Innovative Professional Learning Communities and Sustainable Education Practices through Digital Transformation

Abstract

Education is the most important part of sustainable society development. Traditional approaches to permanent lifelong educator training often fail to produce lasting changes in teaching practices (UN, Goal 4). This paper examines how educator involvement in a professional learning community (PLC) ensures equitable quality education and promotes lifelong learning opportunities for all and a sustainable digital transformation of the teaching and learning process. Participation in PLC and the use of contemporary learning environments positively impact the quality of educators’ work, thereby enhancing the overall educational process. This study utilised a quantitative methodology, employing both descriptive and inferential statistics to analyse the data. Results indicate that a balanced integration of formal PLC structures and guidance, combined with elements of a non-formal, broader PLC and external incentives and support (such as projects), can surpass mere exchanges of best practices, foster innovation, and support the sustainable digital transformation of educators. This approach leads to a sustainable shift in pedagogical paradigms. The PLC_IP model (focused on including digital technologies and effective teaching strategies) enhances collective educator efficacy, contributing to improved teaching quality. For PLCs to achieve sustainability, they must be dynamic entities that adapt to the evolving educational landscape, ensuring their continued relevance and impact with rising completion rates over time. Our findings underscore the importance of innovative PLCs in driving sustainable educational development and improvement and provide a framework for future research and practical applications in educational settings. In addition, PLCs can strengthen the means of implementation and revitalise the global partnership for sustainable development (UN, Goal 17).

1. Introduction

The rapid advancement of digital technologies has required a significant shift and growing transformation in educational methods, demanding innovative approaches to professional development for educators. Traditional educator learning approaches frequently fail to promote sustainable changes in teaching practices, which reduces their efficacy and diminishes the quality of education that students receive [1,2,3]. Inclusive and quality education promotes lifelong learning opportunities, which are essential for achieving sustainable development. According to [4], the achievement of educational goals is slowly progressing, facing several shortcomings, which, among others, include a lack of educators and a lack of professional development opportunities for educators. Strengthening the means of implementation and revitalising the global partnership has been vital for achieving Sustainable Development Goals [1]. Effective partnerships leverage resources, knowledge, and technology, fostering a collaborative approach to global challenges.

The UNESCO report on The Digital Transformation of Education: Connecting Schools, Empowering Learners [5] identifies educators as important factors in the digital transformation of education, provided that modernising and renewing educators’ professional development ensures that they are able to take advantage of technology in support of the educational process. The emphasis, therefore, is not on technology and connectivity alone—they are merely conditions that, alongside a competent educator, enable students to participate in learning opportunities as part of an inclusive and effective learning process that promotes quality education and reduces inequalities.

The way teaching and learning take place today is very different from what it was a few decades ago since technology has made a considerable impact on teaching and learning methodologies. Digital technologies provide multiple benefits in order to improve teaching and learning by introducing new emerging pedagogical approaches. Today, educators need to be competent to make a transformation in their teaching. As schools strive for sustainable digital transformation, it becomes imperative to support and assist educators through their digital transformation practices. According to [6,7], educators require assistance and support in reframing educational concepts, creating educational platforms, selecting relevant materials, using digital tools and applications, and therefore, they need to proceed through a series of necessary educator training.

Research Scope and Aim

One practical approach to mapping the research gap and defining the scope of this study would be to gather and critically evaluate the literature from reputable search databases like IEEE, Scopus, and WoS and to develop a quantitative measurement. Two practical considerations led to the dissolution of such an approach: 1. PLC research in conjunction with SDGS is a relatively new phenomenon without a log history to serve as a longitude variable for the literature; 2. despite its recency, most of the studies show significant normative, narrative, and restrictive findings. Hence, in order to close the gap and define the parameters of the current study, a narrative discourse was employed instead. Nevertheless, the writings that follow justify the study’s applicability in the era of SDGs.

PLCs are instrumental in fostering continuous, reflective, and collaborative professional development among educators [8,9]. The inclusivity and scope of PLCs significantly influence their effectiveness, but for these communities to have a long-lasting impact, sustainability is a key factor that must be considered. Sustainable PLCs for educators differ significantly from traditional ones in several key aspects, primarily in their approach to collaboration, leadership, and continuous improvement [8]. Sustainable PLCs are genuine PLCs which emphasise transparency and active participation, fostering an environment where educators collaboratively analyse student data, share teaching strategies, and reflect on their practices to improve student outcomes [10,11,12]. Sustainable PLCs ensure that the benefits of collaborative learning and professional growth are maintained over time, leading to sustained improvements in teaching practices and student outcomes [13,14,15].

Our goal is to promote sustainable education in line with the objectives of the UNESCO Agenda 2030 and, in particular, with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 4 and 17 by providing insights from an innovative PLC model [1]. These goals focus on high-quality education and multi-stakeholder partnerships, including the integration of modern technologies in education for digital transformation. There are limited studies in the literature on how to sustain and lead a PLC over time after other incentives are gone [8,12,13].

The inclusion of digital technology in education is an ongoing process that can transform education in the future. Technology in education is a relatively new phenomenon [16,17]. Yet, an explicit model with a particular reference to PLC for ensuring sustainable education and learning is unexplored [17,18,19,20]—a directive of this study.

