Professional Learning Communities, Research Paper Example

The implementation of professional learning communities (PLC) in schools has initiated significant changes in learning; specifically in schools with a key objective to boost education reform (Bush, 2003).  The professional learning community is a process that incorporates leadership qualities of teachers to remove the focus from individual teaching approaches. As such, a PLC entails a community oriented and collaborative system that facilitates the teaching process (Bush, 2003).

The collaborative approach of a PLC transforms teaching practices to ensure that students receive more focused instruction as it relates to a specified curriculum. In essence, a PLC allows all teaching staff and school administrators to share ideas to facilitate the best possible outcome for students. The teacher’s involvement in the PLC model is a significant aspect of the process because the teacher is a fundamental aspect in the determination of improved learning approaches.

Background

Darling-Hammond et al., (2007) identify school principals as instructional leaders who contribute to student success. However, the implementation of PLC’s indicates that some principals require assistance in their provision of quality leadership (Joyce, 2004). Collaborative approaches between principals and teachers therefore foster improved instruction and subsequent student outcomes. Furthermore, collaborative approaches make teachers active agents of learning activities and improve teacher efficacy and leadership qualities (Alberta’s Commission on Learning, 2003). The PLC model enables teachers to engage in reflective conversation which makes it possible to identify positive and effective teaching approaches; it also illuminates the significance of teamwork.

An effective PLC curriculum allocated sufficient time for teachers to build teams and share ideas. Principals play a key role in their support of teachers in their group discussions about how to improve instruction and student learning outcomes. Historical evidence indicate that teachers who engage in regular performance evaluations are more likely to have a larger impact on the overall instruction quality of the school. The aforementioned evaluations should not be an isolated practice, but a collaborative effort between teachers and principals. For instance, students will perform better in institutions where principals and teachers engage in regular conversation about current teaching practices. Additional evidence indicates that teachers, who work in groups, demonstrate higher levels of efficacy (Joyce, 2004). By contrast, teachers who do not engage in collaborative measures with other teachers have weakened leadership qualities and decreased student learning outcomes.

Another facet of a PLC is its means to measure the most effective means of student learning to produce the best possible student learning outcomes. Since the early 1980s, PLC models have been integrated into American schools (Stoll et al., 2006). Since then it has been proven that the implementation of PLC’s are an effective means to boost student performance, teacher collaborations, and leadership development among teachers (Stoll et al., 2006).

Ways of Creating Effective Professional Learning Communities

Teacher leadership qualities refer to the manner in which teachers are able to collaborate with one another and with the school administration to improve student learning. Although the implementation of a PLC model remains tedious, its subsequent benefits are endless. An effective PLC model will result in enriched professional development among teachers, and improved academic performance among students (Deuel, 2009). An effective PLC model adheres to the following three factors: (1) it adopts an effective collaboration cycle to inquiry and provides guidance in the learning system, (2) it implements learning techniques of engaging in deep dialogue so as to foster communication in a school setting, and (3) it absorbs an improved perspective to enhance teachers’ evaluation of student work (Deuel, 2009, p.36).

The Inquiry Cycle

The PLC model is a process that begins with the inquiry cycle (Bush, 2003). This inquiry entails the teachers’ investigation of success and challenges within their teaching practices. The most essential aspect of the inquiry cycle is the examination of student work (Deuel, 2009). Through the analysis of student behavior; specifically with regards to learning methods and curriculum adaptation, the teacher is able to better understand his or her students.

The inquiry process also enables teachers to modify the curricular delivery model in an effort to improve student learning outcomes. The inquiry cycle employs three primary phases:   focusing, implementation, and analyzing (Deuel, 2009). The inquiry cycle also enables teachers to assess a student’s work and enhance high performance standards. All the phases are significant in the articulation of professional learning communities, and how the curriculum functions within such a community. For instance, the inquiry cycle is flexible and allows teachers to discuss the values and goals that are beneficial to students. This process can last for one or more academic years. However, even though the inquiry cycle follows a certain sequence, there are situations when teachers revert to previous stages of the cycle to revisit certain ideas. In addition, the cycle can be modified when teachers need to reinforce an instructional practice in an altered form to enhance student understanding of the curriculum (Deuel, 2009).

