 2008; Smylie
and Hart 1999; Timperley 2011; Youngs and King 2002). Leaders who participate in profes-
sional learning activities with their teachers model norms of collaboration and collegiality
(Barth 1990; Printy 2008; Qian and Walker 2013; Robinson, Lloyd, and Rowe 2008; Saphier,
King, and Aurier 2006). This conveys the message that ‘our learning’ is important. From
an instrumental perspective, principal participation in learning with teachers also yields
critical information on what is needed to support teachers during the implementation of
new practices. Finally, leaders of learning model an attitude of high expectations and opti-
mism, articulating ambitious goals, and the belief that ‘we will succeed’ (Barth 1990; Liu
and Hallinger 2017; Saphier, King, and Aurier 2006).

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Funding
This work was supported by Thailand Sustainable Development Foundation.

References
Barth, R. S. 1990. Improving Schools from within. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Belchetz, D., and K. Leithwood. 2007. “Successful Leadership: Does Context Matter and If So, How?.”
In Successful Principal Leadership in times of Change: An International PerspectiveIn, edited by C.
Day and K. Leithwood, 117–138. Netherland: Springer, Dordrecht.
 COMPARE   15

Brislin, R. W. 1970. “Back-Translation for Cross-Cultural Research.” Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology 1 (3): 185–216.
Bryk, A., and B. Schneider. 2002. Trust in Schools: A Core Resource for Improvement. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Cheung, G. W., and R. B. Rensvold. 2002. “Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing
Measurement Invariance.” Structural Equation Modeling 9 (2): 233–255.
Clarke, S., and T. O’Donoghue. 2017. “Educational Leadership and Context: A Rendering of an
Inseparable Relationship.” British Journal of Educational Studies 65 (2): 167–182.
Da’as, R. A. 2017. “School Principals’ Leadership Skills: Measurement Equivalence across Cultures.”
Compare: A Journal of Comparative and International Education 47 (2): 207–222.
Dimmock, C. A., and A. Walker. 2000. Future School Administration: Western and Asian Perspectives.
Beijing: Chinese University Press.
Drago-Severson, E. 2012. “New Opportunities for Principal Leadership: Shaping School Climates
for Enhanced Teacher Development.” Teachers College Record 114 (3): 1–44.
Emirbayer, M., and A. Mische. 1998. “What is Agency?” American Journal of Sociology 103 (4):
962–1023.
Evers, A. T., K. Kreijns, I. J. M. Béatrice, and V. der Heijden. 2016. “The Design and Validation of
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

an Instrument to Measure Teachers’ Professional Development at Work.” Studies in Continuing

Education 38 (2): 162–178.
Frost, D. 2006. “The Concept of ‘Agency’ in Leadership for Learning.” Leading & Managing 12 (2):
19–28.
Fry, G. W., and H. Bi. 2013. “The Evolution of Educational Reform in Thailand: The Thai Educational
Paradox.” Journal of Educational Administration 51 (3): 290–319.
Geijsel, F. P., P. J. Sleegers, R. D. Stoel, and M. L. Krüger. 2009. “The Effect of Teacher Psychological
and School Organizational and Leadership Factors on Teachers' Professional Learning in Dutch
Schools.” The Elementary School Journal 109 (4): 406–427.
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.
Hallinger, P. 2011. “Leadership for Learning: Lessons from 40 Years of Empirical Research.” Journal
of Educational Administration 49 (2): 125–142.
Hallinger, P. 2016. Bringing Context out of the Shadows of Leadership. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership 1–20. doi:10.1177/1741143216670652.
Hallinger, P., and M. S. Lee. 2014. “Mapping Instructional Leadership in Thailand: Has Education
Reform Impacted Principal Practice?” Educational Management, Administration and Leadership
42 (1): 6–29.
Hallinger, P., P. Piyaman, and P. Viseshsiri. 2017. “Assessing the Effects of Learning-Centered
Leadership on Teacher Professional Learning in Thailand.” Teaching and Teacher Education 67:
464–476.
Hallinger, P., and A. D. Walker. 2017. “Leading Learning in Asia: Emerging Empirical Insights from
Five Societies.” Journal of Educational Administration 5 (2): 130–146.
Holmes, H., S. Tangtongtavy, and R. Tomizawa. 1995. Working with the Thais: A Guide to Managing
in Thailand. Bangkok: White Lotus.
Hoy, W. K., and M. Tschannen-Moran. 1999. “Five Faces of Trust: An Empirical Confirmation in
Urban Elementary Schools.” Journal of School Leadership 9: 184–208.
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.
Kwakman, K. 2003. “Factors Affecting Teachers’ Participation in Professional Learning Activities.”
Teaching and Teacher Education 19 (2): 149–170.
Leithwood, K., and K. S. Louis. 2011. Linking Leadership to Student Learning. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.
 16   P. HALLINGER ET AL.

