Introduction

A physical classroom is a place where the overall school community and community spirit begins. Many can relate stories of childhood memories around schools but especially classrooms. It is the location where we interact with peers and learn many of the social skills we practice into adulthood. Most people who have had the personal experience of working side by side with peers in a class, know what it means to be part of a group or “clique”, the stress it can add to an already stressful school day, and how personal issues can influence overall academic efforts. How much the outside community and other personal factors influence learning and student engagement in a classroom have been studied by several researchers in the field of education (Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004). However, the effect of the classroom beyond those four walls is something that we are currently considering and hoping to explain through a theory that is more inclusive of the organic dynamics and influences within a classroom environment. Power struggles happen wherever there are human interactions. In the classroom, the struggle can be peer to peer or student to teacher or teacher to parent.

Everyone looks for a place in this mini-hierarchy of social interest and gratification. What we should acknowledge is that, when all is said and done, when grades are posted, parents and students will look for the teacher to answer all concerns, issues, or try to convince to let them pass. Teachers are the de facto leaders of their classroom. Recent studies show how much influence the educator has over the creation of synergy of the classroom (Louis, Dretzke, & Wahlstrom, 2010). It is within a positive learning classroom environment where students can feel a sense of trust, belonging, encouragement, and motivation to tackle challenges, ask questions, and take risks (Bucholy & Schiffler, 2009; Dorman, Aldridge & Foraser, 2006). Even if teachers see themselves as one pawn in the game, they are the ones who decide who of the students has worked enough and who has not reached standard benchmarks that have been agreed upon through key actors and stakeholders. One such form of evaluating a student’s perception of the educator's leadership is through student evaluations. These provide insights as to whether the learner perceives that, either explicitly or implicitly, the educator has played his or her role as leader efficiently. Inside the world of corporate business, not all bosses are seen as leaders, although the idea is beginning to change as more and more studies tie positive leadership to management. This can be clearly seen through the integration of leadership in management and innovation (Waldman &Bass, 1991; Gonzalez-Falcon et al., 2019). In education, not all teachers have realized that they should be leaders and that their classroom is a community of learners who rely on their leadership skills to make things happen (Robinson, Hohepa & Lloyd, 2009; Mulford & Silins, 2011 York-Barr & Duke, 2004).

The purpose of this study is to look into how students measure their personal perceptions of their educational community; how they rate their educator within that community of practice; and how organizational learning theory (OL) helps explain this intricate relationship. The power dynamic and community building defined through the organizational learning theory (OL) will be explained in more detail under the theoretical framework as well as its relevance to how a professor and the university overall learning environment are perceived. The methodology used in this mixed qualitative and quantitative study consists of a before- and after- course survey adapted from a classroom and school community inventory (Rovai et al., 2004). Additionally, it includes course evaluations adopted by the university in which the study took place, and finally a few reflections by the participants that might help shed light over what influenced their response to the survey and the evaluations. Analysis of the data will look at how classroom communities work, and finally discuss and conclude the contribution of this study to further the discussion on some of the implications and dynamics of such communities.

Theoretical Framework

Organizational Learning theory (OL) is the implicit practice of learning through self-evaluation and self-reflection (Taylor, Santiago, & Hynes, 2019). An organization should effectively reflect on what is being done by an individual and whether that action is leading to outside effects (Argyris & Schön, 1978, 1996). Like an ecosystem, every member plays a role within a system. In the case of the university, a classroom is a piece of the overall system that requires careful inspection since it will affect how those who participate in it perceive a university or educational program. It follows the principle of Pareto (2013) in which 80 percent of the results account for 20 percent of the causes. That 20 percent of the causes can be seen to derive from the school, administrators, faculty and staff, and the classroom environment as well as the leader in front of each classroom. On the other hand, 80 percent of the results can be observed in how students evaluate the university, and the teacher, and how they perceive their study experience. Perkins (2003) defines the need for providing the right environment and culture as intelligence in the making. Which in turn promotes schools that can be more self-aware and can become "smarter" by being so. This model defines the educator as a transformational leader whose role is to be both critical and strategic in his or her classroom (MacBeath, 1999). We know that OL works because it is being practiced successfully in business models around the world.

