This study is intended to understand teaching quality of English student teachers when they conduct their teaching practicum. Teaching quality is conceptualized based on the principles of effective teaching resulted by teacher effectiveness studies. Thes IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 72 Measurement Model of Professional Learning Community: A Malaysian Teacher Context MOHD FAIZ MOHD YAAKOB1 Abstract The main purpose of the study was to develop an empirical empirically measurement model for Professional Learning Community (PLC) among teachers in Malaysia primary schools. Structural Equation Modelling (SEM) utilizing AMOS Version 22 was employed to develop the model. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was utilized to identify the underlying factors, whereas confirmatory factor analysis was employed to test the construct of the PLC. The study involved 450 primary school teachers from 5 zones in Malaysia represented by the states of Kedah, Selangor, Johor, Terengganu and Sarawak. Professional Learning Community Model (PLC) was found to be fit and reliable model with all fit statistics set well above the threshold level. The finding has also encouraged a fresh look at the implementation of PLC program aimed at successful change in schools. The findings of the PLC will also benefit educational practitioners in designing a teacher professional development. Keywords Education, educational administration, professional learning community, educational policy, structural equation modeling 1 Faculty of Management and Economics, Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Tg Malim, Malaysia; P20131001410@siswa.upsi.edu.my mailto:P20131001410@siswa.upsi.edu.my IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 73 Introduction Teachers are the agents of change for student achievement and school improvement. One strategic way to improving schools is fostering and promoting professional learning in which teachers develop their practice and build learning communities (Ho, Lee, & Teng, 2016). Educators can gathering and composed to help instructional activity inquire about that points and focuses at fruitful the nature of instructing readiness (Vanderlinde & Van Braak, 2010). Numerous researchers have conceptualized every one of these practices as PLCs. Meanwhile, Malaysian Continuous Professional Development (CPD) for teachers clearly stated the PLC programme should be conducted in school to improve the quality and performance (Ministry of Education, 2014). Indeed, PLC is an initiative and trend to improve quality of teachers, student achievement, and professional development among developed country (Chichibu, 2013; Dufour & Mattos, 2013; Pektas, 2014). Indeed, the idea of PLC at first risen up out of the possibility of the teachers proficient group which can be followed back to the 1980s. Later, another organizational feature, called organizational learning was added to the concept of a professional community, resulting in the coining of the term PLC (Senge, 1990). Successful implementations of PLCs enable schools to effectively address some of the problems that education in the twenty-first century faces. For instance, availability of effective professional learning communities is found to be a considerable driving force for building teacher and school capacity which is correlated with improved achievement for all students (Youngs & King, 2001). Meanwhile, through PLCs, teachers are provided with an access to resources with the learning opportunities, which are necessary to restructure learning environments to meet the educational prerequisites of their increasingly diverse students. Thus, there is not much knowledge regarding current status of PLC and factors associated with its practices in Malaysia primary school context. This study, therefore, aims to assess PLC capability of Malaysia primary schools and explore factors and create the model that explain PLC model among Malaysian primary teachers. Literature Review Shirley Hord’s (1997) model of PLC is based into school improvement and school reform. Her work with the Creating Communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement (CCCII) project, which began in the mid-1990’s, gave rise to learning more about promoting and nurturing learning communities (Hord, 1997). Hord also draws upon Senge’s learning organization theory in her work with professional learning communities. According to Hord, there are five scopes or dimensions of a professional learning community: i) supportive and shared leadership, ii) shared values and