In this study, we propose a new framework for PLC—a professional learning community model for Innovative Pedagogy (a PLC_IP model) that incorporates sustainable educators’ professional development, where educators more frequently use innovative teaching strategies supported by digital technology, and which is also sustainable over time. The PLC_IP model was implemented through project activities of the project Innovative Learning Environments Supported by ICT (2017–2022), in which 75 Slovenian primary and secondary schools took part. Schools were divided into development schools (20) and implementation schools (55) based on the intensity of the PLC_IP implementation and their contribution to the project activities that focus on improving teaching strategies supported by digital technology. The project itself focuses on equipping educators with digital competencies that can be easily included in teaching activities. The PLC_IP model is a result of knowledge-sharing activities between external stakeholders (faculties and institutes) and educators in primary and secondary schools, along with the guidance of the project coordinator and funder.

A quantitative study was employed using a questionnaire for educators to evaluate the characteristics of the joint collaboration intensity of educators, their inclusion in different PLSs, their transformation of teaching strategies to foster higher cognitive levels of students, and engagement and diversity between different types of schools. The purpose of this study was to present a model that is ongoing and effective in sustaining non-formal and formal PLCs in schools. The PLC_IP model contains several overlapping formal and non-formal PLCs, which contribute to sustainable professional development. The PLC_IP model synergy fosters a fundamental shift in pedagogical paradigms, aligning with the goals of sustainable education and the digital transformation of teaching practices. Unlike other PLCs, the PLC_IP integrates formal structures with elements of a broader, non-formal community of educators, fostering a culture of continuous improvement, multi-stakeholder involvement and innovation with the inclusion of digital technology. Innovation is a facilitator of change and does not happen in isolation since innovation always emerges in specific social, economic, and technological contexts, the creation, diffusion, and application of which are influenced by the organisation and culture of these contexts [21]. Therefore, the focus is on demonstrating how the PLC_IP model helps to create an effective and genuine PLC that supports sustainability goals.

2. Literature Review

After highlighting the research scope and aim, this section explores the concept of PLC and how it relates to sustainable quality education.

2.1. Sustainable Change in Education through PLCs

It is necessary to dispel common misconceptions about three buzzwords—sustainability in education, education for sustainable development (ESD), and sustainable education—in order to outline the purpose and scope of this study [18,19]. While ESD refers to education linked to advancing the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) set forth by the United Nations, sustainability in education refers to those courses, activities, and research that aim to contribute to the development of the sustainability of the planet [18]. All initiatives, studies, and projects aimed at guaranteeing best practices in education and developing a sustainable education and learning system and these methods are together referred to as sustainable education [18,19]—the core connotation of this initiative—which also seeks to advance ESD.

If we want to achieve sustainable change and improvements in education, we must approach restructuring systematically and comprehensively. This aligns with the principles of Education for Sustainable Development (ESD) and Sustainable Education, both of which are rooted in the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and are part of global sustainability. It refers to educational practices that contribute to a continually evolving, healthy learning ecosystem in which knowledge is co-created and shared in a community, including society, economy and environment. Sustainable education covers a wider spectrum in education “such as curriculum and instructional technology, teacher education, technology and innovation in education, school settings, education policy, best practice in education, international education and development, educational segmentation” [16,17,19].

The UN vision for Transforming Education, “Transforming Education: An Urgent Policy Imperative for Our Common Future”, is the official outcome of the Transforming Education Meeting held in 2022 [22]. The UN vision recognises that education is one of the most important factors of unification, while in many cases, it is also an important factor that separates us [1]. This UN vision further notes that education is in crisis and requires immediate, medium and long-term responses, including a fundamental rethinking of the purpose and content of education.

Education content must be based on two principles of the new social contract for education: ensuring the right to quality education throughout life and strengthening education as a source of public common good in society. Education for sustainable development is increasingly internationally recognised as an integral element of quality education and a critical factor in sustainable development [22]. This UN vision is closely related to international discussions on sustainable development, which have grown in scope and importance since the publication of Our Common Future in 1987 [23], which provided the first widely used definition of sustainable development: “development that meets the needs of the present without jeopardizing the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”

One of the most effective ways to implement sustainable education practices and achieve sustainable improvements in schools is through the establishment of PLCs. These communities are increasingly being adopted in schools to foster sustainable change through collaboration [15]. To cultivate an effective and lasting PLC, it is crucial to grasp and implement several foundational concepts: a unified set of shared values and a common vision, supportive leadership, collaborative learning, the practical application of new knowledge, school capacity, collective practices, and an infrastructure that supports and nurtures positive relationships among all stakeholders involved [15,24].

ESD merges educational goals with sustainable development, making it a key component of educators’ professional development. Ongoing self-improvement is essential for sustainable professional growth in teaching; without it, the quality of education suffers. Sustainability is a vital element in the educator development model, and the PLC process provides a sustainable approach to professional development [14].

