Professional Learning Communities in Chinese Preschools: Challenging Western Frameworks

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would suggest the following revisions:

1. If it is a literature review, you may need to sketch the review process and how you select the literature.

2. It is not clear whether all the relevant literature is selected from the sector of preschool or across all the school sectors in China.

3. Whether Teaching research groups are a form of Chinese PLC may be arguable.

4. Some errors in the reference. For example, Haiyan. Q. & Allan, W. shall be Qian, H. Y. & Walker, A. 

English writing is very neat and clear.

Author Response

1. If it is a literature review, you may need to sketch the review process and how you select the literature. RESPONSE: The study is framed as a conceptual overview paper (Jaakkola, 2020). As explained in the new paragraph added on pages 4-5, conceptual overview papers draw on multiple literature streams (conceptual and theoretical studies, empirical research, policy frameworks, etc.) to provide a general panoramic of a particular educational topic. These papers present syntheses of existing knowledge and often support an alternative position on a topic, based on scholarly sources and credible facts that ensure the validity of the claims (Tegtmeier & Mitra, 2015). The purpose of a conceptual overview paper is different of that of a systematic literature review (Jaakkola, 2020). For this reason, the studies selected for inclusion were the most relevant to challenge the core features of Western PLC frameworks, to make our argument solid and compelling. To avoid confusion in the readers, we have eluded the term “literature review”, which was used in the first version of the study. Moreover, at the beginning of the section now titled “Research on PLCs in Chinese Preschools: Challenging Western PLC Principles” (pages 11-12), we have explained that decisions about inclusion of the articles identified in our review in this paper were based on three criteria: (1) quality of the publication outlet (e.g., as measured by impact factor); (2) rigour of the output (e.g., methodological quality); (3) relevancy of the study to challenge a variety of standard PLC principles (see page 11).

 

2. It is not clear whether all the relevant literature is selected from the sector of preschool or across all the school sectors in China. RESPONSE: While the manuscript focuses on preschool education, there is one paragraph that focuses on primary and secondary education because these policies inspired subsequent preschool education policies and regulations. It was therefore necessary to review them, even though these policies and regulations refer to other educational levels. We have included a sentence on page 8 to clarify why we have referred to these policies and regulations here. Thank you for the comment.

 

3. Whether Teaching research groups are a form of Chinese PLC may be arguable. RESPONSE: Thanks for this comment. We have added a footnote on page 8 to justify why we treat TRG and PLC as synonyms in this paper.

 

4. Some errors in the reference. For example, Haiyan. Q. & Allan, W. shall be Qian, H. Y. & Walker, A. RESPONSE: This mistake has been amended. Please see pages 17 and 26.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is well-written with a clear objective. However, there is a large proportion of texts to review the PLC framework in the Chinese context. When challenging the Western framework, I would expect that authors could discuss the differences between Chinese PLC and Western PLC. 

Also, authors have reviewed the extant research in the aspects of conceptual studies, qualitative case studies and large-scale quantitative studies. Could authors state the criteria in selecting those key studies to review?

It seems that authors provided a very concise background about traditional values and structures which were rooted in its history. However, I have little knowledge to link up those values with a rapidly evolving society. Suggesting authors could expand the discussion here.

Hope to see a revised version of the paper.

Author Response

The article is well-written with a clear objective. However, there is a large proportion of texts to review the PLC framework in the Chinese context. When challenging the Western framework, I would expect that authors could discuss the differences between Chinese PLC and Western PLC. RESPONSE: Thanks for your comment. We have changed the heading for the Introduction, to make it clearer that here we are summarizing the main characteristics that Western teacher PLCs (page 3). In this section, we have added several paragraphs that summarize the main characteristics of Western PLC frameworks (please see pages 3 and 4). Please note that there is abundant literature in English on teacher PLCs, and we assume that the readers of this Special Issue will be familiar with the core principles of these frameworks. We have provided relevant citations, including some literature reviews. We intentionally provide a relatively short summary of this literature to reserve the main body of the paper to offer a comprehensive account of PLC in Chinese preschools, from the points of view of cultural values, policies, and research. To make the differences between Chinese PLC and Western PLC clearer, as requested, we have introduced various sentences in the section devoted to research studies. These sentences connect with the content presented in the Introduction (see pages 12 to 15). 

 

Also, authors have reviewed the extant research in the aspects of conceptual studies, qualitative case studies and large-scale quantitative studies. Could authors state the criteria in selecting those key studies to review? RESPONSE: We have provided this information at the beginning of the section now titled “Research on PLCs in Chinese Preschools: Challenging Western PLC Principles” (pages 12 and 13). Decisions about inclusion of the articles identified in our review in this paper were based on three criteria: (1) quality of the publication outlet (e.g., as measured by impact factor); (2) rigour of the output (e.g., methodological quality); (3) relevancy of the study to challenge a variety of standard PLC principles. Please note that we have framed the paper as a conceptual overview paper (Jaakkola, 2020). As explained in the new paragraph added on pages 4-5, conceptual overview papers draw on multiple literature streams (conceptual and theoretical studies, empirical research, policy frameworks, etc.) to provide a general panoramic of a particular educational topic. These papers present syntheses of existing knowledge and often support an alternative position on a topic, based on scholarly sources and credible facts that ensure the validity of the claims (Tegtmeier & Mitra, 2015). The purpose of a conceptual overview paper is different of that of a systematic literature review (Jaakkola, 2020). For this reason, the studies selected for inclusion were the most relevant to challenge the core features of Western PLC frameworks, to make our argument solid and compelling. To avoid confusion in the readers, we have eluded the term “literature review”, which was used in the first version of the study.