vision, iii) collective learning and application of learning, iv)supportive conditions, and v) shared practice. Supportive and shared leadership The school reform and educational leadership literatures clearly identify the role and inspiration of the educational administrator on whether reform will occur in the school. It appears to be certain that changing a school association into a learning group should be possible just with the pioneers and the dynamic sustaining of the whole staff's change as a IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 74 group. Thus, a look at the educational leader of a school whose staff is a professional learning community seems a good starting point for relating what these learning communities look like and how the educational administrator or principal accepts a collegial relationship with teachers. This new relationship produced amongst overseers and teachers prompts shared and collegial administration in the school, where all develop professionally and figure out how to see themselves as all playing on a similar group and utilized toward a similar objective: a superior school (Hoer, 1996; Hord, 1997). Shared values and vision Vision is a trite term these days, and at many times it refers to mission, purpose, goals, objectives, or a paper sheet posted near the principal’s office (Isaacson & Bamburg, 1992). Sharing vision is not recently affirming with a smart thought; it is a particular mental picture of what is critical to an individual and to an organization. Staff are urged not exclusively to be required in the method of building up a mutual vision, but to utilize that thought as a guidepost in leadership of educating and learning in the school (Hord, 1997). Collective learning and application of learning Collective Learning is form Senge's paradigm shift was discovered by educators and shared in educational journals, the label became learning communities. In schools, the learning group is shown by people from various voting demographics, at all levels, cooperatively and constantly working and adapting together (Hord, 1997; Louis & Kruse, 1995). Supportive conditions Supportive conditions control when and where and how the staff frequently comes together as a unit to do the learning, decision making, problem solving, and creative work that describe a professional learning community. There is two types of conditions are necessary for learning communities to create function productively: the physical or organizational setup and the human capacities of the people involved (Hord, 1997; Louis & Kruse, 1995). Shared practice Shared practice is shared personal practice among colleagues. Review of a teacher's behavior by colleagues is the norm in the professional learning community (Louis & Kruse, 1995). This activity is not evaluative but is part of the "peers helping peers" practice. Such review is conducted frequently by teachers, who visit each other's classrooms to observe, script notes, and discuss their observations with the visited peer. The process is based on the desire for individual and community enhancement and is enabled by the mutual respect and trustworthiness of staff members (Hord, 1997). Methods A quantitative approach with a survey research design was chosen for this study because the intent is to ask narrow objective questions generating quantifiable data that can be analysed using statistics (Cresswell, 2008). The target respondents are among all the IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 75 primary school teacher in Malaysia. The samples were selected using the multistage cluster sampling techniques. The study involved 450 primary school teachers from five zone areas of Malaysia represented by the states of Kedah, Selangor, Johor, Terengganu and Sarawak. This sample saiz achieve the minimum sample saiz according to Krejcie & Morgan (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). There is 112 (18.3%) from Kedah, 163 (26.6%) from Selangor, 114 (16.5%) from Terengganu, 101 (18.6%) from Johor and 122 (19.9%) from Sarawak. The measurement instrument The instrument is adapt and modification from of the PLCA-R (Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2010). Previous studies on the PLCA-R have gone through construct validity and have yielded satisfactory internal consistency for the subscales of the PLCA-R (Olivier, Hipp, & Huffman, 2010). The adaption and modification questionnaire consists of 52 items and five subscales: shared and supportive leadership, shared values and vision, collective learning and application, shared personal