2.2. Quality Education and Professional Development

We perceive quality education as being closely linked to competent and high-quality educators who impart relevant knowledge in conductive and supportive learning environments. Numerous studies have confirmed the generally accepted view that educators are the most significant school-related contributors to improving the quality of teaching and learning [25,26]. Ref. [27] assumes that the quality of teaching and the involvement of educators in PLC are the two key factors in raising the quality of the school. In this spirit, Ernest Boyer wrote: “When you talk about school improvement, you are talking about people. That’s the only way to improve schools” [28]. Ref. [29] found that the collaboration of a group of quality educators could go a long way in filling the achievement gaps for different groups of students. If an educator is ineffective, students who benefit from their teaching process will progress more slowly, regardless of the cognitive differences between them [30]. Ref. [30] notes the link between educator training and student performance in vocational schools in Slovenia: “the less often educators have attended in-service training, the higher the number of students repeating a school year”. Ref. [25] identified the educator as the single most important school-related input to improve student achievement. Ref. [14] also corroborates these findings. According to [31], collective educator efficacy is the number one factor influencing student achievement. Similarly, [32] believes that collective educator efficacy is one of the most important factors for the quality of teaching. Ref. [32] introduced “A Model for Leading Collective Educator Efficacy”, in which they highlight the direct correlation between student achievement and collective educator efficacy.

As [33] states: “Today, it is understood that professional development is no longer a choice of motivated individuals but a necessity for every educator”. To empower educators to attain the knowledge and competencies that are necessary for educator effectiveness, in addition to high-quality university educator education, an effective system of lifelong educator training is also needed. The traditional approach to permanent educator training is a form of training in which the organiser of education (most often, a school) organises educator training by inviting an expert who conducts training for educators in their area of expertise according to a predetermined time frame [34]. In such a time-limited transfer of knowledge from an expert to a group of educators, the internalisation of new knowledge and, thus, the transfer into practice occurs rarely. If placing the student in an active role is an important tenet of constructivism, then the same could be argued for educators as well. When educators are only passive participants in informal forms of training, they are unable to construct their own knowledge, and at the same time, they are also not internalising external knowledge. This means that such traditional approaches to permanent educator training do not (sufficiently) affect concrete educator practices. They also have no measurable effect on student achievement [35]. According to a study by [36], traditional approaches to educator training have a detrimental effect on changing the educator’s approach to teaching since less than 10% of participants in such training use new knowledge/competencies in the classroom permanently. This is further supported by [37], who believes that traditional approaches to permanent educator training are inefficient and need to be improved in terms of economy, quality, efficiency and continuance so that by raising the quality of educators’ professional and pedagogical skills, we can indirectly raise the quality of teaching and improve the knowledge and competencies of students. It is, therefore, necessary to create a new, more effective model for permanent educator training. To undertake this, the concept of permanent educator training needs to be modified and brought into line with the constructivist learning theory. Educators, too, should be placed in an active role in the training process; they should be given the opportunity to construct their own knowledge and internalise that knowledge by taking part in professional learning communities (PLCs).

The distinctive connection between quality education and ESD has significantly shaped the overall understanding of quality education. The ESD perspective emphasises lifelong learning, and it prioritises equipping learners with the skills and values necessary to tackle global sustainability challenges [10].

2.3. Digital Transformation in Education

Digital transformation in education is one of the current discourses on technology in education and goes beyond the introduction of digital technology. Most of the studies in the literature in this field examine how technology, particularly digitalisation, may support the long-term growth of education. These initiatives have been able to highlight both advantages and disadvantages. Models are created and then promoted for use in practice to mitigate the negative consequences of digitalisation in education [16,17].

When we think about the meaningful use of technology in education (the process of teaching and learning), the emphasis is on the learner. Technology here is not only a means for distance communication or the display/illustration of certain phenomena and motivation, but it must also support the learning process and the active role of the learner. When judging the meaningful use of technology in the educational process, it is expedient to use the SAMR model [38]. The SAMR model includes four phases (substitution, augmentation, modification and redefinition), referring to improvement in the first two phases and transformation in the last two. The educator must be able to judge when it makes sense to use digital technology in order to improve the quality of the learning process. Otherwise, it is only a substitution or replacement of the traditional form of activity implementation without added value to the improvement and promotion of the development of higher cognitive processes [38].

An educator needs different kinds of skills and knowledge to successfully incorporate technology into teaching. The TPACK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) model includes, in addition to knowledge of content and pedagogy, a technological component of knowledge and their interactions with content and pedagogy. The educator is the one who, in order to achieve set goals (assimilation of knowledge, development of competencies, attitudes, etc.), plans the learning process and, in doing so, thoughtfully combines content and different pedagogical approaches and uses learning resources (e.g., digital technology) [39]. With all these complex interactions in mind, educators need structured and systematic training and support to incorporate digital technology into their teaching strategies and ensure quality education to students—e.g., by implementing the PLC_IP model.

2.4. Professional Learning Communities

A PLC is defined as a group (of educators) sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning-oriented and growth-promoting way [40]. For instance, student learning can only be improved through educator learning. The goal of PLCs is not just mutual and shared learning but to bring about sustainable changes for the benefit of students and all stakeholders involved. Ref. [41] explained that sustained change through PLCs can be developed with both individual and group learning activities to continually enhance educators’ teaching methods and own teaching practice.

The impact of a PLC on student achievement is schematically shown in Figure 1.

Ref. [40] suggests five major attributes of an effective professional learning community of educators:

• Shared values and visions with real-world application put into practice by the community;
• Collective responsibility for student learning;
• Reflective professional inquiry, including the frequent examining of educators’ practice through mutual observation and case analysis, joint planning and curriculum development, joint seeking and sharing of knowledge, and applying new ideas to problem-solving;
• Collaboration beyond superficial exchanges of help or support, which develops into a sense of interdependence in achieving a common goal: improving student achievement;
• Promotion of individual and group learning.