The idea of OL is to provide areas of deep evaluation that extends from the personal level to the overall workplace culture and to the ecosystem that that workplace works within and how each factor place a role from the decisions to the actions of every person in the company (Göhlich, 2016). In addition, it is being used to examine where certain mental models need to be reshaped through the questioning of core values and assumptions (Argyris, 1993; Stokhof, Vries, Bastiaens, & Martens, 2018). Lave & Wenger (1991) have introduced terms that can facilitate a universal dialogue of the same phenomenon we are currently observing in the classroom and that share the premise of OL. Both require a culture that allows for a journey to take place or ability for growth that happens when each part or ecosystem is seen as an individual piece of the puzzle that needs to be connected to get the overall picture. To some extent, Wenger uses the same terms when applying communities of practice to the business environment (Wenger, McDermott & Snyder, 2012). Communities of practice within a language-learning classroom should be defined as a group of individuals who are embarking on the same journey within the landscape of language acquisition. How efficiently they acquire the language and how fluently they will be able to put it into practice requires practice, repetition, and motivation which all form part of a community of practice.

The acquisition of a second language is very much like a journey within the overall landscape in the students’ lives. Their psychological need for identity and belonging influences not only which study habits they might need to reinforce or practice, but may indeed even change how they act from one cultural context to another (Hoa, 2019; Norton, 2000). Language is not only the ability to utter words with social meaning with fluency or accurate pronunciation. It is also about acquiring the actual cultural context in which cultural identity and the ability to mélange in the desired context facilitates the learner into practical situations whether it be to be accepted by a certain social group of such a language or to strike a deal within a business context.

Another piece of our identity is formed within a language. In certain settings, a simple hand gesture can provide access to the “in” group of a language community. This codified language is considered both manipulative and capable of being redefined by a social awareness of its meaning as some linguist has explained (Chomsky, 2010; Gee, 2014; Van Dijk, 2009). Say for example how you ask “how are you” in English. Depending on the social context and particular age group, a “what’s up” can add a more personalized touch and make someone feel that you are another member within the desired community. Language can have several codified layers, and learners can have several layers of identity, as well (Brodsky & Marx, 2004; Gee, 2005). In addition, when we engage in discourse, the flow and meaning of the words are manipulative and based, in large part, on the subconscious societal use of the language to the advantage of a few (Van Dijk, 2009). OL requires we constantly question how we use language and which structure to follow within a given system through constant evaluation of what we do, why we do it, and how to do it differently to make it more efficient with an end goal in mind.

Although colloquial language can give you access into the local culture, it is only through formal language that an institution will certify your knowledge of it. If you wish to be part of the intellectual group of the language of more standardized and specialized linguistics, you will be understood by the desired few who share the same level of schooling or knowledge. However, you will need to learn and speak in a more academic or formal form of the language. Language can be both inclusive and exclusive. It can make you part of the inside group or define you as part of the outside group (Bourdieu, 1998). Communities are not uniform and nor are language skills. There are skills that might seem easier to acquire for some and more difficult for others. That is part of the journey and hence makes the overall landscape uncertain for some and more certain for those who have already acquired another language before (Wegner, 2000). However, the gatekeeper of such communities (in educational settings, the educator) needs to make sure that, at a minimum, the four major skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) are acquired to keep the status quo of the language intact and provide a general community that is membership-based. These restrictions can both motivate and demotivate, and there is no room for in-between, especially in the field of higher education.

