A capital framework for professional learning and practice

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

A capital framework for professional learning and practice Yi-Hwa Lioua,*, Esther T. Canrinusb a b

T

National Taipei University of Education, Taiwan University of Agder, Norway

A R T IC LE I N F O

ABS TRA CT

Keywords: Social capital Human capital Emotional capital Social network Teacher learning Professional development Leadership

Efforts to improve teaching and learning in general are leading to wide variability in outcomes in different countries and areas, with similar investments and reforms focusing on the instrumental side of professional learning. A rapidly growing research literature has suggested the important role of social connectivity in the success of individual and organizational change and development. This paper draws on theories of human capital, social capital, social network, emotional capital, and research literature in this space to illuminate some of the complex components as related to professional learning.

1. Introduction The notion that professional development of teachers and teacher candidates (hereinafter teachers) can enhance professional knowledge, practice, and change has emerged in relevant education literature across the globe. The core of this notion is a common understanding that professional development primarily involves professional learning and transformation of the learned knowledge into practice for improved student outcomes (James & McCormick, 2009). The process of professional learning is complex, which requires cognitive, emotional, and social involvement of teachers individually and collectively for improvement or change (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Silins, Mulford, & Zarins, 2002). The key to success in learning is the extent to which opportunities for learning are provided and augmented thus facilitating professional development and change in practice (Penuel, Sun, Frank, & Gallagher, 2012). Over the last decade, educational researchers have come to suggest several distinct but somewhat overlapping approaches to adult learning: formal/structured learning (Penuel et al., 2012), school-based or on-the-job learning (Parise & Spillane, 2010), and situated learning (Kwakman, 2003; Smylie, 1995). A common thread across these approaches to supporting teacher learning is through a particular social practice (Bryk, Bender, Allensworth, Leppescu, & Easton, 2010). Of central importance is the social processes involving collegial interactions with others (Penuel et al., 2012). This social aspect is also supported by several leading agencies and research communities calling for a more social approach to understanding complex phenomena in educational change (Daly & Finnigan, 2016; Darling–Hammond, 2010; Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development, 2013). For instance, the degree of social interactions has been demonstrated as a crucial factor at both the individual and organizational level for successful improvement (Çelik & Ekinci, 2012; Kilduff & Krackhardt, 2008; Penuel et al., 2012; Pil & Leana, 2009). More so, a number of international agencies in their recent reports (Schleicher, 2012; Vaillant, 2015) advocate a collaborative approach to quality teaching and professional development (Schleicher, 2016) and a networked approach to 21 century educational leaders (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Organisation for Economic Co–operation & Development, 2013). These trends suggest a shift of the work of educators to more social and networked. In response to the increasing call for a more social approach to individual and organizational outcomes, there seems to be a need to re-conceptualize our understanding of ⁎

Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (Y.-H. Liou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2019.101527 Received 11 May 2019; Received in revised form 26 October 2019; Accepted 12 December 2019 0883-0355/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

teacher learning and conditions supporting their learning (e.g., professional development) using a methodologically suitable lens to understand such complex social phenomena. Policy wise, a number of national education policies, such as the Common Core Standards of the United States (Council of Chief State School Officers CCSSO, 2010), encourages educators to take a social, collaborative approach to interdisciplinary teaching. The England’s Blueprint for Self-Improving System (Cruddas, 2015) requires educators to take on a leadership role in collectively developing internal capacity for organizational improvement. More recently, New Zealand’s “Investing in Educational Success” reform puts forward as its key policy an initiative called “Communities of Learning” (CoL) that encourages schools that are geographically close to each other to work together as a network in addressing a shared student achievement challenge (Education Review Office, 2016). These policy demands also urge the field to take a closer look at the social practices related to teacher learning both theoretically and empirically. In addressing the theoretical concern, in this study, we propose a conceptual framework that foregrounds the social side of professional learning based on theories and empirical research literature documented in education and other disciplines. Empirically, in this special issue, we include a collection of studies from different geographical regions that examine the effect of social practice of teachers on various outcome variables related to teacher practice. This paper attempts to establish an overarching framework to conceptualize professional learning as examined in the studies of this special issue. The proposed framework should serve the purpose of starting the special issue by synthesizing core conceptual components that are raised and investigated under the collection of studies. We begin with a concise introduction to the concepts of professional development and professional learning as related to teacher practice to set the stage for constructing the framework. Thereafter, we will discuss the framework as a whole before turning to the possible implications for research and practice. 2. Professional development in support of learning Professional development goes hand in hand with professional learning when it comes to teacher practice. Studies in this field use these terms interchangeably but with clarification of their correlation. The majority of education researchers contend that professional learning occurs when opportunities of learning are provided in professional development activities, be it formally structured or culturally cultivated (or so-called informal, school-based, or on-the-job) (Parise & Spillane, 2010; Penuel et al., 2012). The fundamental assumption is that teacher practice will likely be enhanced during the situated learning process through which knowledge, skills, and the capacity to use the learned knowledge to inform practice in a given social setting are developed (Anderson, Greeno, Reder, & Simon, 2000). Inspired by Smylie’s (1995) view of teacher professional learning, we view teacher learning as an agentic, constructive, and socially and culturally situated process. This perspective implies that teachers are adult learners who take responsibility for their own professional development by participating in a variety of professional activities of their choosing through which they stimulate the development of their own and the collective. Key to the process of learning are the opportunities and conditions made for teachers to learn. It is important to note that not all the professional activities can promote teacher learning. Smylie (1995) and Kwakman (2003) distinguished four types of leaning outcomes that are crucial to professional growth: conceptual change, reflective thinking, experimentation, and innovation (e.g., new and changed practice). These learning outcomes are based on the notion of “learning through participation” from an interactionist perspective (Blumer, 1969), meaning that learning takes place in the process of social construction produced by social interaction. In promoting these learning outcomes for teachers, an increasing body of research has focused on teacher learning from two types of learning opportunities that encourage collegial interactions: formally structured or organized learning opportunities (often seen as formal professional development, PD) and informally cultured learning opportunities (or so called on-the-job learning opportunities). The former includes activities that follow the traditional training paradigm (Little, 1993), such as structured PD activities, subjectspecific PD sessions, graduate education coursework, workshops, and courses/conferences provided on in-service days to train teachers, some of which involve teachers to actively participate in group work and collaborate with one another, such as structured time for study groups, learning circles or networks. These formal learning opportunities are the predominant form of activities for teacher learning, and suggested to enhance change in teacher practice (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007). The latter type of learning opportunities usually occurs throughout the school day in various forms, including teacher-led, face-to-face planning sessions with colleagues, informal conversations with teachers next door or in the hallway, and virtual spaces for sharing materials and information and forming communities. We acknowledge that there might be overlap between the two types of learning opportunities, but the key element cutting across these learning opportunities is “collegial interactions” (Little, 2002; Smylie, 1995). Several studies have presented and discussed the strength and quality of such interactions when it comes to learning, trust, and shared norms and beliefs among colleagues (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Smylie, 1988). In addition to the types of learning opportunities, theories of adult learning and research have also identified organizational conditions that promote on-the-job learning, such as opportunities for employees to work with and learn from others, climate of openness allowing communication and exchange of ideas, collegial relationships that are cooperative and friendly, opportunities for teachers to collaborate on problem solving, providing social and professional support (Kwakman, 2003). These organizational conditions are found to have positive effects on teachers’ motivation, changed practice, and professional development (Bryk et al., 1999; Silins et al., 2002). Another line of research documented several conditions that can successfully promote teacher learning, such as shared norms for creating communities of learning (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006), a clear and shared purpose to improve instructional practice (Kaufman & Stein, 2010), openness to feedback from colleagues on instructional practice (Little, 2002), strong, cohesive and trusting relationships among school faculty to support changed practice (Penuel & Gallagher, 2009). These organizational conditions are cultivated through “social practices” enabling teacher learning in their schools (Bryk et al., 2010). Although studies have suggested that professional development and certain conditions can support professional learning, research 2