This raises the question of what inclusive and sustainable professional learning communities should be like in order to effectively enable/support the achievement of set goals? It raises the following further questions: Do PLCs involve just educators or other school staff as well? Do they involve all educators in a school, or can they operate at the level of a subject area? Can PLCs operate between different schools? All these questions are relevant to consider when setting up a sustainable PLC in a particular school supported by the organisational culture. Although PLCs are often defined within a school and depend on its size, level, leadership, structure and established culture, [40,41] there are also the key PLC characteristics of list openness, networking and partnerships, which allow them to look beyond the school for sources of learning, educator training, and new ideas. Similarly, [42,43] suggests that collaboration between schools can be a possible solution in training educators to use new technologies.

The quality of an educator’s work is conditioned both by the knowledge and experience that future educators gain during their education, as well as permanent on-the-job training [44]. International research shows that the methods educators use depend more on their environment and the culture of teaching in which they grew up than on their education. Few educators outgrow the way in which they themselves were taught [45]. This is why the collaborative culture of educators is so important for introducing change in education. According to the constructivist theory, mutual interaction is an essential part of the learning process, as “learning is a social process in which an individual forms an opinion in interaction with others and the environment” [46].

An educator, an adept professional who receives education within familiar frameworks, must transform into an innovative lifelong learning professional seeking inspiration, knowledge and support. The development of a strong professional identity is the first step towards successful participation in a relevant professional network, where educators draw on new ideas and, in collaboration with others, look for answers to new challenges, translating them into a local context. An innovative educator [46] is the following:

• A competent and passionate professional who, in collaboration with others, realises the best education for his/her students;
• Has a positive attitude towards research and lifelong learning;
• Participates wilfully in various professional networks and returns to the classroom with valuable insights;
• Is related to developments in society, especially its digital transformation, but at the same time appreciates cultural diversity.

A well-organised PLC, supported by school management, with a clear and internalised vision, as part of which planned training takes place and which at the same time acts as a safe space for reflection, doubt and collaboration, enables lifelong teacher training, with the aim of introducing sustainable change to improve learners’ achievements [47].

2.5. Conceptual PLC_IP Model Development and Implementation

The PLC_IP model was developed based on the activities of a national project entitled Innovative Learning Environments Supported by ICT, co-funded by the Ministry of Education and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia and the European Social Fund. It included four higher education and research institutions as external stakeholders to provide knowledge-sharing processes to educators: the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Mathematics of the University of Maribor, the Faculty of Education of the University of Maribor, the National Education Institute of the Republic of Slovenia, and the Educational Research Institute. In addition to these, the project coordinator—the Institute of Anton Martin Slomšek—led the project activities, in which 75 primary and secondary Slovenian schools collaborated. The project started in May 2017 and ended in October 2022. As part of this project, PLCs were created gradually over the course of three years, as shown in Figure 2. The implementation of the PLC_IP model started in the first year in development schools and gradually expanded to implementation schools in the second and third years. In the fourth year, the PLC activities, as well as teaching strategies with digital technology inclusion, were evaluated with a quantitative survey (Figure 2).

According to [48], effective teaching strategies are instructional methods and approaches that have been proven to have a positive impact on student learning. They promote student learning and engagement, create a supportive classroom climate, incorporate peer learning and collaboration, differentiate instruction, use research-based learning strategies, provide effective feedback, and reflect on the impact of teaching on student learning. By employing innovative teaching strategies, educators are able to foster higher cognitive levels among students.

Schools were divided into two groups in this study—20 development and 55 implementation schools. Development schools serve as the catalysts for educational change. They act as engines of change, driving the evolution of teaching practices by sharing best practices and documenting and disseminating knowledge about successful teaching strategies and lessons learned supported by digital technologies. Implementation schools benefit from the groundwork laid out by development schools and other forms of knowledge sharing provided by the external stakeholders involved. These schools adopt and adapt the proven practices and digital technologies developed by their counterparts. The spillover effect from development schools to implementation schools ensures that innovative practices are scaled and integrated more broadly across the education system.

The PLC_IP consists of five interrelated clusters (see Figure 3). Level 1 represents the PLC cluster of a single school. The Level 1 cluster is led by top management and authority staff in single schools, namely principals and/or educator coordinators from those schools. A Level 1 PLC represents the core of the PLC_IP model. The second cluster is the Level 2 (L2) cluster that covers the PLC of development schools (PLC_R), which, in this case, includes all 20 development schools. When L1 and L2 are strong and stable enough, integration can begin at the third cluster of Level 3 (L3). A Level 3 cluster involves a PLC of development and implementation schools that have similar interests and contents or are locally connected. The work of these communities is guided by an experienced PLC development school coordinator. All PLCs of development and implementation schools together are connected at Level 4 (L4), where the work is guided and synchronised with experts from four higher education and research institutions. In this way, activities at all levels of the PLC are precisely defined and coordinated. Finally, the fifth cluster—Level 5 (L5)—represents the opening of the PLC_IP to the wider public: interested educators from other schools in the country become part of a non-formal social (virtual) PLC cluster monitored by school coordinators.