The effectiveness of PLC’s are typically measured by the quality of conversation that takes place between teacher teams and those teams and principals (Bush, 2003). Quality conversations focus on student performance and their understanding of the curriculum, as well as on student study methods and the implementation of best practices to ensure improved student learning and performance outcomes. Teachers are more prone to engage in conversations with team members when other approaches, such as protocol and interrogation are implemented. In other words, if an agenda for conversation exists; i.e. one that asks specific questions with regards to teaching methods and student performance, then teachers are more likely to communicate (Deuel, 2009). These conversations are also more successful if they are supported with authentic data that pertains to student performance.

Improving Approach

The improving approach is another crucial approach recommended to make PLC models work effectively (Nelson, Labard, & Waters, 2010). The improving approach entails ways in which teachers share ideas that can improve the grades of students. Through the comparison of student test scores, teachers can effectively determine the areas of instruction that students had the most trouble with. Once teachers determine which instruction methods are least effective, they can focus on other means to ensure that students successfully retain curriculum material. This approach is dedicated to the idea that improved instruction will consequently aid in students’ understanding of core material. This approach allows teachers to examine the work of students, and test students based on teacher learning expectations. Through pre-assessments, this approach also engages student opinions about specific teaching methods and their overall effectiveness (Nelson, Labard, & Waters, 2010). This approach, therefore, paves the way for teachers to ask and answer tentative questions to improve learning expectations and effective teaching methods (Leonard, 2001).  In essence, the improving approach facilitates conversations to develop improved teaching methods that will essentially enhance student performance.

Leadership Qualities in PLC Curriculum

Open Sharing

An excellent leadership quality is the ability to allow transparency between principals and teachers; especially when it comes to sharing ideas (Joyce, 2004). This also plays a significant role of promoting trust among the PLC members. Trust is an essential quality in leadership, and it molds and enables leaders to support each other. The trust between teachers and administrators enables teachers to feel free and openly participate in practices that may otherwise be risky, to enhance learning opportunities (Joyce, 2004). Trust is a vital leadership factor because it provides ways that enable teachers to improve understanding of leadership methods among one another.

Trust integrates with collegial conversation, to enable PLC’s to achieve shared instructions, beliefs, and values. It fosters a mutual understanding in areas that need instructional developments and improvements. It contributes in the development of professional activity, which boosts instructional program initiatives in schools. Through knowledge-sharing, the PLC model achievements enable teachers to switch from an individualized curriculum to one that joins the functional teams (Leonard, 2001).

Identifying Resources

The identification of resources, which facilitates constructive and thoughtful dialogue, is another measurement of quality leadership (Spanneut, 2010). These resources include leadership styles, core business, and principal and teacher leadership (Spanneut, 2010). Leadership styles refer to a teacher’s abilities and qualities in leading an institution. Core business refers to the implementation of leadership qualities to establish innovative strategies that will provide a proper understanding of schools, and how teachers can mold the situation. Principal leadership refers to the support that principals offer to teachers to improve leadership in schools. Conversely, teachers explore their leadership through research practices and their engagement in conversations that foster the understanding of an exemplary teacher leadership in a school setting (Bush, 2003). Quality leadership and its implementation into schools rely on the availability of quality resources. It remains the responsibility of school principals to provide adequate resources to teachers so that a successful PLC model can be implemented. These resources would ultimately pave the way to regional and state professional leaders so that local, state, and national education associations and organizations can be reached (Alberta’s Commission on Learning, 2003). These resources are relevant and pivotal because they enhance decision-making processes and offer an understanding of various theoretical foundations. The resources also lead to practical examples concerning the successful implementation of a PLC model so as to design relevant instructional development initiatives (Spanneut, 2010).

Developing Skills

The third aspect of leadership quality is its ability to improve teachers’ skill acquisitions (Joyce, 2004). Skill development becomes possible when principals allocate sufficient time to encourage teachers to participate in school discussions. Principals aid in skill developments through effective communication and accurate decision making. These factors give teachers an opportunity to apply their necessary skills to participate in their respective PLC’s. Skill development typically focuses on school culture and teacher and principal leadership skills. Exchanging ideas during a conversation fosters the teacher’s understanding on instructions, leadership personality, and achievements (Spanneut, 2010).

