Exploring the mediating role of teacher identity between professional learning community and teacher resilience: evidence from Eastern China

The study addresses how professional learning communities (PLCs; a meso-level contextual factor) relate to teacher resilience and whether teacher professional identity (a micro-level factor comprising values, role perceptions, belonging, and behavioral tendencies) mediates this relationship in the context of rapidly changing educational environments (VUCA). Using a large sample of primary and secondary teachers in East China who participate in PLCs within Education Groups, the authors pose two hypotheses: H1: PLCs are positively associated with teacher resilience; H2: Teacher professional identity mediates the relationship between PLCs and teacher resilience.

Teacher resilience is conceptualized as the capacity to harness personal and contextual resources to sustain growth and commitment amid adversity, emerging through person–context interactions within macro-, meso-, and micro-systems. Prior work links micro-level factors (e.g., emotions, self-efficacy) and meso-level school contexts (leadership, collaboration, community) to resilience, while macro-level forces (policy, culture) also shape it. PLCs, originating globally in the late 1980s and in China via Teaching Research Groups (TRGs), emphasize shared vision, collective learning, open practice, distributed leadership, and supportive conditions; evidence shows PLC participation improves teacher knowledge, practices, and sustainability, and is associated with job satisfaction and identity. Teacher professional identity is fluid, socially constructed, and intertwined with emotion and cognition; it influences teaching practices, development, and retention. Empirical models commonly include occupational values, role values, sense of occupational belonging, and professional behavior inclination. Although narrative studies suggest links between identity and resilience, quantitative evidence on how PLCs and identity jointly shape resilience remains limited, motivating this study.

Design and participants: Cross-sectional survey conducted October 2020–February 2021 with 3,200 invited teachers from 200+ schools in an eastern China district emphasizing balanced basic education and professional development; 2,815 valid responses (88% response rate) after excluding responses with extreme completion times (>±3 SD) and >10% missing data. Sample: 26.3% male (n=741), 73.7% female (n=2,074); teaching experience: ≤5 years 17.0%, 6–10 years 13.7%, 11–15 years 9.3%, 16–20 years 14.0%, ≥21 years 46.0%; 79% elementary and 31% secondary (note overlap likely reflects reporting across roles). Ethical approval obtained from Soochow University Ethics Committee. Measures: - Teacher Resilience Scale (TRS; Li et al., 2014): 10 items, 5-point Likert; subscales: job satisfaction (JS, 3 items), self-efficacy (SE, 3), commitment to teaching and learning (CTL, 4). Reliability α=0.948; CFA fit: χ²=516.648, df=32, p<0.01, RMSEA=0.073, CFI=0.982, TLI=0.974, SRMR=0.032. - Professional Learning Community Scale (PLCS; Zheng et al., 2016; adapted from Olivier & Hipp, 2010): 18 items, 4-point Likert; subscales: shared/supportive leadership (SSL, 4), shared values/vision (SVV, 4), collective learning/application (CLA, 4), shared personal practice (SPP, 3), supportive conditions (SC, 3). α=0.960; CFA: χ²=509.089, df=125, p<0.01, RMSEA=0.033, CFI=0.991, TLI=0.989, SRMR=0.016. Translation via forward–back translation with expert review. - Teacher Professional Identity Scale (TPIS; Wei et al., 2013): 14 items (four non-contextual items removed), 5-point Likert; subscales: occupational values (OV, 3), role values (RV, 5), sense of occupational belonging (SOB, 3), professional behavior inclination (PBI, 3). α=0.945; CFA: χ²=11.596, df=71, p<0.01, RMSEA=0.061, CFI=0.981, TLI=0.976, SRMR=0.031. Analysis: Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations computed in SPSS 26.0. Structural equation modeling (SEM) in Mplus 8.3 tested measurement and structural models, including multiple mediation with PLC as predictor and TR subscales as outcomes, controlling for gender and teaching experience. Model fit assessed via χ², RMSEA, CFI, TLI, SRMR. Indirect effects evaluated using bootstrap with 95% CIs; effects deemed significant if CI excluded zero (Preacher & Hayes, 2008). Group comparisons: t-tests for gender and school type; ANOVA for teaching experience.