Additionally, the structure of the PLC_IP model enables the design of activities in such a way that educators are included gradually according to the level of their interests, as shown in Figure 4. Educators teaching in innovative classes (10–12 educators in development schools and 3–4 in implementation schools) comprise the core of the PLC in each school at Level 1. In addition, other interested educators in each school are regularly involved in the practices of the school’s PLC.

3. Research Questions

Based on the theoretical and conceptual presentation of the PLC_IP model, the following research questions drove this research:

• RQ1. How does length of service, i.e., occupational seniority, correlate and differ in regard to educators’ involvement in PLCs?
• RQ2. To what extent does the implementation of the PLC_IP model in schools affect their participation in other PLCs?
• RQ3. How do educators participating in the PLC_IP model report the frequency of using effective teaching strategies with digital technology-supported student work?

4. Research Methodology

4.1. Research Instrument and Methods

A quantitative methodology was used to answer the research questions. The questionnaire was based on the report [49] covering the frequency of selected effective teaching strategies and inclusion in different PLCs. This cross-sectional study was conducted at the end of the project. Questions were prepared with a four-point Likert scale. The questionnaire was sent to 75 schools (participants of the project), and we received 1065 valid responses from educators. Prior to distribution through an online application, the questionnaire was piloted with a small group of educators to refine the questions and ensure clarity and reliability. Content validity was established through an expert review.

Both descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to analyse the data and to answer the research questions. We analysed PLC_IP’s implementation and development in schools. A t-test for independent samples was used to provide statistically significant differences between two groups of schools to draw final conclusions. Effect sizes were calculated using Cohen’s d to assess the practical significance of the observed differences.

The chosen methods best provided the answers to our research questions, as we were interested in the characteristics of educators and their involvement in the PLC_IP (formal and non-formal PLCs) and in the transformation of their teaching strategies across different types of schools.

4.2. Ethical Considerations

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the project, ensuring they were aware of the study’s purpose, procedures, and their right to withdraw at any time. Confidentiality and anonymity were maintained by assigning unique identifiers to each respondent and storing data securely.

4.3. Research Sample

The conceptual model was tested in 75 primary and secondary schools from across Slovenia. Of these, 20 were development schools, while PLCs were created for the 55 implementation schools. All educators participated in the PLCs on a voluntary basis. A total of 1,065 educators were included in the research, including 235 male and 830 female. Their length of service (years of teaching experience) is shown in

Table 1. Structure of respondents according to the number of years of teaching experience (length of service).

Length of Service	Frequency	Percentage
1. (0–5 years)	139	12%
2. (5–10 years)	82	7%
3. (10–17 years)	124	11%
4. (over 17 years)	720	70%
Total	1065	100%

.

5. Results

First, following the RQ1, the relationship between educators’ length of service and their involvement and participation in PLCs was examined. We were interested in whether educators with more years of working experience were more often involved in different PLCs.

The average length of service for Slovenian educators was 17 years [38]; therefore, we selected 17 years as a dividing line. According to their length of service, educators were divided into two groups. Group 1 included educators with less than 17 years of work experience, and Group 2 included educators with 17 or more years of work experience. The descriptive statistics show that educators with less than 17 years of service are, on average, more often engaged in alternative PLCs (National Education Institute, social networks, projects) than in school PLCs. (See

Table 2. Length of service—descriptive statistics.

Participation in PLCs according to Years of Experience as an Educator	Length of Service	N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Q1. I participate in the PLC at the school.	<17 years	347	1.60	0.491
	>17 years	790	1.62	0.486
Q2. I participate in the PLC of the National Education Institute.	<17 years	347	1.20	0.402
	>17 years	790	1.19	0.393
Q3. I participate in the PLC on social networks.	<17 years	347	1.33	0.469
	>17 years	790	1.23	0.420
Q4. I participate in the PLC as part of the project.	<17 years	347	1.47	0.500
	>17 years	790	1.42	0.516

).

Next, statistically significant differences between the two groups (according to length of service) were tested with a t-test for independent samples, as displayed in

Table 3. Independent sample t-test: t-test of educator participation in PLCs according to years of experience as an educator.

Equal Variances Assumed		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-Test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-Tailed)	Mean Diff.
Q1	Yes	1.875	0.171	−0.715	1135	0.475	−0.022
	No			−0.712	654.273	0.477	−0.022
Q2	Yes	0.681	0.410	0.415	1135	0.678	0.011
	No			0.412	648.285	0.681	0.011
Q3	Yes	41.379	0.000 **	3.488	1135	0.001 **	0.098
	No			3.339	599.382	0.001 **	0.098
Q4	Yes	0.217	0.641	1.658	1135	0.098	0.055
	No			1.678	680.023	0.094	0.055

Note: ** sig. less than 0.01.

.

The t-test for independent samples provides evidence of whether the arithmetic means of the two groups showed a statistically significant difference. The value of Sig in questions 1, 2 and 4 is greater than 0.05 (p > 0.05); therefore, the assumption of a homogeneity of variances was maintained. The value of Sig (2-tailed) for all these items is also less than 0.05, meaning that there are no statistically significant differences according to the distinction for length of service. Q3 (“participation in PLCs on social networks”), however, provides a statistically significant difference between the two observed groups: educators with less than 17 years of work experience (younger educators) participate more often in PLCs on social networks than those with longer lengths of service.