Teacher’s leadership with regards to a PLC model is beneficial because it enables staff members to support each other. Through effective leadership, teachers develop a caring, intellectually curious, and cooperative culture with the objective of improving student performance. The supportive culture boosts teacher morale to effectively advance their profession. In other words, the adoption of a PLC model ultimately enhances education reform.  The leadership qualities of teachers within a PLC model improve their decision-making skills, while simultaneously improving self-efficacy. Furthermore, improved leadership qualities result in improved dialogue among teachers. Improved dialogue, in turn, result in an enhanced mutual understanding among all participants. In other words, PLC model participants are more likely to identify shortcomings, discuss those shortcomings, and work together to improve those shortcomings. Principals play a vital role in the PLC model by guiding members toward strategies to finalize decisions. This is often done through a voting process where members can nominate and vote for their leaders (Leonard, 2001). School administrators encourage teachers to participate in a democratic election process where each teacher could potentially adopt a prominent role. Those who are elected as leaders then adopt the responsibility of teaching leadership skills to other teachers. Self-governance is important in professional learning communities because it boosts teachers’ morale and significantly increases their professionalism Spanneut, 2010).

Leaders ensure that all members in PLC’s are familiar with the data discussed to assist in delivering instructions in a school setting. The leaders are also responsible for the provision of relevant data that should be used to measure student performance. This data should be readily available and easy to interpret. However, if teachers are unable to accurately or easily interpret said data, the leaders must take it upon themselves to teach other members of the PLC to do so successfully (Spanneut, 2010).

Serve as Examples to PLC Members

Leaders in PLC’s encourage other members to adopt a collective responsibility to enhance success in students.  It is therefore the responsibility of a PLC leader to exhibit behavior that will offer an example of conduct for other PLC members. PLC leaders explain the specific duties of each PLC member and promote dialogue amongst members to simultaneously improve student outcomes and teacher performance. The leaders assist the staff members to understand their duties in helping students improve on their performance. Leaders in professional learning communities also play a key role in illuminating the importance of learning in a social context, instead of in an independent setting (Joyce, 2004). Furthermore, it is the responsibility of PLC leaders to assure team members that they can communicate their ideas and concerns without fear of rebuttal. In other words, it is their duty to build trust among staff members. They do this through guiding teachers in practices, such as conflict management and institutional decision-making. This encourages team members to trust one another and focus solely on the process of improving student performance (Joyce, 2004).

Teacher Agency and Professional Collaboration

As the above-mentioned information indicates, PLC’s come to fruition when educational leaders realize the need for school improvement through the comprehensive transformation of practices (Riveros, Newton, & Burgess, 2012). The most difficult part of this process is establishing a need for change. In other words, although it may be evident that change is required, it is not always clear exactly where that change needs to occur. Nonetheless, when the need for change is identified, teachers’ willingness and commitment to implement change are key factors to the successful development of a PLC (Riveros, Newton, & Burgess, 2012). Thus, the extent to which a PLC can be implemented in a school will only extend as far as the teachers’ levels of shared understanding and common values. For instance, if only 25 percent of a school’s teachers agree that change is inevitable, a PLC model would most likely only be 25 percent effective in that school. However, if 100 percent of a school’s teachers identify the need for change, a PLC model would be far more effective for that school (Riveros, Newton, & Burgess, 2012). As such, the fundamentals of change do not lie in the change of the professional learning community, but instead it lies with the change in teachers’’ attitudes toward change.

Because most schools operate under established mandate, the call for shared understanding among teachers is sometimes redundant (Tarnoczi, 2006).    In other words, shared understanding is not necessarily a means to promote teacher involvement in change; instead it is a means to ensure that teachers comply with mandated goals. The democratic involvement of teachers is, for the most part, only in play when they are directed at complying with goals set my educational legislators. However, this notion dissipates once teachers become the actual agents of change. In other words, when teacher attitudes toward change are transformed, change with regards to current educational practices becomes more feasible (Tarnoczi, 2006).

A successful PLC therefor depends on a concrete explanation of teacher agents within school practices. If no vigorous explanatory framework with regards to the role of teacher agents are in place, then the idea of schools as a democratic practice become a farce. Once this happens, an aversion to conflict becomes common practice (Riveros, Newton, & Burgess, 2012). Conflict contestation will significantly influence the collective understanding of a school’s organizational situation. In other words, when there is an aversion to conflict among teacher agents, that aversion will influence teachers’ understanding of professional practice. As such, certain teachers (specifically those who do not recognize the reality of conflict), will then become outcasts to the process of change (Riveros, Newton, & Burgess, 2012).