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

in this space often overlooks the role of teachers’ psychological states (e.g., self-efficacy, emotional states) in explaining teacher learning and ultimately their practice (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000), with few available studies examining personal teaching efficacy, perceived control and autonomy, and sense making (Liou, Canrinus, & Daly, 2019; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). Bandura’s (1986) social cognition theory, one of the most comprehensive adult learning theories, posits that human learning is largely affected by individual intrinsic factors such as emotions that are oftentimes influenced by experiences interacting with others. In line with this view, we argue that teachers’ psychological states are equally important factors to understand teacher learning, which we discuss in the emotional capital section. Given that conceptual and empirical examination of both organizational conditions (including conditions promoting learning opportunities) and psychological factors on teacher learning is important but currently missing (Kwakman, 2003), in this study we feel compelled to propose a framework to guide the empirical work in this special issue. The framework is grounded in theories of human capital, social capital, and emotional capital with special attention to the social aspect of professional learning. Human capital assists in understanding the account of professional; social capital explains three aspects of professional learning: structural (social interaction), relational (strength and quality of social interaction), and cognitive (perceived conditions supporting shared beliefs, values, purposes); and emotional capital illuminates the effect of psychological states on professional learning. We argue that educators’ practice can influence and be influenced by the dynamic mechanism of learning in which different capital assets are interacted, developed, and accumulated in facilitating the process of learning. 3. Framing Professional Learning and Practice 3.1. Human capital One important element in conceptualizing teacher learning is “human capital,” which can be generally defined as the resources possessed by individuals including knowledge, skills, and experience (Pil & Leana, 2009; Smylie & Hart, 1999). The notion of resources refers to the “things (e.g., knowledge, skills, experiences, etc.)” people possess. The use of these personal resources is the process of capitalization. Together this defines human capital. Educators build on their human capital to individually make sense of their surrounding context and assigned tasks (Spillane, Reiser, & Gomez, 2006). This human capital can be captured by examining individuals’ experience and training (Pil & Leana, 2009; Smylie & Hart, 1999) which shape their individual knowledge and skills that form a frame of reference (individual “mental model”) through which they interpret and make meaning of their work (e.g., Hargreaves & Fullan, 2013; Van den Bossche, Gijselaers, Segers, Woltjer, & Kirschner, 2011). Previous studies into human capital underline its importance for personal development in enhancing the quality of work and employability of organizational members (Hogan, Chamorro–Premuzic, & Kaiser, 2013). In many cases, employees control their personal professional development by actively managing the process of developing and mobilizing their own resources for purposive outcomes. This implies that employees have autonomy in participating in their own learning through arranging and deploying relevant resources. In making sense of this process, the research literature suggests the important role of social interaction in human cognitive development in terms of individuals’ situated cognition, decision-making, and problem-solving skills (Wadsworth, 1996). This line of research is drawn from Bandura’s social learning theory (1977) and further evolved into Vygotsky’s social development theory that primarily posits that human cognitive development requires “social interaction” (Vygotsky, 1978), which is consistent with Wenger’s (1998) theory of learning that emphasizes social practices, e.g., interpersonal interactions, in facilitating the construction of knowledge. Essentially, human behavior is learned and people assess and alter their behaviors and cognitive processes to adapt to the environment through experience and interactions with their surroundings (Bandura, 1977, 2002). This view on learning as a social act and as social practices is congruent with the notion of situated cognition (Brown, Collins, & Duguid, 1989) that emphasizes the processes in interactivity (Bickhard, 1992) between person and environment in which people socially construct meanings and appropriate social norms. Such learning occurs in “rich situational and activity-practice contexts allowing for interactional and dialectical ‘struggles’ in cognition whether with other individuals, artifacts, ideas, tools, and problems” (Hung & Chen, 2001, p.4). This notion of situated learning emphasizes the idea of embedded learning from the community of practice perspective (Lave & Wenger, 1991), where meaningful learning occurs in a dynamic social environment that has a profound impact on the learner, particularly the appropriation of contextual knowledge (Polanyi, 1966). Following this line of argument on social interactivity and practice, we propose social capital theory as a suitable and valuable lens to understand this role of social interaction in professional learning in support of the development of individual human capital. 3.2. Social capital Social capital is generally conceptualized as the resources embedded in social relations that can be accessed, mobilized, and accumulated by members within their organizational network for achieving purposive actions (Lin, 2009). A number of theorists have defined and discussed the major attributes of social capital (cf., Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2009; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). In general, social capital theorists share the understanding that (1) social capital resides in the resources that are inherent in social relationships rather than are possessed by individuals; and (2) “capital” is something that is invested in with expected returns and/or reproductions of the process of investment. In other words, investing in interpersonal relationships can increase and/or accumulate social capital that can be used for meeting individual and collective goals (Coleman, 1990). Primarily based on the work of Lin (2009) and Nahapiet and Ghoshal (1998), we define social capital as the resources formed as a result of relational connections between individuals within social networks. We furthermore add to this definition that these recourses influence the development of trust and 3