Li, L., and P. Hallinger. 2016. “Teacher Professional Learning in Hong Kong: Mediating Effects of
Trust, Communication, and Collaboration.” International Journal of Leadership in Education. Dx.
doi:10.1080/13603124.2016.1139188.
Lieberman, A., and D. H. Pointer Mace. 2008. “Teacher Learning: The Key to Educational Reform.”
Journal of Teacher Education 59 (3): 226–234.
Little, J. W. 2012. Professional Community and Professional Development in the Learning-Centered
School. In Teacher Learning That Matters: International Perspectives, edited by M. Kooy and K. van
Veen, 22–46, London: Routledge.
Liu, S., and P. Hallinger. 2017. “Leading Teacher Learning in China: A Mixed Methods Study.” In How
School Leadership Influences Student Learning: The Four Paths, edited by K. Leithwood, J. Sun and
K. Pollock, 279–303. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Liu, S., P. Hallinger, and D. Feng. 2016. “Learning-Centered Leadership and Teacher Learning in
China: Does Trust Matter?” Journal of Educational Administration 54 (6): 661–682.
Louis, K. S. 2007. “Changing the Culture of Schools: Professional Community, Organizational
Learning, and Trust.” Journal of School Leadership 16: 477–487.
McAllister, D. J. 1995. “Affect- and Cognition-Based Trust as Foundations for Interpersonal
Cooperation in Organizations.” Academy of Management Journal 38 (1): 24–59.
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

Paine, L. W., and Y. Fang. 2006. “Reform as Hybrid Model of Teaching and Teacher Development in
China.” International Journal of Educational Research 45 (4-5): 279–289.
Parise, L. M., and J. Spillane. 2010. “Teacher Learning and Instructional Change: How Formal and
On-the-Job Learning Opportunities Predict Change in Elementary School Teachers’ Practice.” The
Elementary School Journal 110 (3): 323–346.
Peng, H. M., Y. Wang, R. H. Huang, and G. Chen. 2006. “Yuancheng xuexi xiaonenggan de jiegou he
yingxiang yinsu yanjiu [Self-efficacy of distance learning: Structure and related factors].” Kaifang
Jiaoyu Yanjiu [Open Educational Research] 12 (2): 41–45.
Preacher, K. J., and A. F. Hayes. 2008. “Asymptotic and Resampling Strategies for Assessing and
Comparing Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models.” Behavior Research Methods 40 (3):
879–891.
Printy, S. M. 2008. “Leadership for Teacher Learning: A Community of Practice Perspective.”
Educational Administration Quarterly 44 (2): 187–226.
Qian, H., and A. D. Walker. 2013. “How Principals Promote and Understand Teacher Development
under Curriculum Reform in China.” Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 41 (3): 304–315.
Qian, H., A. Walker, and X. Li. 2017. “The West Wind vs the East Wind: Instructional Leadership
Model in China.” Journal of Educational Administration 55 (2): 186–206.
Qian, H., A. D. Walker, and X. Yang. 2016. “Building and Leading a Learning Culture among Teachers:
A Case Study of a Shanghai Primary School.” Educational Management Administration & Leadership
45 (1): 101–122.
Robinson, V., C. Lloyd, and Kenneth J. Rowe. 2008. “The Impact of Leadership on Student Outcomes:
An Analysis of the Differential Effects of Leadership Types.” Educational Administration Quarterly
44 (5): 635–674.
Saphier, J., M. King, and J. D’Auria. 2006. “Three Strands Form Strong School Leadership.” Journal
of Staff Development 27 (2): 51–57.
Schechter, C., and M. Qadach. 2012. “Toward an Organizational Model of Change in Elementary
Schools: The Contribution of Organizational Learning Mechanisms.” Educational Administration
Quarterly 48 (1): 116–153.
Shen, X. Y. 2015. “Institutional Legitimacy, Teacher Agency, and the Development of Teacher Teaching
Expertise.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China.
Smylie, M. A., and A. W. Hart. 1999. “School Leadership for Teacher Learning and Change: A
Human and Social Capital Development Perspective.” In Handbook of Research on Educational
Administration, edited by J. Murphy and K. Louis, 421–441, San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Somprach, K., K. N. Tang, and P. Popoonsak. 2017. “The Relationship between School Leadership
and Professional Learning Communities in Thai Basic Education Schools.” Educational Research
for Policy and Practice 16 (2): 157–175.
 COMPARE   17