The other issue with OL theory is the role of the leader in the group. In education, the leader by de facto would be the educator. Ultimately, the educator holds that jurisdiction over the group and evaluates every individual’s performance and participation This leadership skill requires the educator to be aware of the strengths and weakness of each student. He or she must then decide, specifically in language courses, which leadership style needs to be implemented. For lower levels with no foundation in the language, it can seem to be a challenge to create communities of practice that are free-flowing and mutually cooperative at the level of those that already have a good control of the language. However, it can be made possible with scaffolding tactics and using to one’s benefit the natural evolution of an organization, with the initial stages of engagement, imagination, and alignment. The individual, either by force or by choice, has become engaged in a given classroom physically, but it is how the educator handles the group dynamics that will decide whether this particular class becomes learner-as-individual-centered, learner-as-community-centered or more educator-centered. Imagination from the educator can be reflected in the implementation of certain methods and pedagogical approaches, whether they be cognitive and/or metacognitive; implicit or explicit; constructive or behaviorist, etc. Alignment with the overall community standards include not only university policies or departmental structure, but even the larger community of language education such as the European framework or other standards set up by a community the educator has wanted to be part of, as well as their students own negotiated goals and interest in the language (McKay & Wong, 1996).

Adding to the discussion of identity one should consider how much school and classroom environments can influence the student’s achievement, attitude, and persistence in their learning (Sergiovanni, 1999: Tinto, 1987). Hence, it is important to consider not just the student perception of the class but the overall university environment to have a better picture of the factors that influence the student's educational journey in the language-learning classroom. A school that encourages and shows multicultural and multilingual appreciation of languages provides opportunities for students to put any newly acquired language into practice. Such environments can either choose to foster autonomy and allow learners to assign each other roles and work during projects (Santana, 2013) or lack the facilitation of language acquisition through methods that promote disengagement from learners and consequently limited social interactions amongst peers (Nguyen & Kellogg, 2005; Roberts & Sarangi, 1999). Although, the student makes the decision; it is in the educators’ strategic planning that will be the framework in which every interaction takes place.

Methodology

In this study, an attempt to measure a sense of community, and how students perceived certain activities that permitted a level of interaction, was carried out through a mixed quantitative and qualitative study. Three instruments of data collection were used. An instrument (see Appendix) meant to validate the classroom and the school community was adapted from Rovai et al. (2004) Classroom and School Community Inventory (CSCI). This is an instrument created to measure test-retest reliability of the sense of community in students.

The order of the questions was modified, looking into the classroom environment first, and then proceeding to question the overall university environment. In addition, the wording was slightly modified to replace the word “school” with “university”.

At the time of the study, the university was trying to infuse a school spirit through marketing tools such as logos, emphasis on the university’s mission and vision with announcements on banners throughout the campus and through on-site professional development for full-time professors. Hence, this inclusive instrument to evaluate classroom and school community inventory was chosen as the best fit for the current study. Each student was asked to participate in the classroom voluntarily and anonymously when it came to the questionnaire.

The second instrument was a course evaluation document that is standardized across the university. The evaluation of the overall professor leadership was taken from this document that the students are asked to complete at the end of each semester. Course evaluations are gathered and the total calculated by a specific department that then provides the final numbers and averages to each director in every director. The director is then asked to give the evaluation to each instructor personally. Each instructor keeps their evaluation and is asked to reflect upon the student response and comments if any. These evaluations are anonymous; however, the students’ major can be known. The third instrument for data collection was the students’ final reflections. At the end of the term, students were asked to turn in reflections before their final exams in order to read how they had perceived the course as well as their ability to put into practice the OL framework of self-reflection and self-inspection.

Participants

 In this study, of a total class size of 15 students in an intermediate English course in a private university setting, 10 students volunteered to participate. The private university is situated in western Mexico. Most of these students were second to third-year undergraduate students. The English program is compulsory at this university and it contains six levels from basic 1 and can be completed only after advanced 1 if a student obtains the required score on a TOEFL exam. Each level is completed in a regular semester that runs 16 weeks. Each level is completed in a regular semester that runs 16 weeks.

These particular students had had at least one previous English course or had taken the placement exam and had been assigned the intermediate course. Students were asked to answer the modified CSCI questionnaire (Rovai et al., 2004) during the first week of the course and again, two weeks before the conclusion of the regular semester course. This was done to measure a change in community attitude or acknowledgment during their semester, as well as to see how it would be reflected in the other two instruments: the course evaluation and their final reflection. Their response was recorded through a Google Form.