practice, and supportive conditions. The questionnaire as shown as appendix. Modelling professional learning community Five distinct approaches were applied to ensure the development and modelling PLC. First, the PLC was initially peer reviewed by the teachers and supervisors after systematically literature review. Second, ten face-to-face discussions with the expert including academician and practitioner. In fact, each subsequent instrument was constructed based on the preceding instrument. Some of the items were modified and redrafted based on the outcome of each discussion so as to ensure their precision and clarity. Third, a pilot study was conducted in order to assess the internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha), and EFA procedure to explore the factor. Forth, a field study was conducted to run CFA, convergent validity and discriminant validity. Finally, this model successfully developed through all of the procedure. Normality Prior to analysing the data, descriptive statistics were examined to check the normality of PLC model. Normally, the data should be conducted to investigate how the standard of the data collected so that the developing model suits the parametric technique in the future research. Using Skewness and Kurtosis approach, our data is claimed to be highly significant indicating as normal data. Each item is ranging between -2 to +2 (Garson, 2012). Table 1. Multivariate normality Variable min max Skew c.r. kurtosis c.r. Cd4 4.000 10.000 -.285 -2.468 1.338 5.796 Cd7 4.000 10.000 -.290 -2.516 1.324 5.732 Cd6 4.000 10.000 -.232 -2.009 .816 3.533 Cd3 4.000 10.000 -.019 -.163 .354 1.531 Cc7 4.000 10.000 .019 .164 .919 3.979 Cc4 4.000 10.000 -.015 -.128 .210 .909 IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 76 Variable min max Skew c.r. kurtosis c.r. Cc6 4.000 10.000 .003 .029 .602 2.608 Cc5 4.000 10.000 -.321 -2.778 .842 3.644 Cf2 4.000 10.000 -.231 -2.003 .435 1.882 Cf1 4.000 10.000 -.441 -3.820 1.038 4.494 Cf3 4.000 10.000 -.466 -4.039 1.468 6.355 Cf4 2.000 10.000 -.679 -5.883 .391 1.695 Cf5 2.000 10.000 -.696 -6.031 .839 3.631 Cf6 2.000 10.000 -.692 -5.993 .582 2.520 Ca6 2.000 10.000 -.280 -2.427 1.957 8.473 Ca4 4.000 10.000 -.392 -3.391 1.368 5.924 Ca9 4.000 10.000 -.221 -1.915 .800 3.464 Ca1 4.000 10.000 -.892 -7.722 1.210 5.238 Ca7 2.000 10.000 -.467 -4.044 1.594 6.902 Ca5 4.000 10.000 -.475 -4.113 1.367 5.918 Ca8 6.000 10.000 .083 .722 -.162 -.702 Cb5 4.000 10.000 .118 1.024 -.054 -.235 Cb6 4.000 10.000 -.010 -.090 .126 .547 Cb9 6.000 10.000 .118 1.022 -.819 -3.545 Cb8 6.000 10.000 -.020 -.173 -.793 -3.433 Cb2 6.000 10.000 .166 1.440 -.764 -3.308 Cb7 6.000 10.000 .346 2.995 -1.027 -4.446 Cb4 4.000 10.000 .039 .337 -.059 -.257 Cb3 4.000 10.000 -.017 -.150 -.262 -1.136 Multivariate 474.695 114.905 Convergent validity The convergent validity is the validation processes on measurement model. According to Kline (2011), convergent validity is a set of items in one construct are inter-correlation, at least, moderate in magnitude and is measured through average variance extracted (AVE) where the threshold is above >0.5 indicates a high convergent validity (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Factor loading of each item at ≥ 0.6 considered high convergent validity (Hair et al., 2010). Table 2 showed all the AVE and factor loading achieved the minimum value for convergent validity. Table 2. Factor loading, AVE, CR and √AVE Item Factors Factor Loading (>0.6) AVE( >0.5) CR(> 0.6) √AVE Ca1 Supportive and Shared Leadership 0.715 0.720 0.959 0.848 Ca2 0.813 IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 77 Ca4 0.859 Ca5 0.915 Ca6 0.879 Ca7 0.899 Ca8 0.844 Ca9 0.837 Cb2 Shared Values and Vision 0.866 0.757 0.965 0.870 Cb3 0.906 Cb4 0.896 Cb5 0.906 Cb6 0.819 Cb7 0.891 Cb8 0.8 Cb9 0.808 Cc4 Collective Learning and Application of Learning 0.795 0.697 0.902 0.824 Cc5 0.793 Cc6 0.894 Cc7 0.852 Cd3 Shared Practice 0.791 0.687 0.897 0.828 Cd4 0.831 Cd6 0.831 Cd7 0.86 Cf1 Supportive Condition 0.829 0.588 0.894 0.766 Cf2 0.867 Cf3 0.82 Cf4 0.697 Cf5 0.682 Cf6 0.682 Discriminant validity Table 3 showed that the diagonal value (in bold) are higher than any other values in its row and column. Thus, the discriminant validity for the PLC constructs was achieved. The discriminant validity is to avoid any redundant items in the measurement model (Zainudin, 2012). The items should not be related are in reality not related. It involves the relationship between a latent construct and other constructs of a similar nature. Discriminant validity can be identified by comparing the variance shared by the average AVE between these two constructs (Bove, Pervan, Beatty, & Shiu, 2009). Table 3. Discriminant validity Supportive and shared leadership Shared Value and Vision Collective Learning and Application of learning Shared Practice Supportive Condition 0.848 0.66 0.870 IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 78 0.64 0.77 0.824 0.62 0.70 0.72 0.828 0.62 0.65 0.70 0.63 0.766 Measurement model of the PLC Figure 1.1st order CFA Figure 2. 