Illustrating the Need for PLC’s

The size of U.S. high schools has increased dramatically over the past five decades. Average high school enrollment has increased fivefold from, on average, 127 students to, on average, 856 students (Chen, 2011). The rapid growth of student enrollment makes it increasingly difficult for educators to tend to the varying needs of students. An increasing number of students who require extra assistance do not receive it. In response, the U.S. government implemented the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001. Furthermore, the Obama Administration made amendments to the Act by implementing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (Harkin, 2010). A worldwide effort to reform science education has been at the forefront of education news (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010). The United States, in particular, has employed various resources to ensure the improvement of science education; specifically in urban schools that currently fail to meet reform standards.

An increased expectation with regards to student performance simultaneously raises expectations about teachers’ practice. Despite the implementation of accountability measures, a large number of American schools still struggle to meet state achievement standards (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010). Urban schools present the greatest challenge in meeting nationwide reform goals. The U.S. Department of Education (USDOE) has devised a list of national mandates that all schools must comply with. These mandates include, but are not limited to, demanding science experiences in the pursuit of improving the academic achievement of students. In an effort to improve student performance, many schools have initiated teacher and principal professional development (PD). The need for ongoing professional developments were based on needs assessment reports, which indicated subpar performances by students and teachers alike (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010). The primary goals of PD initiatives are to develop more effective instructional strategies and to consequently improve academic expectations of students.

Access to sufficient resources and a comprehensive scientific understanding on the teachers’ behalf are required to meet these goals. However, these two factors remain a scarce occurrence in urban districts. This is true because the majority of teachers in urban districts teach outside their subjects of expertise and resources to support teaching and learning are rare (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010). In addition, many urban schools present subpar state achievement scores, low student enrolment, increased student and teacher mobility, insufficient resources, decreased teacher morale, and high numbers of retiring teachers (p. 544). Student mobility refers to the amount of times a student moves from one home to the next. The United States Government Accounting Office (US GAO) reported that frequent moves directly affected student achievement. The report states that in 1994, 41 percent of students who frequently moved were below grade level in reading, and 33 percent of frequent movers were below grade level in math (Barton, 2004). More than 17 percent of tenth-grade students have moved more than three times. This rate is twice as much as White students of the same age. High mobility rates affect students as well as teachers. Teachers are affected because they are more inclined to review material instead of presenting new material, to accommodate constant classroom changes due to high mobility rates. High mobility rates also prevent teachers from conducting individualized instruction (Rothstein, 2004).

More than 50 percent of all urban schools fail to meet annual yearly progress (AYP) expectations. The most pending threat of failing to meet AYP is that an entire district can run the risk of losing state funding and state credentials (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010). The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation required that all scholars in publicly funded schools show Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). In other words, all students in U.S. public schools were mandated under the Act to achieve and maintain acceptable benchmarks in student achievement as determined by the USDOE.

In an effort to improve performance standards in these urban schools, principals and teachers collaborated to establish grade-specific PLC’s. The specific goals of the PLC’s centered on

• The development of disciplinary knowledge of core scientific theories and models so that knowledge that pertain to the subject can be verified,
• The development of measures to understand how students learn science,
• The implementation of research-based methods to effectively teach science, and
• The recognition and adaptation of exemplary science curricula that will support teachers’ instruction needs (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010).

Researchers indicate the importance to distinguish between a community of teachers, and a group of teachers who gather in a room for a meeting. PLC’s will only function at full capacity if teachers act as a team. In other words, teachers will have to share common goals in their efforts to improve student learning outcomes. If no significant collaboration exists between teachers and principals, the PLC model will fail and no progress will be made. As such, the fundamental premise of a PLC is a group of teachers with shared goals and responsibilities to establish collaborative development of instructional content knowledge (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010).

PLC Effectiveness

Evidence suggests that PLC models are an effective means to improve teacher instruction methods and student learning outcomes are plentiful. However, due to the length constraints of this paper all those success stories cannot be adequately addressed. Instead, one school’s success will be illustrated. It is important to note that this is merely one example of a series of similar successes. Albemarle High School in Charlottesville, VA has a diverse student population. Throughout the course of the school’s history, student performance has been inconsistent (Thomas, 2012). In fact, during the 2003-2004 school years, the high school did not make adequate AYP. The pass rate benchmark for English and reading was 61 percent, and for Math was 59 percent. However, after the implementation of the PLC model, the school made its AYP for all subjects and enrollment groups. This trend has continued and remains true today.