Procedure

Respondents were asked to click on a link in their emails that would allow them to take part in the study through the questionnaire. The questions ranged from simply choosing from a scale 1 through 5 (Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree), except for one asking for the student to summarize the mission and vision of the university. The open question was to see how familiar the students were to the overall school motto and spirit, to see if they truly know their community. During the last week of the course, students were then asked to complete course evaluations in the classroom followed by their final reflection. These were uploaded to the course platform online.

Data Analysis

The questionnaire was divided between classroom environment and university environment questions. The former contributed two of the thirteen questions and the latter contributed ten of the thirteen questions. The final item was an open-ended question. When the questionnaire was first applied, at the beginning of the semester most of the responses ranged from Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. Whereas the second time the questionnaire was answered, approximately four months later, the responses ranged from Strongly Agree to Kind of Agree. Final grades had not been provided yet. The majority of the participants in the study were not involved in extracurricular activities per an informal interview session during the first day of the course, however, some did have friends who were in sports or participated in campus events regularly. In the following tables, a comparison chart is provided marking the question asked and the before and after responses marked as the Beginning and the End of the course results.

Table 1: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 2: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 3: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 4: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 5: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 6: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 7: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 8: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 9: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 10: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Table 11: Survey results at the beginning and the end of the course

Through the data analysis of both questionnaire results, the students who tended to feel a sense of classroom community already had or held a positive view of the community with the overall university.

The students' reporting of the university's vision and mission tended to look similar before and after the course with a few either deciding to add the school vision or mission or providing a general non-elaborate gist like what they had already written before (see Tables 12-13). The university seems to have been successful in instilling in their students their principle and focus in their day-to-day environment.

Table 12: Vision and Mission responses and their frequency of phrases at the beginning of the course.

Table 13: Vision and Mission responses and their frequency of phrases at the end of the course.

The professor’s evaluation overall reflected the positive outcome of the course. This evaluation was completed by a total of fifteen students, ten of whom also participated in the study by completing the questionnaire. During the course, the instructor focused on creating four-skill oriented sessions with activities that addressed each skill as well as icebreaker activities at the beginning of each session that facilitated the integration of all members in the classroom. Every other session, students were asked to present their findings and/or research to their peers depending on the activities that culminated with a student group, with three to four participants, presenting in front of the class and asking, as well as answering, questions with complete answers based on a rubric distributed in the beginning of the course.

Table 14:   Professor’s evaluation overall

Final reflections from the students were submitted on the online platform. Only those who had answered the CSCI questionnaire were asked to submit the reflections so as to have a clear follow-up to their perception of the course. Students’ names have been modified. for the purpose of this study and to assure an anonymous response. The most mentioned activities that they felt aided their acquisition of the language and helped them feel part of a community were a few projects that consisted of creating a job interview video and mini-project based learning presentations. Both these projects required that the students collaborate with other students, rather than working independently.

Claudio writes: “I have improved a lot because of the presentations and activities that made me put to the test what I knew. Working with others on activities, homework, and presentation in class helped me to practice.”

Maritza wrote: “I didn’t realize how informal my English was until I started using it in class with others. I realized thanks to the feedback that I needed to speak more formal especially since I am studying business administration”

Victor added in that “talking to others and using the language in class has helped me speak in English more fluidly without always translating what I want to say”

Pablo realized that “talking with a non-authority figure such as my classmates allows me to speak better and more fluent, however whenever I talk to an authority figure such as my professor I can’t express things the same way with the same fluency. I realize now that I have to work on that personal matter”.

Jackie wrote about how she realized how much reading can help her become more fluent and acquire better vocabulary and wrote about her resolution to read more in English.

Jacinto evaluated himself as improving but noticed that he was initially afraid to speak in English and how he had to get over his fear to improve in the language. He did it by participating in all group activities and speaking in front of the class.

Pablo’s realization is a clear indication of what OL states the need for individuals in an organization to do, to stop and evaluate themselves and inspect where the problem is to tackle it. Each student showed that they could signal out what had worked for them and what they need to keep doing to improve.