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

the achievement of mutual obligations and expectations between individuals within social networks. This influence can occur through shared language, beliefs, norms and purposes amongst these individuals (Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2009). The core of this definition is further presented in three dimensions for social capital—structural (pattern of ties), relational (quality of ties), and cognitive (shared beliefs and norms)—which are considered to facilitate the understanding of professional learning. 3.2.1. Structural social capital The structural aspect of social capital addresses the underlying pattern of relational ties between individuals in a social network and the affordances and constraints of the structure on the flow of relational resources and the accumulation of social capital (Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1990; Lin, 2009). Structural social capital can be referred to the “position” one has in a social network based on the pattern of ties individuals have with others and the resulting overall “structure” formed by these ties across a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). First, an individual’s network position refers to the combination of in- (i.e., being sought by others) and outgoing (reaching out to others) ties that individual has in a network (Wasserman & Faust, 1994). Individuals’ network positions can affect the nature of collaboration for learning communities (Tsai, 2001) as well as the flow of information between members within a network (Raider & Krackhardt, 2002). A network position that is central and closely connected to other network members possesses greater advantage for both accessing and receiving resources that are useful and meaningful, whereas a peripheral member has diminished access to resources (Tsai, 2001; Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998) due to fewer ties to and from others. Therefore, individuals who occupy better network positions “will have the advantage in accessing and mobilizing social ties with better resources” (Lin, 2009, p. 65). Secondly, network structure is formed by patterns of relational ties between individuals and may influence the flow of resources across the network. A densely connected network is one comprised of high degree of ties in which individuals are able to quickly reach to one another. For instance, to understand how close people are to one another, one can measure how fast gossip spreads across the network. Some people can hear the information quickly after it happened and from several people (quickly spreading the word), whereas some only hear about it after quite some time and only from one person. Individuals in such dense network may have greater access to receive and disseminate information, which may facilitate the access and timing of information flow (Burt, 1992). These individuals also possess the advantage of effectively distributing knowledge and information between and among members in a more efficient manner (Hanneman & Riddle, 2005), which increases the uptake of social capital (Lin, 2009). Network researchers suggest that densely connected networks may result in increased productivity, higher levels of innovation, and improved organizational functioning than those with sparse connections (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003). However, it should be also noted that dense structures may also entail potential closure of a network in which information shared between individuals is more likely redundant and may result in stagnation in innovation (Burt, 1992). In contrast to a dense network structure, a sparsely connected network may generate a lag in time in transmitting information and resources from one individual to another across the network due to fewer ties and more disconnected individuals (Burt, 1992). Recent network scholarship in education has suggested that both network position and structure have considerable influence over individual attributes and on an individual’s and organizations’ capacity to learn and develop knowledge necessary for innovation and change (Hubers et al., 2018; Penuel, Bell, Bevan, Buffington, & Falk, 2016). As change processes involve a series of individual and collective learning and the exchange of innovative ideas which various network structures may facilitate or constrain (Cross, Borgatti, & Parker, 2002), it is crucial to understand the extent to which the structural pattern is related to individual and organizational outcomes. Studies have shown positive linkages between the degree of interpersonal connectivity and student learning outcomes (Moolenaar et al., 2014; Siciliano, 2017), teaching performance (Liou et al., 2017)), efficacy for instruction and leadership Liou and Daly (2018), flow of reform related resources (Coburn, Mata, & Choi, 2013), interpersonal trust (Brown, Hashem, & Calnan, 2016), sense of social support (Baker-Doyle, 2012), and reported innovative climate (Moolenaar et al., 2014). Teacher learning has to do with the opportunities provided to engage in professional interaction through which they can access relational resources and as such increase the chances for learning and development of knowledge as well as the development of social norms and collective beliefs and cognition (Little & Horn, 2007). In other words, it is the network structure in which they are embedded that allows the exchanges of tacit knowledge and effectiveness of communications between members of a community (Mitchell & Sackney, 2007), hence facilitating situated learning. As such, structural opportunities enabling accessibility and interaction for collaboration serve as key to facilitate the formation and accumulation of social capital and benefit the individual and collective (Little & Horn, 2007). As knowledge is developed and conveyed through interpersonal interactions, understanding the structure for knowledge transmission is key to learning. In this sense, individual knowledge is not only situated in a particular individual, but of potential greater use if it can be accessed and used by others, and made available to the community (Lave & Wenger, 1991). The more teachers that are immersed in an environment where individuals can access a variety of others within a network to quickly exchange knowledge and information, the more likely that teachers will work with those who have valued and useful resources to enhance instructional practice (Lieberman & Miller, 2008). Taken together, we argue that the structural mechanisms such as network position and structure play a crucial role in the development of professional knowledge and facilitation of learning as educators access, disseminate, or mobilize resources that necessitate the achievement of particular individual and collective purposes. These mechanisms foreground the role of social interaction in personal learning and thus serve as a complementary role to the development of individual human capital. This suggests that both social and human capital assets add to each other in supporting the overall climate that leverages knowledge development through relational linkages. 3.2.2. Relational social capital Relational social capital is primarily conceptualized as the quality of ties between and among individuals (Coleman, 1990; 4