Furthermore, we tested how educators’ lengths of service correlated with their participation in PLCs. We found that a minor negative statistically significant correlation exists between years of service and participation in social networks PLCs and also the project’s PLCs. This confirms that educators with fewer years of teaching experience (younger) participate more frequently in social network PLCs as well as project PLCs. This negative correlation suggests that the more years of teaching experience educators have, the less likely they collaborate in the PLCs. Correlation is statistically significant for PLCs in social networks and PLCs in projects.

Next, we tested differences in participation for PLCs between the educators in development schools (DSs) and in implementation schools (ISs). The total number of educators in DSs and ISs was 511 and 554, respectively. The calculated arithmetic mean values in

Table 4. Pearson correlation for educator participation in PLCs according to years of experience as an educator.

		Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4
Length of service (teaching experiences)	Pearson Correlation	0.002	−0.023	−0.102	−0.060
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.934	0.417	0.000 **	0.036 *
	N	1221	1221	1221	1221

Note: * sig. less than 0.05, ** sig. less than 0.01.

show that the arithmetic mean is higher for educators in DSs for all data items. The next step was to examine whether there were statistically significant differences between the groups, providing insights on understanding educator involvement in PLC. (See

Table 5. School status—descriptive statistics.

A Comparison between the Involvement of Educators in PLCs according to School Status. N			Mean	Std. Deviation
Q1	DS	511	1.72	0.448
	IS	554	1.56	0.497
Q2	DS	511	1.24	0.427
	IS	554	1.17	0.379
Q3	DS	511	1.31	0.461
	IS	554	1.24	0.426
Q4	DS	511	1.65	0.500
	IS	554	1.29	0.464

).

For all questions, the p-value (2-tailed) was less than 0.05, meaning that there are statistically significant differences between educators in DSs compared to those in ISs. Educators from DSs participate more often in different learning communities than those from ISs, and there is a statistically significant difference between the groups. (See

Table 6. Independent samples’ t-test—independent t-test of educator involvement in PLCs according to school status.

Equal Variances Assumed		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-Tailed)	Mean Difference
Q1	Yes	108.411	0.000	5.649	1063	0.000 **	0.164
	No			5.672	1062.476	0.000 **	0.164
Q2	Yes	28.264	0.000	2.651	1063	0.008 **	0.065
	No			2.639	1022.611	0.008 *	0.065
Q3	Yes	24.043	0.000	2.465	1063	0.014 *	0.067
	No			2.457	1036.987	0.014 *	0.067
Q4	Yes	12.940	0.000	12.470	1063	0.000 **	0.368
	No			12.432	1037.609	0.000 **	0.368

Note: * sig. less than 0.05; ** sig. less than 0.01.

).

The next set of questions tested whether DS educators involved in the PLC_IP model exhibited a higher frequency of using effective teaching strategies with the support of digital technologies compared to IS educators.

The arithmetic values in

Table 7. The group’s descriptive statistics—a comparison of the frequency of using effective teaching strategies.

		N	Mean	Std. Deviation
Q5: I explain how new topics are related to the old.	IS	554	2.75	1.387
	DS	511	2.95	1.060
Q6: I present the tasks, for which there are no obvious solutions.	IS	554	1.93	1.117
	DS	511	2.15	0.907
Q7: I assign tasks that require critical thinking from the students.	IS	554	2.32	1.184
	DS	511	2.66	0.949
Q8: I arrange students into small groups, so they can come up with a collective solution to a problem or task.	IS	554	2.00	1.087
	DS	511	2.30	0.919
Q9: I instruct students to choose their own procedures in order to solve complex tasks.	IS	554	1.96	1.103
	DS	511	2.21	0.874
Q10: I provide an example of a real-life problem to demonstrate the usefulness of new knowledge.	IS	554	2.58	1.328
	DS	511	2.85	0.998
Q11: I assign students with a project-type task that requires at least one week to complete.	IS	554	1.65	1.012
	DS	511	1.93	0.953
Q12: I encourage students to use digital technology for project work or work in the classroom.	IS	554	2.33	1.264
	DS	511	2.81	1.048

show that the frequency of using effective teaching strategies is, on average, higher for all data items for DS educators included in the PLC_IP model. Statistically significant differences between the groups were examined next. A t-test for independent samples was used to compare the differences once again for the arithmetic mean values of both groups (DS and IS).

The p-value for questions Q5, Q6, Q9, and Q10 was greater than 0.05 (p > 0.05), which means that there were no statistically significant differences between the groups. For half of the questions (Q7, Q8, Q11, and Q12), however, there were statistically significant differences between the groups. Educators from DSs are more likely to use effective teaching strategies (critical thinking, small groups, project work, and use of digital technology) that also enhance students at higher cognitive levels. (See

Table 8. Independent sample t-test: independent t-test of educator involvement in PLCs regarding the use of effective teaching strategies.