Thoonen, E. E., P. J. Sleegers, F. J. Oort, and T. T. Peetsma. 2012. “Building School-Wide Capacity for
Improvement: The Role of Leadership, School Organizational Conditions, and Teacher Factors.”
School Effectiveness and School Improvement 23 (4): 441–460.
Timperley, H. 2011. Realizing the Power of Professional Learning. London: McGraw-Hill Education.
Tran, N., P. Hallinger, and T. Truong. 2017. “The Heart of School Improvement: A Multi-Site Case
Study of Leadership for Teacher Learning in Vietnam.” School Leadership and Management. doi:
10.1080/13632434.2017.1371690.
Tschannen-Moran, M., and W. K. Hoy. 2000. “A Multidisciplinary Analysis of the Nature, Meaning,
and Measurement of Trust.” Review of Educational Research 70 (4): 547–593.
Vandenberg, R. J., and C. E. Lance. 2000. “A Review and Synthesis of the Management Invariance
Literature: Suggestions, Practices, and Recommendations for Organizational Research.”
Organizational Research Methods 3 (1): 4–70.
Vescio, V., D. Ross, and A. Adams. 2008. “A Review of Research on the Impact of Professional Learning
Communities on Teaching Practice and Student Learning.” Teaching and Teacher Education 24
(1): 80–91.
in de Wal, J. J., P. J. den Brok, J. G. Hooijer, R. L. Martens, and A. van den Beemt. 2014. “Teachers'
Engagement in Professional Learning: Exploring Motivational Profiles.” Learning and Individual
Downloaded by [Universite Laval] at 23:24 17 December 2017

Differences 36: 27–36.

Walker, A., and P. Hallinger. 2015. “Synthesis of Reviews of Research on Principal Leadership in East
Asia.” Journal of Educational Administration 53 (4): 467–491.
Wang, T. 2016. “School Leadership and Professional Learning Community: Case Study of Two Senior
High Schools in Northeast China.” Asia Pacific Journal of Education 36 (2): 202–216.
Youngs, P., and M. B. King. 2002. “Principal Leadership for Professional Development to Build School
Capacity.” Educational Administration Quarterly 38 (5): 643–670.
Zhao, J. 2010. “School Knowledge Management Framework and Strategies: The New Perspective on
Teacher Professional Development.” Computers in Human Behavior 26 (2): 168–175.
Zheng, Q., L. Li, H. Chen, and S. Loeb. 2017. “What Aspects of Principal Leadership Are Most Highly
Correlated with School Outcomes in China?” Educational Administration Quarterly. doi:10.117
7/0013161X17706152.