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). It focuses on the conditions facilitating the formation of relational ties by which individual social capital can be developed, maintained or strengthened (Kilduff & Tsai, 2003; Lin, 2009). Relational ties in this sense are regarded as multiple channels and opportunities in which resources (e.g., ideas, knowledge, and information) can be exchanged between individuals and travel across the network (Lin, 2009). Individuals thus may benefit from the exchange of resources and as a result develop and/or accumulate social capital assets (Liou, Daly, Brown, & Del Fresno, 2015). In facilitating the formation of relational ties, the literature indicates that there are variety of factors that influence relational ties and knowledge sharing, including relational trust, friendship, attitudes, personality traits, communication style, and leadership. One factor that has been widely and extensively examined particularly from social capital perspective is trust. Trust is crucial in the shaping of relational ties and interpersonal exchange because it enables people to be willing to take risks based on the beliefs that the other party is honest, reliable and trustworthy: “where there is trust there is the feeling that others will not take advantage of me” (Porter, Lawler, & Hackman, 1975, p. 497). In this regard, trust can influence the extent to which members are willing to exchange information (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Coleman, 1990; Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). Trust may be defined as a relational element that exists in a role relationship that maintains mutual obligations and expectations between an individual and others based on the willingness to be vulnerable to certain levels of risk (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Lin, 2009; Tschannen–Moran, 2004). The quality of interactions that shape the ties between network members in a particular role relationship may vary by level of trust between them. Members who have higher trust may be: (1) more willing to share information with others (Coleman, 1990); (2) more motivated to form close social cohesion (Misztal, 1996); and (3) more confident in the expectation that other members will behave reliably, competently, and benevolently in return (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). To accumulate higher social capital, relational ties must contain certain levels of trust between members within different role sets of relations. Thus, it is necessary to take into account relational trust and its potential influence on the formation of relational ties as we further conceptualize professional learning. Researchers have identified a number of positive outcomes in education related to trust. First, trust can foster effective communications, knowledge sharing (Levin, Cross, Abrams, & Lesser, 2004), and a more timely and accurate flow of information throughout a community (Liou & Daly, 2014; Tschannen–Moran, 2004). Second, trust can facilitate the development and sustainability of a community (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; McLauglin and Talbert, 2001); cultivate social cohesion and effective team collaborations (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Hoy, 2002); and support school improvement (Bryk & Schneider, 2002; Pil & Leana, 2009). Further, trust can lead to better teaching performance (Liou et al., 2017), increased social participation (Tseng & Kuo, 2014) and relational commitment (Louis, Kruse, & Marks, 1996), and higher levels of developed knowledge of shared practice (Noel, 2010). With regard to the application of social learning theory in professional learning, Wenger, White, and Smith (2009) posit that learning occurs through interpersonal interactions and it “depends on the quality of relationships of trust and mutual engagement that members develop with each other” (p. 8). Research in this space further asserts that trust is among the key enablers for knowledge sharing both explicitly and implicitly in professional communities (Booth, 2012). As such, trust facilitates the process of communication and reciprocated interactions for exchange and sharing explicit and tacit knowledge, which helps shape norms of collective activities such as communities that can further produce a sense of meaning (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). Further, this view of relational quality and its relation to social capital assumes that relational resources are inherent in preexisting and established ties between individuals (Baker, 2014). However, organizations that are learning-oriented tend to possess greater capacity to generate and digest new ideas through new or diverse ties with others (Looney, 2009) such that preexisting knowledge may be better exploited through the exploration of new knowledge (March, 1991). The established ties and social capital may in turn transform into a new type of social capital developed by incorporating existing ties with new relationships (Baker, 2014). In facilitating the exploration of new and diverse ties, one needs to be willing to take risks and put oneself in a vulnerable position based on the confidence that the other is trustworthy. As such, we argue that relational capital in a broader aspect of trust plays a key role in facilitating interpersonal connections (structural capital) as well as individual and collective learning. 3.2.3. Cognitive social capital The cognitive social capital addresses the process of facilitating shared language, norms and beliefs, communications, and purpose required for knowledge exchange, reflection, integration, and creation among and between members of organizations (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). This can be accomplished through the process of developing a common language, shared learning experiences, exchange of tacit knowledge, and collectively achieving goals. Organizations that provide such opportunities for sharing and interaction are more likely to enable members to engage in informal learning through gaining access to other members for exchange of resources and information (Tsai, 2001) and for shaping of social norms within their groups or workplace (Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). In turn, these ongoing and established relationships may lead to the development of individual and/or collective knowledge and skills necessary for improving learning (Lieberman & Miller, 2008). In cognitive psychology, the (mis)alignment of individuals’ knowledge and beliefs and actions has received considerable attention under headings of shared cognition, cognitive consensus, and shared mental models (Van den Bossche et al., 2011). Research argues that team cognitive processes naturally shape shared mental models that are continuously confirmed, negotiated, and adapted during team interaction (Gutwin & Greenberg, 2004). Such shared mental models reflect “a knowledge structure held by the members of a team that enables them to form accurate explanations and expectations for the task, and in turn, to coordinate their actions and adapt their behavior to demands of the task and other team members” (Cannon-Bowers, Salas, & Converse, 1993, p. 228). Individuals’ cognitive capital develops as they interact with others over time by sharing beliefs and learning the skills, knowledge, specialized discourse, and norms of the practice (Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1998). As applied to professional learning, we propose that when teachers interact with their colleagues and workplace to share their personal understanding and beliefs about particular change initiative and how it may inform their practice, their individual mental models converge (or diverge) in shared (or divergent) mental models 5

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

(shared knowledge and beliefs). The norms of sharing through which mental models developed are shaped by a collegial culture (Lieberman & Miller, 2008) that is oftentimes characterized by collaboration, communities of practice (Wenger et al., 2002), communities of learning (Vescio et al., 2008), co-learning or peer coaching (Vogt & Rogalla, 2009), or learning networks (Haythornthwaite & De Laat, 2010) between members, as well as accessibility to one another for ideas, reflections, and honest feedback without placing blame (Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolworth, 2001). Dialogue and conversations among and between teachers in a collegial learning environment are more likely to lead to productive and collaborative learning processes because teachers are engaged in “disclosure of and reflection on problems of practice” (Little & Horn, 2007, p. 50). When teachers are provided with opportunities to work collaboratively and engaged in reflective dialogues, they are able to develop individual and collective mental schema for advanced learning and problemsolving skills (Louis, Kruse et al., 1996). This process can in turn refine teaching and learning repertories among individuals and the collective (Louis, Kruse et al., 1996). Research on learning communities discusses the impact of collegial sharing on the development of an internal network that supports the growth of professional knowledge (Martinez, 2003). Teachers are regarded as sources of expertise who possess rich knowledge regarding their work that is valuable for both themselves and colleagues in enhancing practice. To achieve the goal of improvement, it is important to provide opportunities for teachers to share and exchange knowledge and practices within their network (Spanneut, 2010). We propose that the cycle of sharing may in turn increase individual accessibility to valued and useful resources that may accumulate social capital (Burt, 1992; Coleman, 1988; Martinez, 2003). This process of sharing may in turn help facilitate the development of shared language, group norms and beliefs that are key to the formation of cognitive social capital. Individuals are likely to experience emotions as they interact with others and create their social capital. This emotional factor may affect the extent to which individuals are engaged in a conversation or interaction with others, as we oftentimes can correctly assess the extent to which others can read our expressions, and vice versa (Marinetti, Moore, Lucas, & Parkinson, 2011). Therefore, examining this emotional aspect is equally important in thinking about the ways in which learning occurs through social interactions as emotions can shape social norms and practices and be regulated in a given context (Zembylas, 2007). 3.3. Emotional capital The concept of emotional capital (Nowotny, 1981) offers an answer to the question of why some relationships sustain whereas others do not; and why some people turn toward each other rather than turn away from each other in any form of interactions (face to face or online). The key to this difference is that every interpersonal relationship comes with its emotional value made up of the positive emotional experiences one has with others and thus can be deposited as emotional money in their emotional bank (Gottman, Driver, & Tabares, 2002). In this sense, similar to the conceptualization of social capital, emotional capital can be generally defined as an investment in one’s interpersonal relationship(s) in terms of developing and accumulating a stock of positive emotional experiences that establish a resource inherent in a given relationship (Feeney & Lemay, 2012). Emotions are created through several bodies of social formation including affective and cultural experiences (Leavitt, 1996). The embodiment of emotions involves individuals’ experience, re-experience, or (re)-interpretation of their first-experienced affect sensations (fear, joy, anger, etc.) through social relations and enculturated social actors (Leavitt, 1996). As emotions are formed through the embodied accumulation of affects and dispositions, this process thus constitutes an “affective economy” (Ahmed, 2004) in which emotional capital can be mobilized, invested, and accumulated for particular purposes (Zembylas, 2007). A resource to be considered as an emotional asset needs to meet a few criteria. First, this resource is a relational and social construct and thus has to involve the other party in a relationship. Second, that resource needs to be able to promote and sustain the development of a particular relationship for personal growth or success (Gable, Gonzaga, & Strachman, 2006). Third, in attempting to promote the wealth of a relationship, emotional investments may take different forms including expressing love, giving compliments and smiles, engaging in social activities or overcoming a stressor together, etc. (Feeney & Lemay, 2012). Fourth, positive experiences need to be perceived by both parties in a given relationship, and as such perceived positivity of such emotional investments is key (Gallo & Matthews, 2003). Fifth, emotional capital is related to but different from individuals’ cognitions about self and others in a relationship (Lemay, Clark, & Feeney, 2007). Finally, positive emotional investments should involve one’s willingness and motivation to defend the relationship from threats (Feeney & Collins, 2014). Further, as emotional capital is generated through affective relations and socio-cultural experiences and contributes to the formation of emotional norms and affective economies in relations among social groups, the circulation of emotional resources among group members can further reinforce and shape the expression of the social and emotional norms. This suggests emotional capital can be transformed into social and cultural capital as it reflects particular social and cultural manifestations. For instance, teachers may teach emotional management skills to their students in ways that are consequential for reproduction of social and emotional norms, and as such emotional resources can be utilized to restrain, defer, or reproduce group norms. Research from business psychology suggest individuals with higher levels of emotional capital (i.e., investing into their emotional bank) are likely to display pro-relationship behaviors regardless of the positivity or negativity of that relationship (Gratton & Ghoshal, 2003). In contrast, those who invest little into their emotional resources are less likely to exhibit pro-relationship behaviors when faced with any type of relationship threats. These individuals with lower emotional capital tend to isolate themselves, disregard of their social network, and consequently may lose their job (Gendron, 2017). Studies in education and social psychology found that emotional capital is crucial for the wellbeing and resilience of teachers (Gu, 2014), as well as their personal growth and the success in social interactions (Day & Gu, 2014). Other studies found that interpersonal trust plays a key role in sustaining healthy relationships (Feeney & Lemay, 2012), in that trusting relationship indicative of positive emotional experience makes individuals willing to reveal 6