Discussion

The following can be inferred from each of the different evaluation tools: a classroom is a reflection of the school, and educators are the strategic planners and main contributors to creating communities of practice. Lastly, students should be implicitly taught to integrate not only self-reflection but self-inspection that calls for a change in behavior or attitude towards learning. In the first table, there is a clear indication that most students already feel that others care. Being part of a small campus with a student population of around 3,500 and with a set student profile requirement does allow for homogenous attitudes towards others, as reflected on tables 4-7. However, inside the classroom and on more personal questions, such as if they feel they can trust others or that others care, answers can differ. This can be indirectly influenced by other factors such as fitting in the university’s student environment. Hence, students’ perception of a course can influence how they perceive their overall community a mentioned in various studies (Bacholz & Scheffeld, 2009; Cornelius & Herrenkohl, 2004; Dorman et al., 2006; Sergiovanni, 1999; Tinto 1987; Waldman & Bass, 1991). By feeling and realizing how much they depend on those around them, even if it is as a sounding board, their sense of what creates a classroom and the strategic planning their educator has implemented will influence overall evaluations and answers in a questionnaire regarding their sense of community. They can then truly live out the journey they are taking from a basic level in English to proficiency, through practice and engagement in meaningful and strategic activities in class (Lave & Wegner, 1991; MacBeath, 1999; Wegner & Synder, 2014). Within OL theory, every classroom with core courses is part of the ecosystem within the university. This is true here because one of their graduation requirements is to receive a specific TOEFL and/or TOEIC score that shows that they speak and understand English. It is hence important that the university EFL programs go through self-evaluation and self-reflection to work on whatever needs to be improved and to continue contributing to a positive and intelligent school community (Perkins, 2003).

Furthermore, educators need to be aware of how to use the proper leadership and become familiar with the leadership skills required for every language level. For a beginning course, a more direct leadership skill may be needed to make sure students have the proper language structure and initial vocabulary vis-à-vis an advanced language student who needs to refine their skills and learn a more academic English. The questions on the end-of-course evaluation highlight strategic and critical issues that need to be addressed in class that should aid in providing a uniform school community environment inside and outside the university classroom (MacKay & Wong, 1996; Mulford & Silins, 2011; Robinson et al., 2009; York-Barr & Duke 2004). These in an English course would involve providing the opportunity of reflections, self-assessments, implementing collaborative projects, creating a positive cultural community of learners through activities and forms of communication that show tolerance and respect for others, as well as implementing critical thinking skills through open-ended questions and a feeling of mutual respect.

It is important that language acquisition require actions from the learners that can be influenced by their own identity, cultural context as well as the educators’ identity and cultural context (Bourdieu, 1998; Brodsky & Marx, 2004; Norton, 2000). This case study only looks at the result of a questionnaire to address the OL theory of the sense of community amongst learners as well as an instructor evaluation that shows a relation between the focus on community and the role of the educator in creating that community. This is accompanied with a reflection that addresses how students learned and what have they learned with the various strategic activities according to self-evaluation and self-investigation per the OL requirements of creating a smarter workplace or in this case school community.

There needs to be further study on a longer-term effect of the community along with a larger and more significant sample in order to fully acknowledge whether not there is a correlation between a positive classroom environment, a positive school environment, and instructor evaluations. In addition, it should be kept in mind that there have been studies that show that gender and similar background can play a role in how an educator is evaluated (Abrami, d’Apollonia, & Rosenfield, 2007; Andersen & Miller, 1997; De Oliveira Campolina & Mitjáns Martínez, 2019; MacNell, Driscoll, & Hunt, 2014;) which need to be considered when reading instructor and course evaluations.

This study is meant to contribute in initiating a dialogue around EFL and how such programs needs to be reconsidered as being part of creating an appreciation and true appreciation of the community that has been emerging and still is very much present. Educational institutes prepare future leaders and need to make sure they are providing quality education with a quality environment.

Conclusion

In conclusion, building communities of practice is a multifaceted activity that includes more than the learner, but also the educator and the school community whether it be at the primary, secondary, or even the tertiary level. There must be a level of reciprocity for all members of a community to collaborate and mutually affect each other positively. Until recently, it was left to the workplace to discover how to create a healthy work culture. What has been found in a workplace situation is there is a need to create a culture that is inclusive, open to suggestions, in constant self-reflection and self-inspection evaluating what works and what needs improvement (Argyris, 2008; Argyris & Schön, 1992; Senge, 1990).