Equal Variances Assumed		Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances		t-Test for Equality of Means
		F	Sig.	t	df	Sig. (2-Tailed)
Q5	Yes	10.326	0.002	−1.137	187	0.257
	No			−1.104	152.104	0.271
Q6	Yes	2.269	0.134	−1.520	187	0.130
	No			−1.486	158.463	0.139
Q7	Yes	6.384	0.012	−2.164	187	0.032 *
	No			−2.112	157.129	0.036 *
Q8	Yes	0.252	0.616	−2.023	187	0.044 *
	No			−1.986	162.669	0.049
Q9	Yes	2.283	0.133	−1.706	187	0.090
	No			−1.663	155.936	0.098
Q10	Yes	12.453	0.001	−1.562	187	0.120
	No			−1.514	150.410	0.132
Q11	Yes	1.127	0.290	−1.942	187	0.044 *
	No			−1.929	173.082	0.045 *
Q12	Yes	6.487	0.012	−2.831	187	0.005 **
	No			−2.773	160.586	0.006 **

Note: * sig. less than 0.05; ** sig. less than 0.01.

).

6. Discussion

Assuming that an active and open PLC with a strong collaborative culture is the foundation for introducing sustainable changes to education with the ultimate goal of improving student achievement, creating effective and sustainable PLCs is the key to ensuring sustainable results even after external incentives have ended [50]. For school-level activities, this means that a lot of energy and planning needs to be focused on expanding the PLC and involving the entire teaching staff in the school’s vision. These findings coincide with the findings of [51], which emphasise the importance of the autonomy of the individual educator. The applied Australian model of distributed leadership, where individuals (school development team, coordinators, etc.) develop new roles within the school and establish new relationships, proved very effective [51].

In the first research question, the impact of educators’ length of service on their involvement and participation in different PLCs was examined. The idea was to test whether educators with more years of working experience at schools were more often involved in different PLCs. This would suggest, namely, that the existing system of permanent educator training sufficiently promotes educators’ awareness about the importance of involvement in different PLCs and indirectly encourages the sharing of good practices, collaborative work among educators, etc., which can have a major impact on the way teaching is conducted in the classroom (a sustainable permanent change). Based on the results, it was concluded that this was not the case and that there were no statistically significant differences according to the length of service and inclusion of teachers in PLCs. However, there was an inclination that educators with less work experience are more often involved in alternative non-formal PLCs (National Education Institute, social networks, projects) than only in-school PLCs. Moreover, statistically significant differences according to the length of service were observed with respect to involvement in a non-formal PLC on social networks. A negative statistically significant correlation was proven for social networks and project PLCs, meaning that educators with fewer years of experience are more frequently included in alternative non-formal PLCs. Educators with more years of work experience were less likely to participate in social network PLCs, which is probably related to the generational attitude towards social networks and digital technology usage. Since the social network PLC is a non-formal learning community, it operates mainly at the level of exchanging good practices but does not provide space for reflection, synchronisation and building a common vision, and therefore, has a minimal impact on introducing sustainable and lasting changes to teaching practices.

Consequently, innovative teaching practices can be expected from educators with fewer years of experience who are striving to develop quality teaching with the use and promotion of digital technologies. Educators with fewer years of experience have more enthusiasm for digital tools, leading the way for others and demonstrating how technology can be used to create more engaging and effective learning experiences for students. PLCs, therefore, not only help educators refine their digital teaching strategies but also foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.

In the next step, the extent of PLC_IP implementation in schools and their participation in different PLCs provided an answer to RQ2. It was found that DS educators participated more often in other learning communities than IS educators. There was a statistically significant difference between the groups according to the school type. This means that the implementation of the PLC_IP model encourages awareness about the importance of participation in all PLCs. Educators who participate in the PLC_IP from the start are aware of the importance of sustainable lifelong training and participation in all PLCs. This means that they seek to achieve sustainable changes in quality teaching and, thus, in the knowledge of their students. Research has shown that the involvement of educators in PLCs, particularly those focused on innovative pedagogy, correlates positively with the quality of teaching and the overall educational process [40]. By participating in PLC_IP, educators are more likely to adopt and implement contemporary learning environments and digital tools, which are critical for the digital transformation of schools and are crucial for ESD. This involvement not only enhances individual educator efficacy but also improves collective efficacy, leading to more significant and lasting impacts on student learning outcomes.

The inclusion of digital technologies aligns well with the goals of PLCs and ESD. In PLCs, educators collaborate to share best practices, discuss challenges, and support each other’s professional growth. Furthermore, ESD emphasises the integration of sustainable practices into education, preparing students to tackle global challenges related to society, the economy, and the environment.

The PLC_IP model showed that it is reasonable to create a PLC systematically, with a clear vision, and gradually, through the step-by-step involvement of clusters of educators who, according to their own pace and under the guidance of school leadership and management, can adopt a shared vision and culture of collaboration with the aim of raising the quality of teaching and learning and improving student achievements with digital technologies. Such an approach includes a top-down implementation of changes with a clear direction and support from school management, which organises, enables and supports the PLC at the school. At the same time, school management is the authority that allows the opening up of the bubble while connecting and collaborating effectively with other schools, projects and external experts. Research from different countries [20,52,53] has shown that the approach to a PLC’s creation also strongly depends on individual schools and the autonomy and position of the educators in it. In addition to the top-down approach (school management) and “external incentives” (project activities), the bottom-up approach (autonomy of educators) is an element of balance in the creation of the PLC_IP. In this way, the PLC_IP model became a democratic space of trust, in which not only the exchange of good practices took place but also constant reflective practice and internalisation of a shared vision, improving students’ learning achievements and developing their competencies.

By utilising the principles and practices of the PLC_IP, there is a strong connection to the pursuit of Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) No. 4, which aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. By leveraging digital technologies, educators can create more inclusive educational environments that foster accessibility, regardless of their geographical or socio-economic background.