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

their vulnerability to each other and take risks in their relationships (Schoebi & Randall, 2015). In terms of the linkage to human and social capital, emotional capital, interpreted as one’s competencies for establishing, mobilizing, and sustaining emotional resources, is directly affecting and being affected by the functionality in all aspects of social capital. Thus, emotional capital further shapes the formation, acquisition, and utilization of human capital (i.e., knowledge, skills, competencies, and broadly speaking ‘knowledge’). Individuals may build an emotional reserve made up of positive emotional experiences in their social relationships for them to utilize or exploit (Matthews, Räikkönen, Gallo, & Kuller, 2008). The emotional quality of their relationships may influence the degree of intentionality to engaging in, maintaining, or dissolving the relationships for particular purposes. This explains why certain relationships, be it work related or expressive, work whereas others do not. It is also an important and oftentimes overlooked factor in explaining the effectiveness of collective goal attainment as individuals work with others to learn and achieve common goals (Cottingham, 2016; Gendron, 2004).

3.4. Putting it together In this paper, we propose that human capital refers to skills, competencies, broadly speaking “knowledge” possessed by individuals; social capital to structural networks, trust, shared norms and beliefs; and emotional capital to emotional resources embedded within relational dyads developed, accumulated by investing in positive emotional experiences. These capitals act on one another and are consequential to the development and learning of individuals, which ultimately affect the practice of professionals. We draw from Cook and Brown’s (1999) definition of practice in our framework. The practice refers to “action informed by meaning drawn from a particular group context” (p. 387). In this sense, practice is distinguished from behavior and action and is socially constructed. Behavior can be simply defined as doing, while action is behavior imbued with situated meaning that is constructed and appropriated through social norms (Cook & Brown, 1999; Lave & Wenger, 1991). As such, professional practice is largely shaped during processes of interactivity with the embedded context in which learning occurs. Thus, the personal capitals that work on one another explain the complex mechanism of learning which is impactful on professional practice. Fig. 1 presents the conceptual model of the interplay between capital resources and professional practice. We argue that: (1) human capital is developed and shaped through social learning processes; (2) the structural social capital (e.g., relational ties and resulting network structure) can influence the extent to which individuals access and mobilize resources (e.g., instructional materials and practice) that are embedded within relational ties for purposive outcomes (e.g., teaching and learning); (3) the relational social capital (e.g., peer/collegial trust) is key to facilitating interpersonal connectivity; (4) the cognitive social capital (e.g., shared beliefs) plays an important role in the shaping of group norms and collective shared practice; and (5) emotional capital (e.g., affect, social support) supports the development and maintenance of interpersonal relationships and thus promotes the professional development and learning of teachers. Taken together, the intersection of these capital assets (the dark area) makes up the opportunities for individuals to engage in professional learning, which is consequential to the development of day-to-day practice of teachers. These elements of human, social, and emotional capitals will influence the mechanisms that promote the process of professional learning and affect professional growth and, ultimately, individuals’ capacity for improved or changed practices. The literature has indicated that teachers’ human and social capital affects teaching, attitudes towards educational reform, and student learning (Penuel et al., 2016; Pil & Leana, 2009). In addition, the quantity and quality of teachers’ social relationships have been related to overall school improvement characteristics in terms of innovative climate and organizational culture (Moolenaar et al., 2014). However, despite having a basis in

Fig. 1. Conceptual Model of Professional Learning and Its Relationship to Professional Practice. 7

