Teacher Learning Communities and Leadership: Insights from A DEIS Urban Second-Level School

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for this interesting piece of empirical research into TLCs. The research makes links with school leadership as the means of creating a conducive environment within which TLCs can flourish. A stronger case for the model of leadership could have been made through interviews with the senior leadership team.

The weakest element of the paper is the research methodology section - there is no reference to methodology or justification thereof - is this action research or a case study perhaps. Whilst semi structured interviews were used as an instrument for collecting data again there is no justification from the literature or acknowledgement of the demerits of using such a tool . Without  framework for analysis it is hard to judge and critique the findings - did you simply see what you wanted to see. The aper would benefit from a more critical re-write of this section and findings and discussion section which follows.

There is also a reference to learning styles within the paper which is best taken out given there is little academic support for such a notion - tools for learning may be a better fit in the school context.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Societies 2022, 12

 

It is an interesting article that is read with interest. However, there are some inconsistencies in the results that should be reported.

The aims of the research (Introduction) are defined as investigating “the connection between teaching effectiveness and participation in teacher learning communities (TLCs)” and “In particular it will examine the role of educational leadership in the development of TLCs and concomitantly toward the enhancement of teaching and learning.

From the information on the school context in which this study is carried out, it can be deduced that it is identified as a DEIS School (Delivering Equality of Opportunity in School) usually for disadvantaged communities. In the center are established two Teacher Learning Communities (TLCs) which come under the remit of FOLAN (Focus on Literacy and Numeracy), composed of department representatives, the Junior Certificate Schools Programme (JCSP) coordinator, as well as the JCSP Librarian. The JCSP library provides the physical environment for develop the FOLAN programme. According to the authors, it adopts a station teaching model. This multimodal approach has the added advantage of enhancing pupil-teacher relationships. As can be seen, the description of the center is concise but very clear.

EL conceptual framework highlights the connection between TLCs and teaching effectiveness, widening teachers’practice-learning beyond the confines of their own classrooms, perspective with which we fully agree. Subsequently, we are informed of new intentions of the authors, “we will explore some of the existing research on how participation in TLCs can impact on aspects of four domains: Interactions with students; Interactions with colleagues; Making evaluations; and Choosing and developing instructional tools.” Also, the authors introduce a new perspective: “teaching effectiveness is being identified with the experience of teacher “pedagogical well-being” (TPWB). Without forgetting his interest in leadership. In a concise but clear way they have confirmed his conceptual interests. Covering so many perspectives and intentions in a simple investigation is not recommended.

 

La methodology, on the contrary, it is insufficiently informative. Two semi-structured focus group interviews were conducted with FOLAN planning teams (FG Literacy and FG Numeracy). It is explained that these were conducted as part of an Erasmus+ European Project on Teacher Well-being and diversity 2016-2020). What is not reported is in what way and form the voices and narratives of the participants were analyzed. Using a qualitative methodology does not exempt from explaining the procedures with which the emerging meanings of the voices of the participants were interpreted, analyzed, and categorized to ensure the credibility and veracity of the interpretation, because otherwise the findings will not offer the minimum validity.

The lack of a correct methodology results in inconsistency in the results. It is true that the focus group “offered a rich context” but they have not been able to explore them correctly to obtain convincing results. The authors exemplify some voices of the participants. However, it has been difficult for us to find who is the Team Leader of the Literacy TLC among the 7 participants, while we are constantly reminded that the Team Leader of the Numeracy TLC is Participant 6 to whom, we do not know for what reason, it has been carried out an additional individual interview, with which his presence in the exemplifications is constant.

In the absence of an analysis methodology that shows joint results regarding the categories or themes, we have had to stick to what emerges from the exemplifications of the voices of the participants in the text:

 

o   Teacher-Participant 1 gives his opinion on “developed relationships”,  “professional relationships” and “the relevance of collaboration” which can be interpreted as interest and support for the work in TLC.

o   There are not exemplifications of the voice of Teacher 2 -Librarian.

o   Teacher 3 gives opinion on “the importance of respect“ in relation with “developed relationships”.

o   Teacher 4 refers that the TLC supposes a lot of work, and it seems that other voices join him. Likewise, he notes the "importance of respect" in relation to "developed relationships" He is the only participant who speaks of peer learning.

o   Teacher 5 highlights the relevance of sharing to learn from others.

o    Teacher 6 (Team leader Folan Numeracy group) underlines, in his numerous citations, that professional relationships, autonomy, deep collaboration and democracy all depend on leadership. Obviously, it seems that as a team leader he knows his own relevance.

In a certain way, the results that the authors show us about the values of TCLs, leadership, and "pedagogical well-being" are true and reflect the theory of the educational literature but are not clearly derived from these research findings.

On the other hand, a conclusion that appears is that, when teachers meet, they generally talk more about themselves, about the relationships between them, about their problems than about whether their work is really reaching the students, and in what way. In short, surely the teachers have talked about much more topics but the authors have not been able to analyze it and transmit the findings in a credible way.

In any case, it is a correct article, it reads fluently and the conceptual framework is interesting. It can be published; surely it wills helps to think.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The methodology has been specified in more detail, resulting in fewer inconsistencies between intentions and conclusions. The results are more understandable with the added clarifications.