In this paper, we demonstrate that such a culture of caring is essential in higher education as well. The rise of the new creative economy that looks more into how to be more innovative and create new forms of living and doing things has taken a toll on education now asking that graduates know not only how to provide new solutions but evaluate the what is currently in place and recreate it into something better (Florida, 2014). One need only see a clear example in business, such as Netflix, to realize how creativity is influencing a new destructive economy that will require our students to do things differently if possible anytime (Schumpeter, 2018). In education, we are realizing the need to educate life-long learners and problem solvers who will be able to lead on the new technologically oriented economy that has moved past the industrial age. One way to do this is through the implementation of OL in the educational setting to encourage deeper reflection with purpose and action.

Education is taking a new shape and it seems that organizational learning theory can facilitate adaptations for the new demands in education. These adaptations include an awareness by educators of how much their leadership skills affect a classroom environment; the importance of integration and teamwork evaluations; and how these evaluations can help in self-reflection and provide a lens that will show us the big picture of our classroom setting within an even larger community of learners. The overall classroom environment can and will be affected not only by the leader as the educator but also by the university in which the classroom finds itself in. It is within this ecosystem that the study has been performed in order to explore how the student’s point of view can influence not only how they see their classroom and university community, but their professor as well, through the use of organization theory that sheds light into the complexity of the ecosystem in itself.

References

Abrami, P. C., d’Apollonia, S., & Rosenfield, S. (2007). The dimensionality of student ratings of instruction: What we know and what we do not. In R. P. Perry & J. C. Smart (Eds.), The scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective (pp. 385–445). Dordrecht, NL: Springer.

Andersen, K., & Miller, E. D. (1997). Gender and student evaluations of teaching. Ps-Political Science and Politics, 30(2), 216–219. https://doi.org/10.2307/42049

Argyris, C. (1993). Knowledge for action: A guide to overcoming barriers to organizational change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C. (2008). Teaching smart people how to learn. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D. A. (1992). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Argyris, C., & Schön, D.A. (1996). Organizational learning II: Theory, method, and practice. New York, NY: Addison-Wesley.

Bourdieu, P. (1998). Outline of a theory of practice. (R. Nice, Trans.) Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Bucholz, J. L., & Sheffler, J. L. (2009). Creating a warm and inclusive classroom environment: Planning for all children to feel welcome. Electronic Journal for Inclusive Education, 2(4), 1-13.

Brodsky, A. E., & Marx, C. M. (2004). Layers of identity: Multiple psychological senses of community within a community setting. Psykhe (Santiago),13(2), 201-212.

Chomsky, N. (2010). The architecture of language. New Delhi, IN: Oxford University Press.

Cornelius, L. L., & Herrenkohl, L. R. (2004). Power in the classroom: How the classroom environment shapes students’ relationships with each other and with concepts. Cognition and Instruction, 22(4), 467-498. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690Xci2204_4

De Oliveira Campolina, L., & Mitjáns Martínez, A. (2019). The role of subjectivity in the process of school innovation. In F. González Rey, A. Mitjáns Martínez, & D. Magalhäes Goulat (Eds.) Subjectivity within cultural-historical approach (pp. 101-115). Singapore, SG: Springer

Dorman, J. P., Aldridge, J. M., & Fraser, B. J. (2006). Using students' assessment of classroom environment to develop a typology of secondary school classrooms. International Education Journal, 7(7), 906-915.

Gee, J. P. (2014). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. New York, NY: Routledge.

Hoa, N. (2019). Intercultural communication competence from an identity constructionist perspective and its implications for foreign language education. VNU Journal of Foreign Studies, 35(1). https:\doi:10.25073/2525-2445/vnufs.4334

Florida, R. (2014). The rise of the creative class revisited. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Göhlich M. (2016) Theories of organizational learning as resources of organizational education. In A. Schröer, M. Göhlich, S. M. Weber, & H. Pätzold(Eds.) Organisation und Theorie. Organization und Pädagogik, Vol 18. Wiesbaden, DE: Springer.