2nd order CFA Notes: SVV: Shared Values and Vision, SSL: Supportive and Shared Leadership, SC: Supportive Condition, CLA: Collective Learning and Application of Learning, SC: Supportive Condition Fitness indexes In SEM, there is several Fitness Indexes that reflect how fit is the model to the data at hand. However there is no agreement among researchers which fitness indexes to use. Hair et al. (2010) and Holmes-Smith (2006) recommend the use of at least one fitness index IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 79 from each category of model fit. There are three model fit categories namely Absolute Fit, Incremental Fit, and Parsimonious Fit. The value of fitness indexes used in this study is the RMSEA (absolute), CFI (relative), and PCFI (parsimonious) and this model was achieved the model indexes. Table 4. Model fitness indexes Model Fitness Indexes Findings RMSEA < 0.1 0.073 CFI > 0.9 0.925 PCFI > 0.5 0.850 Findings and Discussion Finally PLC’s model successful developed empirically. The findings have explored and confirm factor structure of PLC. It is revealed all dimensions of the PLC, such as Supportive and shared leadership, Shared Value and Vision, Collective Learning and Application of learning, Shared Practice and Supportive Condition in Malaysian context. In reality, there are the challenges for PLC implementation such as: 1) teachers’ workload, 2) ambiguity of PLC processes and effectiveness, and 3) hierarchical work structure (Hairon & Dimmock, 2012). But with the suitable model, PLC implementation should be structured and effective. Factor supportive and shared leadership has their own capacity. Supportive leadership is compulsory to create an atmosphere in which leadership capacity is developed for all community members. Shared leadership capacity empowers all members of PLC to share in the vision and mission of the school and make effective and real decisions that positively affect student learning and achievement. Factor Shared Value and Vision is connected by mission, focus, goals. A shared sense of the vision and goals of a learning community is assembled by its members, embedded in daily practice and visible to all. Such vision, focus and goals are woven into the fabric of school and community life and are centred on the enhancement of student achievement, learning and growth. Meanwhile, factor Collective Learning and Application of Learning is about collaborative relationships within the school community. There are centered on developing informed decision making and a knowledge base that positively influences practice. It emphasizes the cognitive processes that result from effective PLCs and the significance of working collectively with curricular outcomes, instructional processes and the best practices. Factor Shared Practice is about collaboration with colleagues and factor Supportive Conditions that are necessary in order to accept and embrace change within school communities are identified. This includes both logistical supports, such as scheduling and resources, and social and cognitive supports, such as opportunity, leadership and communication. Professional learning communities have been held up as powerful structures for teachers’ continuing professional development. The factor shaped the PLC’s model could guide the development of PLCs within the context of school improvement initiatives. IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 80 Conclusion Initiating and sustaining the PLC model concept requires hard work. A school staff must focus on learning rather than teaching, work collaboratively on matters related to learning, and hold its members accountable for the kind of results that fuel continual improvement. When educators work hard to implement these principles, their collective ability to help all students learn will improve. The study of these factors is important to clarify the strengths and weaknesses that should be considered by the authorities. This will facilitate the relevant parties to measure for improvement in the event of weaknesses and to promote in order to be expended and implemented. In conclusion, this model of PLC will help in achieving the national vision and agenda of the national education policy. References Bove, L.L., Pervan, S.J., Beatty, S.E., Shiu, E. (2009). Service worker role in encouraging customer organizational citizenship behaviors. Journal of Business Research, 62(7), 698-705. Chichibu, T. (2013). How Japanese schools build a professional learning community by lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2(1), 12–25. Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research Design Qualitative, Quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2nd Edition). New York: SAGE. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334. Dufour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013). How Do Principals Really Improve Schools ? Educational Leadership. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D.F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39-50. Garson, G. D. (2012). Testing Statistical Assumptions. Blue Book Series, 1–52. Retrieved from http://www.statisticalassociates.com/assumptions.pdf Hairon, S., & Dimmock, C. (2012) Singapore schools and professional learning communities: teacher professional development and school leadership in an Asian hierarchical system, Educational Review, 64 (4), 405-424, Hair, J. F., Back, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Rolph, E. A. (2010). Multivariate Data Analysis (Seventh.). Prentice Hall. Ho, D., Lee, M., & Teng, Y. (2016). Exploring the relationship between school-level teacher qualifications and teachers’ perceptions of school-based professional learning community practices. Teaching and Teacher Education, 54, 32–43. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.005 Hoerr, T.R. (1996).Collegiality: A new way to define instructional leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 77(5), 380-381. Holmes-Smith, H., Coote, L., & Cunningham, E. (2006). Structural equation modelling: from the fundamentals to advanced topics. Melbourne: School Research, Evaluation and Measurement Services. Holmes-Smith, P. (2001). Introduction to structural equation modelling using LISREAL. Perth: ACSPRI-Winter Training Program. http://www.statisticalassociates.com/assumptions.pdf http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.11.005 IRJE | Vol. 1 | No. 1| Year 2017 |ISSN: 2580-5711 81 Hord, S. (1997). Professional Learning Communities.Communities of Continous Inquiry and Improvement. Texas: SEDL. Isaacson, N., & Bamburg, J. (1992). Can schools become learning organizations? Educational Leadership, 50(3), 42-44. JC Nunnally, I. B. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: Mc Graw Hill Inc. Johnson, B., & Christensen, I. (2008). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometric, 39(1), 31-36. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities Robert. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 38(1), 607–610. Louis, K.S., & Kruse, S. D. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks,CA: Corwin Press.. Meyers, L.S, Gamst, G., & Guarino, A.J. (2006). Applied multivariate research: Design and interpretation. Sage Publication: London. Ministry of Education. (2014). Pembangunan Profesionalisme Berterusan. Putrajaya. Neuman, W. L. (2006). Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (6th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education Inc. Saunders, M., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2007). Research methods for business students. London: Pitman. Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. London,UK: Doubleday. Walker, J. (2009). Creating space for professional learning. Professional learning in early childhood settings. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers. Vanderlinde, R., & van Braak, J. (2010). The gap between educational research and practice: views of teachers, school leaders, intermediaries and researchers. British Educational Research Journal, 36(2), 299-316. Youngs, P., & King, M. B. (2001). Principal leadership for professional development to build school capacity. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(5), 643–670. Zainudin Hj Awang. (2012). Structural equation modelling using AMOS graphic. Kuala Lumpur: UiTM Press Biographical note MOHD FAIZ BIN MOHD YAAKOB is a Ph.D in educational planning and policy graduated from Universiti Pendidikan Sultan Idris, Malaysia. He was awarded the Anugrah Perkhidmatan Cemerlang, an award for Malaysian teachers. He presented international conferences and is very active in publishing his academic work in some international journals.