The school’s principal adopted and implemented the PLC model in an effort to improve student learning outcomes. His primary goal was to involve all departments so that a site-wide change could be implemented. As such, the principal implemented the collaborative model for all departments (including special education instruction). Evidence indicates that teacher capacity has increased since the implementation of high-performing collaborative teams (Thomas, 2012). One key characteristic of the collaborative teams is their commitment to discuss and develop specified proficiency standards for all students on each skill. In other words, the teams identified aspects that needed improvement and developed standards which students must achieve. These teacher teams then use these standards to assess each student’s proficiency (Thomas, 2012). This criterion is reassessed on a regular basis to ensure its compliance with national and school standards.

A prime example of successful collaborative efforts at Albemarle High School is the school’s Learning and Enrichment Activity Period (LEAP). Prior to the implementation of the PLC model, the school offered a one-hour lunch, twice a week, for all students. The premise behind this long lunch was that students could use the extra time to catch up on work, or meet with teachers. However, over the course of several years, fewer students utilized this time to catch up on lost work, and fewer still met with teachers; it simply became a long lunch. Teacher teams collaborated to determine a more efficient way to utilize this extra time. They decided to remove the long lunches and implement an intervention period, four days a week, for 40 minutes each (Thomas, 2012). The LEAP periods were assigned to each teacher in the school, thereby ensuring the equal distribution of teacher responsibility. These periods are designated for the sole purpose of student-teacher meetings. During these meetings, teachers offer help to students who need it, or students could prepare for upcoming tests with the readily available assistance from teachers. The LEAP classes occurred during the last 40 minutes of the school day (Thomas, 2012). Since the implementation of LEAP, pass rates for all subjects have improved significantly and now average at 90 percent or above for English, Math, History, and Science (Thomas, 2012).

Conclusion

Professional learning communities is an effective initiative chosen by teachers, specifically those in urban school settings, to imbed improved teaching practices (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010).  Evidence presented in this paper solidifies the argument that the conceptualization of a PLC model in schools promotes professional development and results in improved student learning outcomes. PLC’s also facilitate peer collaborations in which teachers can reflect on past student successes and challenges. These collaborations make it possible to develop actions plans that will subsequently increase student learning outcomes (Stoll et al., 2006).  The PLC is significant because it outshines other reform models through the implementation and fostering of effective and quality leadership. Leadership effectiveness becomes evident when teacher begin to favor team work instead of assuming, or resuming, the individual approach to teaching (Bianchini, Southerland, & Windschitl, 2010). In conclusion, PLC models illustrate the benefits of peer collaboration in school-based curriculum. Teachers learn new ideas about their profession and practice agency in the school environment. The result is improved student learning outcomes.

References

Alberta’s Commission on Learning. (2003). Every child learns, every child succeeds: Report and recommendations. Edmonton: Alberta’s Commission on Learning. Retrieved from http://education.alberta.ca/department/ipr/commission.aspx

Barton, P. (2004). Why Does the Gap Exist? Educational Leadership, 62(2), 8-13.

Bianchini, J.A., Southerland, S., & Windschitl, M. (2010). Identifying Elements Critical for Functional and Sustainable Professional Learning Communities. Science Teacher Education, 543-570.

Bush, T. (2003). Theories of educational leadership and management. London: Sage Publications.

Chen, C.-S. (2011). Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2009–10. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Deuel, A.F., T.H. Nelson, D. Slavit, and A. Kennedy. 2009. Looking at student work. Educational Leadership 67 (3): 60–72.

Harkin, T. (2010). ESEA Reauthorization: The Importance of a World-Class K-12 Education for Our Economic Success. Hearing of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: United States Senate (pp. 1-76). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Joyce, B. (2004). How are professional learning communities created? History has a few messages. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(1), 76.

Leonard, P., & Leonard, L. (2001). The collaborative prescription: Remedy or reverie? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 4 (4), 383-399.

Nelson, T.H., LeBard, L., & Waters, C. (2010). How to Create a Professional Learning Community. Science and Children, 36-40.

Riveros, A., Newton, P., & Burgess, D. (2012). A Situated Account of Teacher Agency and Learning: Critical Reflections on Professional Learning Communities. Canadian Journal of Education, 35(1), 202-216.

Rothstein, R. (2004). The Achievement Gap: A Broader Picture. Educational Leadership, 62(3), 40-43.

Spanneut, G. (2010). Professional Learning Communities, Principals, and Collegial Conversations. Phi Delta Pi Record, 100-103.

Thomas, J. (2012). Albemarle High School. All Things PLC retrieved from www.allthingsplc.info/articles/articles.php