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991) Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Louis, K. S., Dretzke, B., & Wahlstrom, K. (2010). How does leadership affect student achievement? Results from a national US survey. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 21(3), 315-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2010.486586

MacBeath, J. E. C (1999). A school must speak for themselves: The case for school self-evaluation. London, UK: Routledge.

MacNell, L., Driscoll, A., & Hunt, A. N. (2014). What’s in a name: Exposing gender bias in student ratings of Teaching. Innovative Higher Education,40(4), 291-303. https:\doi:10.1007/s10755-014-9313-4t

MacKay, S. L., & Wong, S. C. (1996). Multiple discourses, multiple identities: Investment and agency in second-language learning among Chinese adolescent immigrant students. Harvard Educational Review, 66(3), 577-609. https:\doi:10.17763/haer.66.3.n47r06u264944865

Mulford, B. & Silins, H. (2011). Leadership and organizational learning in schools. Journal of Education Leadership, Policy, and Practice, 25(2), 73-92.

Nguyen, H., & Kellogg, G. (2005). Emergent identities in on-line discussions for econd language learning. Canadian Modern Language Review,62(1), 111-136. https:\doi:10.3138/cmlr.62.1.111

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity and educational change. Harlow, UK: Longman.

Pareto, V. (2013). Manual of political economy: A variorum translation and critical edition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Perkins, D. (2003). King Arthur’s round table: How collaborative conversations create smart organizations. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

Roberts, C., & Sarangi, S. (1999). Hybridity in gatekeeping discourse: Issues of practical relevance for the researcher. In S. Sarangi & C. Roberts (Eds.) Talk, work, and institutional order: Discourse in medical, mediation and management settings, (pp. 473-503). Berlin, DE: Mouton de Gruyter.

Robinson, V., Hohepa, M., & Lloyd, C. (2009). School leadership and student outcomes: Identifying what works and why: Best evidence synthesis iteration (BES). Wellington, NZ: Ministry of Education.

Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., & Lucking, R. (2004). The Classroom and school community inventory: Development, refinement, and validation of a self-report measure for educational research. The Internet and Higher Education,7(4), 263-280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.09.001

Santana, J. C. (2013). Creating a community of learners in the language Ccassroom. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 36(1). https://doi.org/10.1515/cjal-2013-0005

Schumpeter, J.A. (2008). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. New York, NY: Wilder Publications.

Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York, NY: Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (1999). Building community in schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Stokhof, H., Vries, B., Bastiaens, T., & Martens, R. (2018). Using mind maps to make student questioning effective: Learning outcomes of a principle-based scenario for teacher guidance. Research in Science Education. https:\doi:10.1007/s11165-017-9686-3

Taylor, A., Santiago, F., & Hynes, R. (2019). Relationships among leadership, Organizational culture, and support for innovation. In B. K. Mickahail & C. T. E. de Aquino (Eds.). Effective and creative leadership in diverse workforces (pp. 11-42). Cham, CH: Palgrave Macmillan

Tinto, V. (1987). The principles of effective retention. Paper presented at the Fall Conference of the Maryland College Personnel Association (Largo, MD, November 20, 1987). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED301267

Waldman, D. A., & Bass, B. M. (1991). Transformational leadership at different phases of the innovation process. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 2(2), 169-180. https:\doi:10.1016/1047-8310(91)90002-6

Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2010). Cultivating communities of practice: a guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Van Djik, T. A. (2009). Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316. https:\doi:10.3102/00346543074003255

Appendix

The Classroom and School Community Inventory: Development, refinement, and validation of a self-report measure for educational research

The development and validation of an instrument designated as the Classroom and School Community Inventory (CSCI) are described. Scores on both the classroom form and the school form of the CSCI possess strong content validity, construct validity, internal consistencies, and 2-week test-retest reliability. Using a sample of 341 traditional and online students, confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis with oblique rotation provides empirical support for the conceptual distinctions between the latent dimensions of social community and learning community in both forms and for the existence of classroom and school communities as separate but related constructs. The two factors of the classroom form account for 70.73% of the variance in the data, and the two factors of the school form account for 63.54% of the variance.