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

theory, the assumption that the process of learning, as captured in the interplay between teachers’ human, social, and emotional capitals, is related to decisions (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2013) and behaviors of teachers has not received systematic empirical consideration and investigation. While a number of recent research studies have provided important insights into the work of teachers through the examination of one or two aspects of capital (e.g., Reichenberg & Andreassen, 2018; Yoon, Yom, Yang, & Liu, 2017), the extent to which the interplay among the proposed three capitals may facilitate capacity building for individuals and the organization as a whole remains unanswered and requires further investigation. In sum, we propose that professional learning is a process that occurs over time and is developed and shaped by investments in human, social, and emotional capitals for capacity building. Over time, this process of learning dynamically affects, and is affected by, professional growth as reflected in teaching practice, and more indirectly, in increased student achievement and organizational improvement. It is this dynamic interplay of personal capitals that shapes the process of learning that may provide insights and practical application to teaching and learning in the era of educational reforms across the globe. 4. Concluding reflections Professional learning of teachers is a complex phenomenon and requires the use of a more holistic lens to disentangle what appear to be key components in understanding this phenomenon. We draw from key theoretical concepts that are related to the shaping of individual learning and we situated the learning within a social context. By combining and expanding existing lines of reasoning, we argue that each of the aspects of professional learning (i.e., human, social, and emotional) supplements one another. The important common thread weaving through these aspects is the role of interpersonal relationships in learning that takes into account not only individuals’ cognitive, but also their social and emotional development (Schonert–Reichl, 2017). Our work seeks to provide a conceptual framework for professional learning by discussing how different aspects of capital resources that are embedded within interpersonal relationships may facilitate or constrain opportunities for learning. The framework may serve as a useful conceptual lens for the field to re-think the design of and conditions for learning. It also provides a lens to understand more holistically the opportunities that facilitate the development, sustaining, and accumulation of capitals during pre-service and in-service education. We encourage future studies to consider this framework to investigate the role of some of the capital resources as discussed in this paper, particularly the core social aspect, in professional practice, from different international contexts. Through careful examination of the social fabrics of educators, our understanding of professional learning will advance and add value to the understanding of the complex dimensions of learning. Additionally, it will add to the advancement of theory building on adult learning, human, social and emotional capital and contribute to practical linkages to the work of pre-/in-service teachers. In terms of practical implications, we offer several points of future directions as we think about professional learning. First, to ensure that the professional learning of teachers impacts their practice in the best possible way, we believe all capitals should be taken into account when creating conditions for learning and personal growth. Unfortunately, as mentioned before, the social dimension in teachers’ professional learning is still undervalued. For example, collaboration with colleagues is still perceived as a more innovative form of both formal and informal professional development activities (Vangrieken, Meredith, Packer, & Kyndt, 2017) even though research has shown its positive impact on student achievement (Pil & Leana, 2009). Shea, Sandholtz, and Shanahan (2018) found larger increases in all students’ test scores in schools that implemented a school-wide professional development (PD) program, i.e., teachers were provided with structured time and space to form teams and share instructional practice with their team members targeted at improving student learning. Such findings underline the importance of a networked approach to facilitating learning and practice in schools. Yet, for individual and collaborative learning to be successful, a trusting and open culture between the teachers is important (Vangrieken et al., 2017), stressing the necessity of relational capital. Schools need to create an environment with conditions in which teachers feel safe and willing to be open to try out new approaches to improve their practice. This goes beyond quantity of interpersonal connections but underlines the importance of the quality of ties strengthening the norms of collegial collaboration and joint learning (Vangrieken et al., 2017). Such conditions for learning, together with shared social and emotional norms, may bring about the uptake of positive emotions, leading to the creation of a socially constituted system of dispositions that are simultaneously influenced by social and cultural contexts (see Bourdieu, 1977, on “habitus” for more on this notion). In this sense, individuals’ knowledge and knowing and social capital are also regulated by social systems, recognizing the affective aspects of cultural reproduction (see Giroux, 1983, on cultural capital). Although it is still questioned whether emotional capital is malleable or modifiable, some research suggests that experiences, selfreflection, and conscience teaching and learning contribute to this capital (cf., Cottingham, 2016). This would imply that teachers should actively reach out and be encouraged to work on their emotional capital. Educational leaders have an important role in this respect. Previous research has shown that emotion recognition contributes to the formation of particular emotional norms that may systematically transform into social capital (e.g., empowered feelings in a given social context) (Zembylas, 2007). In this regard, educational leaders and their behaviors may have a consequential role in the shaping of collective emotional capital (Rubin, Munz, & Bommer, 2005). Yet, educational leaders should think and work beyond recognition of emotions and towards a more holistic notion of emotion capital, especially when considering professional learning for their teachers. Much has been written about teaching being an emotional demanding job (cf., Tuxford & Bradley, 2015), yet the relevance of emotional capital in teachers’ learning and development is still lacking acknowledgment and attention. As we have shown in Fig. 1, emotional capital is not solely a capital residing within an individual. If, as suggested, working on one’s emotional capital implies reaching out, this implies there should be others to reach out to. In other words, structural capital should be present as well and thus, teachers’ social capital is important for their emotional capital. Teachers themselves also express a need for sharing with colleagues (Caspersen, Michelsen, & Wendelborg, 2016) and their beliefs about the usefulness of collaboration and sharing contributes to teachers’ intention to participate in professional 8

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

development activities (Canrinus, Dalehefte, & Myhre, n.d.). Again, educational leaders should create arenas for teachers to connect with one another and share their experiences and resources, be it human, social, or emotional capital. In creating the conditions that facilitate the development of these capitals, educational leaders and teacher educators may need to first move toward a network-enabled approach to professional development in which opportunities of learning are provided for interpersonal connectivity and sharing of resources and second embrace the “resource in full” model of personal capital development (Gendron, 2004), that is, the combined benefits of head (human capital), hands (social capital), and heart (emotional capital) for individuals’ professional learning that ultimately will benefit professional practice for teaching and leadership as well as student learning. Declaration of Competing Interest None. Acknowledgement None. References Ahmed, S. (2004). Affective economies. Social Text, 22(2), 117–139. Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J. G., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Perspectives on learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11–13. Baker, W. (2014). Making pipes, using pipes: How tie initiation, reciprocity, positive emotions, and reputation create new organizational social capital. In D. J. Brass, G. Labianca, A. Mehra, D. S. Halgin, & S. P. Borgatti (Eds.). Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks (pp. 57–71). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing Ltd. Baker-Doyle, K. J. (2012). First-year teachers’ support networks: Intentional professional networks and diverse professional allies. The New Educator, 8(1), 65–85. Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall, Inc. Bandura, A. (1986). The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 4(3), 359–373. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117–148. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 269–290. Bickhard, M. H. (1992). How does the environment affect the person? In L. T. Winegar, & J. Valsiner (Eds.). Children’s development within social contexts: Metatheoretical, theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 63–92). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Blumer, H. (1969). Fashion: From class differentiation to collective selection. The Sociological Quarterly, 10(3), 275–291. Booth, S. E. (2012). Cultivating knowledge sharing and trust in online communities for educators. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 47(1), 1–31. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42. Brown, P., Hashem, F., & Calnan, M. (2016). Trust, regulatory processes and NICE decision-making: Appraising cost-effectiveness models through appraising people and systems. Social Studies of Science, 46(1), 87–111. Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Bryk, A., Bender, P., Allensworth, E., Leppescu, S., & Easton, J. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bryk, A., Camburn, E., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751–781. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cannon-Bowers, J. A., Salas, E., & Converse, S. A. (1993). Shared mental models in expert team decision making. In N. J. Castellan (Ed.). Individual and group decision making: Current issues (pp. 221–246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Canrinus, E. T., Dalehefte, I. M., & Myhre, S. (forthcoming). VET teachers’ beliefs on collaboration, identity, and status and their relationship with professional development. Pedagogische Studiën. Caspersen, J., Michelsen, H., & Wendelborg, C. (2016). Lærlingundersøkelsen 2015 [Student survey 2015]. Trondheim: NTNU samfunnsforskning. Çelik, V., & Ekinci, A. (2012). The effects of social capital on school success. International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 2(1), 211–223. Coburn, C. E., Mata, W. S., & Choi, L. (2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from a study of mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 311–342. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Cook, S. D., & Brown, J. S. (1999). Bridging epistemologies: The generative dance between organizational knowledge and organizational knowing. Organization Science, 10(4), 381–400. Cottingham, M. D. (2016). Theorizing emotional capital. Theory and Society, 45(5), 451–470. Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) (2010). Common core state standards initiative. Washington, DC: 18.\tCouncil of Chief State School Officers. Cross, R., Borgatti, S., & Parker, A. (2002). Making invisible work visible: Using social network analysis to support strategic collaboration. California Management Review, 44(2), 25–46. Cruddas, L. (2015). Leading the way: Blueprint for a self–improving system. Leicester: United Kingdom: Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL). Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. (Eds.). (2016). Thinking and acting systemically: Improving school districts under pressure. Washington DC: AERA Publishing. Darling–Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1/2), 35–47. Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2014). Resilient teachers, resilient schools: Building and sustaining quality in testing times. New York, NY: Routledge. Education Review Office (2016). Collaboration to improve learner outcomes: What does the evidence tell us about what works? New Zealand: Education Review Office. Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2014). A theoretical perspective on the importance of social connections for thriving. In M. Mikulincer, & P. R. Shaver (Eds.). The Herzliya series on personality and social psychology. Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to group (pp. 291–314). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. Feeney, B. C., & Lemay, E. P., Jr (2012). Surviving relationship threats: The role of emotional capital. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(8), 1004–1017. Gable, S. L., Gonzaga, G. C., & Strachman, A. (2006). Will you be there for me when things go right? Supportive responses to positive event disclosures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(5), 904. Gallo, L. C., & Matthews, K. A. (2003). Understanding the association between socioeconomic status and physical health: do negative emotions play a role? Psychological Bulletin, 129(1), 10–51. Gendron, B. (2004). Why emotional capital matters in education and labour? Toward an optimal exploitation of human capital and knowledge management. Les