The effectiveness of the PLC_IP model was determined by comparing the frequency of introducing teaching strategies in which students develop critical thinking competencies, small group discussions and collaboration, digital competencies, and project work. The results showed that DS educators organise learning opportunities for students through which they develop their competencies more frequently than IS educators. DS educators consistently showed the more frequent use of all effective pedagogical strategies, and statistically significant differences were observed with regard to promoting higher cognitive taxonomy levels.

Additionally, our findings refer to SDG No. 17, which emphasises the importance of partnerships and multi-stakeholder involvement. SDG no. 17 calls for strengthening the means of implementation and revitalising the global partnership for sustainable development. In the context of education, leveraging digital technologies within PLCs can foster partnerships at multiple levels, including local partnerships between schools, private–public partnerships between companies and schools, fostering community engagement with parents and local businesses or organisations, and, lastly, international partnerships between schools and international communities.

The effectiveness of the PCL_IP is further supported by the report of the international survey [54], which stated that these are precisely the teaching strategies from which Slovenian educators deviate regarding the OECD average [54,55]. Educators involved in the innovative PLC_IP training model make sensible use of digital technologies that allow them to teach at higher levels of the SAMR model, thereby allowing students to gain knowledge of higher taxonomic levels.

The didactic and methodological knowledge that educators acquire through such an approach is a precondition for the meaningful use of digital technology in the classroom. Educators with such knowledge are able and empowered to lead digital transformation and lasting change aimed at raising the quality of the school and student achievement. As one of the educators wrote in the annual report for the school year 2019/20: “Only now, after we’ve learned how to use digital technology to improve classroom activities and see the meaning of its use, do we realise what we really need for contemporary school lessons that allow students to develop their competences and become actively integrated into the modern society.”

7. Conclusions and Implications

Participation in PLCs needs to undergo a shift from the simple exchange of good practices (within the school and wider) and synchronisation (at the class level) in educator training to co-creating knowledge by developing a culture of reflection and peer feedback. The suggestion for the future is to keep in mind that the goal of a PLC is to move beyond simple exchanges (of good practices and materials) and synchronisation (e.g., planning work in the class) and to move to a culture of collective knowledge building and problem-solving. Therefore, in further research, more attention should be paid to the quality of educator participation in PLCs and to the factors that influence the quality of such involvement. Only an educator who is actively involved in an effective, stable PLC with a shared, internalised vision will be able to participate within the local ecosystem as a key element of the digital transformation of education [9].

Thus, sustainable PLCs not only support continuous professional growth for educators but also lead to enduring improvements in student learning outcomes and increasing completion rates [14].

It also tempts to demonstrate how a balance between formal PLCs and non-formal PLCs, coupled with external incentives (such as project-based initiatives), can transcend mere exchanges of best practices, foster innovation, and support educators’ sustainable development while delivering high-quality education and working together with multiple stakeholders.

Bearing in mind that the sustainability of introducing changes to the pedagogical paradigm is mainly influenced by educators’ openness to change—the balance between the voluntary and non-formal participation of educators in PLCs and a formalised PLC with a strong structure (supported by school management, operating continuously to achieve the outlined vision, and regularly updated in line with the changes in society and the school)—this should also be explored. It should be pointed out, however, that without a formal moderator (principal and/or coordinator who drives the change), the PLC will not survive and will eventually move away from the initial goal or start recycling already established patterns.

An analysis of the participation of educators involved in the PLC_IP model could also serve as a starting point for introducing new approaches to teaching and learning. It was proved that an effective and sustainable school PLC is one of the elements that can ensure a permanent shift in the pedagogical paradigm towards adopting innovative teaching and learning practices. We suggest that an innovative PLC_IP model is a good solution for upgrading the existing model of lifelong teacher training in Slovenia and can have a positive impact on the quality of teaching.

The PLC_IP model contains elements of a formal PLC in terms of its structure (shared vision, planned activities by project management, support of the principal in individual schools, appointed coordinators, regular meetings, appointed membership) and also elements of a non-formal, wider community of educators brought together by the challenges of integrating modern technology into the classroom and concern for the development of the (digital) competences of students and educators. To achieve sustainability, PLCs must be seen as dynamic entities that evolve with the changing educational landscape, ensuring that they remain relevant and impactful for years to come.

8. Limitations and Future Research

This research presents how an innovative PLC_IP contributes to the sustainable professional development of educators. The study relies on self-reported data, which can introduce biases, such as response biases, affecting accuracy. In addition, the cross-sectional design captures data at a single point in time, limiting the ability to track changes or establish causality. The sample’s representativeness is limited to participants of the project, affecting generalisability and introducing potential selection bias. Although the project activities were shown to be extensive and effective, in this research, only specific teaching strategies were evaluated regarding the improvements of the teacher work.

Future research could include longitudinal studies to track changes over time and assess long-term impacts, establishing causal relationships between PLC_IP participation and teaching practices. Combining quantitative surveys with qualitative methods, such as interviews and classroom observations, could also be another way of exploring teaching strategies and contextual factors. Another method would be to establish a control group in experimental or quasi-experimental research and test for the effectiveness of specific measures and interventions when applying the PLC_IP model. These are all options to further our study efforts.