 

It seems that authors provided a very concise background about traditional values and structures which were rooted in its history. However, I have little knowledge to link up those values with a rapidly evolving society. Suggesting authors could expand the discussion here. RESPONSE: We have added some new sentences that further elaborate on how traditional Chinese values co-exist nowadays with modernity and a rapidly evolving society (pages 7 and 8).

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

Thank you for this article. Here is my feedback:

Abstract: In the abstract, the aim and method of the contribution are not clear.

Introduction: The Introduction introduces the structure of the Professional Learning Communities of Teachers in China.

The traditional values are described without making a clear reference to the study. Moreover, these values seem to apply to all Chinese people without making an appropriate differentiation. The sweeping statements about Western PLCs and the emphasis on the virtues of the Chinese people seem rather striking.

The method used is not sufficiently presented: what exactly is being compared, according to which criteria? Many studies are cited or briefly presented, but without explaining a clear design with operationalising criteria.

Discussion: it is not clear to me according to which criteria the PLCs are rated as good. The data situation is not transparent and comprehensible

 

Implications: The recommendation "not to blindly adopt Western PLC" is not theoretically justified, because Western PLCs have not been evaluated. 

Author Response

Abstract: In the abstract, the aim and method of the contribution are not clear. RESPONSE: We have entered two new sentences that specify the goal of the study and the mentions the type of paper that is presented (please see page 1). The study is framed as a conceptual overview paper (Jaakkola, 2020). As explained in the new paragraph added on pages 4-5, conceptual overview papers draw on multiple literature streams (conceptual and theoretical studies, empirical research, policy frameworks, etc.) to provide a general panoramic of a particular educational topic. These papers present syntheses of existing knowledge and often support an alternative position on a topic, based on scholarly sources and credible facts that ensure the validity of the claims (Tegtmeier & Mitra, 2015). The purpose of a conceptual overview paper is different of that of a systematic literature review (Jaakkola, 2020). For this reason, the studies selected for inclusion were the most relevant to challenge the core features of Western PLC frameworks, to make our argument solid and compelling. To avoid confusion in the readers, we have eluded the term “literature review”, which was used in the first version of the study. Moreover, at the beginning of the section now titled “Research on PLCs in Chinese Preschools: Challenging Western PLC Principles”, we have explained that decisions about inclusion of the articles identified in our review in this paper were based on three criteria: (1) quality of the publication outlet (e.g., as measured by impact factor); (2) rigour of the output (e.g., methodological quality); (3) relevancy of the study to challenge a variety of standard PLC principles (see pages 11-12).

 

The traditional values are described without making a clear reference to the study. Moreover, these values seem to apply to all Chinese people without making an appropriate differentiation. The sweeping statements about Western PLCs and the emphasis on the virtues of the Chinese people seem rather striking. RESPONSE: This main goal of this section is to provide a general description of the context in which this study is situated. For this reason, we review the core socio-cultural values of traditional Chinese societies in general. We have clarified this aspect at the beginning of the section, so that readers can better follow the argumentative line (please see page 5).

The method used is not sufficiently presented: what exactly is being compared, according to which criteria? Many studies are cited or briefly presented, but without explaining a clear design with operationalising criteria. RESPONSE: Thanks for this comment. As explained in the beginning of the section “Research on PLCs in Chinese Preschools: Challenging Western PLC Principles” (please see page 4), we have identified a series of studies to provide a general panoramic of the topic of PLCs in Chinese preschool. The aim is to support the idea that Chinese preschools enact culturally situated versions of PLCs, characterized by some standard PLC principles (e.g., shared vision, collaboration, collective responsibility) alongside features that resonate with Confucian values (e.g., strong hierarchical structure, guide of external experts, internal leadership support, greater emphasis on ecological support rather than personal agency and autonomy). In short, the main argument is that as the approach to leadership and management of Chinese preschools allow to challenge and reconsider certain core principles of Western PLC frameworks. To make these comparisons more salient, we have included new sentences in the narratives of the various studies that area presented in this section (please see highlighted sentences in pages 12 to 15).

 

Discussion: it is not clear to me according to which criteria the PLCs are rated as good. The data situation is not transparent and comprehensible. RESPONSE: Our claim is not that PLCs in Chinese preschools are “good”. What we argue is that while the approach is substantially different as compared to the Western approach, as described in the Introduction, there are numerous studies that show that PLCs are well-received by teachers and other stakeholders and perceived to be helpful. The second paragraph of the Discussion (please see page 18) condenses the main findings, in light of the conceptual, qualitative, and quantitative studies presented in the prior section.

 

Implications: The recommendation "not to blindly adopt Western PLC" is not theoretically justified, because Western PLCs have not been evaluated. RESPONSE: We have modified this statement. It currently reads, “the main implication for educational policymakers and schools is to formulate PLC policies that are culturally situated and responsive to the characteristics of each society” (please see page 21).  

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper explores an important topic, introducing educators from other countries to the PLCs approach in China. It has important implications for educational theory, policy, and practice.

There are some typos in the paper. 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for the adaptations that have given more quality to the article