9

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

Cahiers de La Maison Des Sciences Economiques, 113, 1–37. Gendron, B. (2017). Emotional capital: The set of emotional competencies as professional and vocational skills in emotional works and jobs. Revista Espanola de Educacion Comparada, (29), 44–61. Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition. South Hadley, MA: Bergin and Garvey. Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning, measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37(2), 479–507. Gottman, J. M., Driver, J., & Tabares, A. (2002). Building the sound marital house: An empirically derived couple therapy. In A. S. Gurman, & N. S. Jacobson (Eds.). Clinical handbook of couple therapy (pp. 373–399). (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Gratton, L., & Ghoshal, S. (2003). Managing personal human capital: New ethos for the ‘volunteer’ employee. European Management Journal, 21(1), 1–10. Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103(6), 942–1012. Gu, Q. (2014). The role of relational resilience in teachers’ career–Long commitment and effectiveness. Teachers and Teaching, 20(5), 502–529. Gutwin, C., & Greenberg, S. (2004). The importance of awareness for team cognition in distributed collaboration. In E. Salas, & S. Fiore (Eds.). Team cognition: Understanding the factors that drive process and performance (pp. 177–201). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Collaborative leadership and school improvement: Understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership and Management, 30(2), 95–110. Hanneman, R. A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California, Riverside. Hargreaves, A., & Fullan, M. (2013). The power of professional capital. The Learning Professional, 34(3), 36–39. Haythornthwaite, C., & De Laat, M. (2010). Social networks and learning networks: Using social network perspectives to understand social learning. MayProceedings of the 7th international conference on networked learning. Aalborg, Denmark: Lancaster University183–190. Hogan, R., Chamorro–Premuzic, T., & Kaiser, R. B. (2013). Employability and career success: Bridging the gap between theory and reality. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 6(1), 3–16. Hoy, W. K. (2002). Faculty trust: A key to student achievement. Journal of School Public Relations, 23(2), 88–103. Hubers, M. D., Moolenaar, N. M., Schildkamp, K., Daly, A. J., Handelzalts, A., & Pieters, J. M. (2018). Share and succeed: The development of knowledge sharing and brokerage in data teams’ network structures. Research Papers in Education, 33(2), 216–238. Hung, D. W., & Chen, D. T. (2001). Situated cognition, Vygotskian thought and learning from the communities of practice perspective: Implications for the design of web-based e-learning. Educational Media International, 38(1), 3–12. James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(7), 973–982. Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2010). Teacher learning opportunities in a shifting policy environment for instruction. Educational Policy, 24(4), 563–601. Kilduff, M., & Krackhardt, D. (2008). Interpersonal networks in organization: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture: Structural analysis in the social sciences. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London: Sage Publications. Kwakman, K. (2003). Factors affecting teachers’ participation in professional learning activities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(2), 149–170. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning- Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Leavitt, J. (1996). Meaning and feeling in the anthropology of emotions. American Ethnologist, 23(3), 514–539. Lemay, E. P., Jr, Clark, M. S., & Feeney, B. C. (2007). Projection of responsiveness to needs and the construction of satisfying communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 834–853. Levin, D. Z., Cross, R., Abrams, L. C., & Lesser, E. L. (2004). Trust and knowledge sharing: A critical combination. In E. Lesser, & L. Prusak (Eds.). Creating value with knowledge: Insights from the IBM institute for business value. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Lieberman, A., & Miller, L. (2008). Teachers in professional communities: Improving teaching and learning. Teachers College, Columbia University. Lin, N. (2009). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action (8th ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Liou, Y.-H., Canrinus, E. T., & Daly, A. J. (2019). Activating the implementers: The role of organizational expectations, teacher beliefs, and motivation in bringing about reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79, 60–72. Liou, Y.-H., & Daly, A. J. (2014). Closer to learning: Social networks, trust, and professional communities. Journal of School Leadership, 24(4), 753–795. Liou, Y.-H., & Daly, A. J. (2018). Investigating leader self-efficacy through policy engagement and social network position. Educational Policy. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0895904818773904. Liou, Y.-H., Daly, A. J., Brown, C., & Del Fresno, M. (2015). Foregrounding the role of relationships in reform: A social network perspective on leadership and change. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(7), 819–837. Liou, Y.-H., Daly, A. J., Canrinus, E. T., Forbes, C. A., Moolenaar, N. M., Cornelissen, F., ... Hsiao, J. (2017). Mapping the social side of pre-service teachers: Connecting closeness, trust, and efficacy with performance. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 23(6), 635–657. Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129–151. Little, J. W. (2002). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 917–946. Little, J. W., & Horn, I. S. (2007). ‘Normalizing’ problems of practice: Converting routine conversation into a resource for learning in professional communities. In L. Stoll, & K. S. Louis (Eds.). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth, and dilemmas (pp. 79–92). Berkshire, UK: Open University Press. Looney, J. W. (2009). Assessment and innovation in education. OECD Education Working Papers, 24OECD Publishing. Louis, K. S., Kruse, S., & Marks, H. M. (1996). School-wide professional community: Teachers work, intellectual quality and commitment. In F. W. Newmann, & Associates (Eds.). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality (pp. 179–203). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Louis, K., Marks, H., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798. March, J. (1991). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. Organization Science, 2(1), 71–87. Marinetti, C., Moore, P., Lucas, P., & Parkinson, B. (2011). Emotions in social interactions: Unfolding emotional experience. In P. Petta (Ed.). Emotion-oriented systems, cognitive technologies (pp. 31–46). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Martinez, M. C. (2003). One principal developing school capacity through building social capital. Center for Educational Policy Analysis, Rutgers University. Matthews, K. A., Räikkönen, K., Gallo, L., & Kuller, L. H. (2008). Association between socioeconomic status and metabolic syndrome in women: Testing the reserve capacity model. Health Psychology, 27(5), 576–583. McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement, Vol. 45. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. McLauglin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Misztal, B. A. (1996). Trust in modern societies: The search for the bases of social order. Cambridge: Polity Press. Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2007). Extending the learning community: A broader perspective embedded in policy. In L. Stoll, & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.). Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas. Berkshire, England: Open University Press. Moolenaar, N. M., Daly, A. J., Cornelissen, F., Liou, Y.–H., Caillier, S., Riordan, R., et al. (2014). Linked to innovation: Shaping an innovative climate through network intentionality and educators’ social network position. Journal of Educational Change, 15(2), 99–123. Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23(2), 242–266. Noel, J. (2010). Weaving teacher education into the fabric of urban schools and communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(3), 9–25. Nowotny, H. (1981). Women in public life in Australia. In Epstein, C. Fuchs, Coser, & R. Laub (Eds.). Access to power: Cross-national studies of women and elites (pp. 149– 165). London: George Allen & Unwin. Organisation for Economic Co–operation and Development (2013). Teachers for the 21st Century: Using evaluation to improve teaching. Paris: OECD Publishing. Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (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.