- Descriptives: - TRS means: JS M=4.07 (SD=0.755), SE M=4.14 (SD=0.907), CTL M=4.31 (SD=0.619). - PLC subscales: CLA highest M=3.53 (SD=0.484); SSL lowest M=3.28 (SD=0.597). - TPIS subscales: RV M=4.80 (SD=0.518); OV M=4.35 (SD=0.698). - Strong positive intercorrelations among PLC, identity, and resilience subscales (all p<0.01). - Group differences: - Gender: significant differences for all three TR dimensions (t=5.199, t=5.340, t=4.001; all p<0.01); female teachers reported lower resilience than males. - Teaching experience: significant effect on TR (ANOVA p<0.01). - Multiple mediation SEM (controls: gender, teaching experience): acceptable fit (χ²=386.841, df=41, p<0.01; RMSEA=0.079; CFI=0.937; TLI=0.912; SRMR=0.036). - Total and direct effects of PLC on resilience: - PLC → JS: total 0.655***; direct 0.463***. - PLC → SE: total 0.578***; direct 0.402***. - PLC → CTL: total 0.654***; direct 0.460***. - Indirect (mediated) effects via teacher identity dimensions (bootstrap 95% CIs): - JS: total indirect 0.192 (29.36% of total). Significant mediator: OV=0.168*** (CI 0.140–0.196). RV, SOB, PBI not significant. - SE: total indirect 0.176 (30.45% of total). Significant mediators: OV=0.098*** (0.071–0.125; 55.68% of indirect), RV=0.060*** (0.031–0.089; 34.09%), SOB=0.011* (0.017–0.039). PBI not significant. - CTL: total indirect 0.194 (29.66% of total). Significant mediators: RV=0.090*** (0.058–0.121; 46.39% of indirect), OV=0.067*** (0.044–0.090; 34.54%), PBI=0.019 (0.001–0.036; 9.79%). SOB not significant. - Overall: PLCs positively predict all three resilience dimensions (supporting H1), with teacher identity partially mediating these relationships (supporting H2), especially through occupational values (for JS and SE) and role values (for SE and CTL).

The findings confirm that PLC participation is positively associated with teacher resilience in terms of job satisfaction, self-efficacy, and commitment, aligning with theories that collaborative engagement, belonging, and supportive structures foster resilience. PLCs also relate positively to teacher professional identity, indicating that collaborative contexts stimulate identity formation crucial for sustained development. Mediation results illuminate mechanisms: occupational values primarily transmit PLC effects to job satisfaction and self-efficacy; role values transmit effects to self-efficacy and commitment; sense of belonging contributes modestly to self-efficacy; and professional behavior inclination contributes to commitment. These pathways clarify how PLCs, by reinforcing meaning-making about the profession and role enactment, enhance resilience capacities, thereby addressing both hypotheses and advancing quantitative understanding of PLC–identity–resilience dynamics in the Chinese Education Group context.

This study quantitatively demonstrates that PLCs are linked to higher teacher resilience and that teacher professional identity partially mediates these links. Practically, schools and Teaching Research Groups should cultivate strong PLC environments—shared vision, collective learning, open practice, distributed leadership, and supportive conditions—to strengthen identity (values, roles, belonging, behavioral inclination) and, in turn, resilience and positive emotions. Policies should promote supportive cultures, trustful relationships, and opportunities for reflective collaboration, while fostering teachers’ emotional regulation and professional pride. Future work should track how specific PLC activities and support types shape identity and resilience over time and across contexts, informing sustainable teacher development programs.

- Cross-sectional design prevents causal inference; longitudinal designs are needed to establish directionality. - Focus on quantitative analysis without complementary qualitative insights; future research should include interviews/case studies to unpack mechanisms. - Sample limited to one eastern China district, limiting generalizability to other regions. - Controlled only for gender and teaching experience; other socio-demographic variables (e.g., education, income, school location) were not included and may confound relationships.