Guest editorial: The role of facilitators in professional learning networks: achieving valued network outcomes

For effective educator professional development (PD), active, collaborative learning is one of the main factors (Vangrieken et al., 2015; Visscher et al., 2023). In recent decades, there has been a growing interest in professional learning networks (PLNs) as a form of active, collaborative learning (e.g. Poortman et al., 2022). PLNs are defined as “a group of educators (e.g. teachers, school leaders, possibly in collaboration with researchers, and/or policy-makers) coming together with others outside of their everyday community of practice with the intention of engaging in collaborative learning to improve outcomes for students” (Poortman et al., 2022, p. 7). Key factors in PLNs associated with their effectiveness in supporting collaborative learning to improve outcomes for students include individuals' knowledge, skills and attitudes; school context factors, such as leadership, and process variables such as reflective professional inquiry (see Poortman et al., 2022 for a conceptual model including influencing factors, based on previous studies; see also Vangrieken et al., 2015).Facilitator support is considered a main influencing factor specifically for PLN effectiveness (e.g. Doğan and Adams, 2018; Marsh et al., 2015). The facilitator role is challenging, on the one hand having to possess the capacity to support participants in their learning, while at the same time making sure that participants themselves have ownership over the PLN process and outcomes (Vangrieken et al., 2017). A complicating factor is that group dynamics can be complex and realizing the depth of reflective professional inquiry in the PLN process is not easy (Poortman et al., 2022). According to Hadar and Brody (2021), facilitator functioning relates to:There are advantages to both internal facilitators, e.g. from the same school as (part of) the participants (Vangrieken et al., 2017); however, several studies point to the advantages of external facilitators as well (Schildkamp et al., 2016; Lai et al., 2020). There is some associative evidence that PLNs focused on collaborative inquiry involving internal and external facilitators are associated with consistent improvements in student learning outcomes over time (Lai et al., 2020). Taken together, studies suggest that facilitators may play a key role in supporting group learning, which in turn can result in improvements in student learning.While facilitators are perceived to hold a key role in professional learning (Decabooter et al., 2024; Marsh et al., 2015; Elfarargy et al., 2022; Prenger et al., 2017), the literature analyzing their functioning is sparse, particularly in relation to PLNs (Hadar and Brody, 2021). The aim of this special issue, therefore, is to examine the role of facilitators in PLNs and fill a gap in the existing literature by bringing together the latest international literature on the role of the facilitator and their impact on valued network outcomes of PLNs.The papers in this special issue all define PLNs as a way for participants to engage in collaborative learning to improve outcomes for students. These papers focus on PLNs in five different countries and jurisdictions and four different continents. Both face-to-face PLNs and those that are blended/hybrid are included.The facilitator role can be taken up by leaders and participants as a form of distributed leadership and facilitation, including but not limited to moderation of PLN meetings and processes (e.g. Jesacher-Roessler et al., 2026), and more specifically as the actions a particular facilitator enacts (e.g. managing discussions, offering theory – Schnellert et al., 2026; Lai et al., 2026). This includes papers focused more on top-down, system initiatives as well as papers focused on single PLNs that were not top-down initiated or are even presented as contrasting to top-down approaches to educational change (e.g. Schnellert et al., 2026).The challenges in terms of structure and power relationships for PLNs as a top-down approach are recognized in the first paper, in which Jesacher-Roessler et al. (2026) explore how facilitation and structural conditions within PLNs influence collaboration, distribution of responsibility and decision-making processes, using power-theoretical frameworks. Key activities and relationships among the actors are identified in four areas: network initiation, influencing factors, facilitator tasks and dimensions of hierarchical relationships. The Family of Primary Schools (FoPS) PLNs consist of a superintendent and a principal in addition to teachers. Interestingly, this structural composition was widely appreciated for leveraging expertise, and moderation was often shared. The structure appeared to lead to closer cooperation between different hierarchical levels.A top-down initiative is also discussed in MacGregor and Friesen (2026), exploring the failure experiences of educational leaders facilitating the implementation of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) for student mental health. Failure is reframed as potentially generative: PLNs fostering open dialog, collective problem solving and reflective practices, for example, can help educational leaders to leverage failure experiences as opportunities for learning rather than only as a setback.Sharing unsuccessful experiences was not key in the differences between good-functioning PLNs and other PLNs, according to Pino-Yancovic et al. (2026), however. Their paper addresses main facilitation activities in good-functioning PLNs and the relationship with knowledge mobilization in these PLNs that are also part of an educational reform initiative. In this paper, frequencies of facilitator activities of good-functioning and other networks are compared to show how they differ. A focus on research (results jointly presented) and data use (e.g. analysis of student learning outcomes and well-being) and evidence-informed design was found. Good-functioning networks, moreover, engage in all three knowledge mobilization processes of integration, dissemination and diffusion, with an emphasis on the first. This means that good-functioning networks adapt network knowledge to align with existing practices within schools.Not part of a top-down initiative, Schnellert et al.'s (2026) paper is going into researcher-facilitator actions in teacher, educator and school leader PLNs. This paper is focused on the question of how PLN facilitation can support educators' opportunities to construct new understandings about how to advance student learning, in terms of researcher-facilitators’ roles. Among the key categories of actions are nurturing collaboration and distributed leadership and selecting and offering theory, research and related resources. The cases discussed show how PLN researcher-facilitators provided opportunities for teachers to step back from their practice and make evidence- and theory-supported meaning of their experiences. This study advances understanding about how facilitators can position resources to support knowledge construction within PLNs and shows the promise of providing educators with opportunities to enact agency and leadership and, at the same time, access supports.Two papers discuss facilitation activities of a way of facilitating PLNs originating from a need in terms of both efficiency and distance as well as opportunities provided by current digital meeting platforms (see also Kim and Martin, 2020).Henderikx and Vrieling-Teunter's paper (2026) examines participants' experiences of social configuration in blended teacher learning groups. This paper aims to explore how the social configuration is perceived in these environments, focusing on the dimensions of shared identity and equal relationships, practice integration and long-term orientation and goals. The study shows that participants experienced the social configuration more positively in face-to-face meetings than in online contexts, showing the need for tailored facilitation strategies to enhance the effectiveness of blended TLGs.Lai et al. (2026) analyze the considerations and tensions that influenced the facilitation of synchronous online PLN meetings in a multi-state initiative in the US. The analysis revealed that facilitator moves and meeting content are influenced by three interrelated tensions: allowing PLNs to have flexible participation versus having stable learning communities, focusing on depth versus breadth of knowledge-building and using meeting protocols as procedural guides versus using them as tools to support inquiry. This paper demonstrates how practical considerations intersect with learning goals to influence facilitation.In the discussant paper of this special issue, Danette Parsley, Sara van der Linden and Kim Schildkamp reflect on the findings of these papers to conclude what this special issue adds to the field in terms of implications for practice, policy and further research.