10

International Journal of Educational Research 100 (2020) 101527

Y.-H. Liou and E.T. Canrinus

Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2009). Comparing three approaches to preparing teachers to teach for deep understanding in Earth science: Short-term impacts on teachers and teaching practice. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 18(4), 461–508. Penuel, W. R., Bell, P., Bevan, B., Buffington, P., & Falk, J. (2016). Enhancing use of learning sciences research in planning for and supporting educational change: Leveraging and building social networks. Journal of Educational Change, 17(2), 251–278. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes professional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 921–958. Penuel, W. R., Sun, M., Frank, K. A., & Gallagher, H. A. (2012). Using social network analysis to study how collegial interactions can augment teacher learning from external professional development. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 103–136. Pil, F. K., & Leana, C. (2009). Applying organizational research to public school reform: The effects of teacher human and social capital on student performance. The Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1101–1124. Polanyi, M. (1966). The tacit dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Company, Inc. Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., & Hackman, J. R. (1975). Behavior in organizations. New York: McGraw-Hill. Raider, H., & Krackhardt, D. J. (2002). Intraorganizational networks. In J. A. C. Baum (Ed.). The Blackwell companion to organizations (pp. 58–74). Malden, MA: Wiley–Blackwell. Reichenberg, M., & Andreassen, R. (2018). Comparing Swedish and Norwegian teachers’ professional development: How human capital and social capital factor into teachers’ reading habits. Reading Psychology, 39(5), 442–467. Rubin, R. S., Munz, D. C., & Bommer, W. H. (2005). Leading from within: The effects of emotion recognition and personality on transformational leadership behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 48(5), 845–858. Schleicher, A. (2016). Teaching excellence through professional learning and policy reform. Organisation for Economic Co–operation and DevelopmentParis: OECD Publishing. Schleicher, A. (Ed.). (2012). Preparing teachers and developing school leaders for the 21st century: Lessons from around the worldParis: OECD Publishing. Schoebi, D., & Randall, A. K. (2015). Emotional dynamics in intimate relationships. Emotion Review, 7(4), 342–348. Schonert–Reichl, K. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning and teachers. Future of Children, 27(1), 137–155. Shea, L. M., Sandholtz, J. H., & Shanahan, T. B. (2018). We are all talking: A whole–School approach to professional development for teachers of English learners. Professional Development in Education, 44(2), 190–208. Siciliano, M. D. (2017). Professional networks and street–Level performance: How public school teachers’ advice networks influence student performance. The American Review of Public Administration, 47(1), 79–101. Silins, H. C., Mulford, W. R., & Zarins, S. (2002). Organizational learning and school change. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 613–642. Smylie, M. A., & Hart, A. W. (1999). School leadership for teacher learning and change: A human and social capital development perspective. In J. Murphy, & K. Seashore Louis (Eds.). Handbook of educational administration (pp. 421–442). New York, NY: Longman. Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement function of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 1–30. Smylie, M. A. (1995). Teacher learning in the workplace: Implications for school reform. In T. R. Guskey, & M. Huberman (Eds.). Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Spanneut, G. (2010). Professional learning communities, principals, and collegial conversations. Kappa Delta Pi Record, 46(3), 100–103. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 47–64). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. Tsai, W. (2001). Knowledge transfer in intraorganizational networks: Effects of network position and absorptive capacity on business unit innovation and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 44(5), 996–1004. Tsai, W., & Ghoshal, S. (1998). Social capital and value creation: The role of intrafirm networks. Academy of Management Journal, 41(4), 464–476. Tschannen–Moran, M. (2004). Trust matter: Leadership for successful schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey–Bass. Tseng, F. C., & Kuo, F. Y. (2014). A study of social participation and knowledge sharing in the teachers’ online professional community of practice. Computers & Education, 72, 37–47. Tuxford, L. M., & Bradley, G. L. (2015). Emotional job demands and emotional exhaustion in teachers. Educational Psychology, 35(8), 1006–1024. Vaillant, D. (2015). School leadership, trends in policies and practices, and improvement in the quality of education. Education for All Global Monitoring Report. Background Paper for the 2015 Global Monitoring Report: Achievements and Challenges. Van den Bossche, P., Gijselaers, W., Segers, M., Woltjer, G., & Kirschner, P. (2011). Team learning: Building shared mental models. Instructional Science, 39(3), 283–301. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systematic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. Vogt, F., & Rogalla, M. (2009). Developing adaptive teaching competency through coaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(8), 1051–1060. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings on the Development of Children, 23(3), 34–41. Wadsworth, B. J. (1996). Piaget’s theory of cognitive and affective development: Foundations of constructivism. Harlow, UK: Longman Publishing. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press. Wenger, E., White, N., & Smith, J. (2009). Digital habitats: Stewarding technology for communities. Portland, OR: CPsquare. Yoon, S. A., Yom, J. K., Yang, Z., & Liu, L. (2017). The effects of teachers’ social and human capital on urban science reform initiatives: Considerations for professional development. Teachers College Record, 119(4). Zembylas, M. (2007). Emotional ecology: The intersection of emotional knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge in teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23(4), 355–367.

11