Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Implementation of professional learning communities at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia
(USC Thesis Other)
Implementation of professional learning communities at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCs AT PASA
IMPLEMENTATION OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES AT THE
PROGRESSIVE ACADEMY OF SOUTHEAST ASIA
by
Lisa Chi Yan Wan
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2018
Copyright 2018 Lisa Chi Yan Wan
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
ii
DEDICATION
Kris, my world is full because of you.
Joshua, mommy wants to be just like you when I grow up.
Nicholas, you never fail to make mommy smile.
Mom and Dad for your sacrifices.
Cindy for being my sister.
My dear friends for being there for me.
My wonderful team for taking on all my crazy ideas.
Past and future students.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
iii
Acknowledgements
I wish to thank my committee members Dr. Larry Picus, Dr. Ruth Chung, and Dr.
Douglas Reeves for working with me. A special thank you to my chair, Dr. Larry Picus, I could
not have done this without your patience, guidance and encouragement. Thank you to Dr. Ruth
Chung for reminding me about balance in life. Thank you to Dr. Douglas Reeves for your
expertise and candor.
I would like to thank the school for providing this learning opportunity, the best
professional development an educator can ask for. I would also like to acknowledge with
gratitude the school and specifically the elementary division for allowing me to conduct my
study. I would also like to thank all faculty and administrators who participated in this
study. You were each so generous with your time; without your participation this study would
not have been possible. Thank you for trusting me.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
iv
Table of Contents
Page #
List of Tables vi
List of Figures vii
Abstract
viii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 1
Background of Problem 4
Purpose of the Study 8
Conceptual Framework 9
Importance of Study 9
Limitations and Delimitations
10
Chapter Two: Literature Review 11
What are Professional Learning Communities 12
Professional Learning Communities at Work 13
Other Elements of PLCs 17
Reasons for Professional Learning Communities 19
Criticisms of PLCs 26
Barriers to Implementing PLCs 27
Implementation of PLCs at Work 32
DuFour’s Evaluation of Implementation of PLC 40
Summary
56
Chapter Three: Methodology 58
Rationale for Method of Study 58
Participants 59
Instrumentation 61
Data Collection 63
Data Analysis 65
Conclusion
67
Chapter Four: Findings 69
Participants 69
Elementary School Division of Progressive Academy of Southeast
Asia
71
Research Question #1: How has the elementary division at PASA
implemented PLCs?
72
Research Question #2: What are some promising practices PLCs
utilize in order to promote team collaboration and productivity at
PASA within the elementary division?
83
Research Question #3: What are some barriers experienced by PLCs
at PASA within the elementary division that hinder team
86
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
v
collaboration and productivity?
Conclusion
94
Chapter Five: Discussion 97
Summary of Findings 98
Implications 104
Recommendations for Future Research 107
Conclusion
107
References 109
Appendix A Focus Group Discussion Guide 121
Appendix B Request for Participation E-mail 125
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
vi
List of Tables
Page #
Table 2.1: Mission, Vision, Values and Goals of Organization 34
Table 2.2: The PLCs at Work Continuum: Communicating 42
Table 2.3: The PLCs at Work Continuum: Laying the 44
Table 2.4: The PLCs at Work Continuum: A Collaborative 45
Table 2.5: The PLCs at Work Continuum: School Goals Drive Team Goals 47
Table 2.6: The PLCs at Work Continuum: What Students Must Learn 48
Table 2.7: The PLCs at Work Continuum: Turning Data into Information 49
Table 2.8: The PLCs at Work Continuum: Monitoring Each Student’s
Learning
50
Table 2.9: The PLCs at Work Continuum: Systematic Interventions and
Extensions
52
Table 2.10: The PLCs at Work Continuum: Employment of Staff 54
Table 2.11: The PLCs at Work Continuum: Responding to Conflict 55
Table 2.12: The PLCs at Work Continuum: District-wide 56
Table 3.1: Focus Group Participants 60
Table 3.2: Interview Questions Related to Implementation 61
Table 3.3: Interview Questions Related to Promising Practices 62
Table 3.4: Interview Questions Related to Barriers 63
Table 3.5: Interview Questions Related to Insights 63
Table 4.1: Key Phrases and Color Codes 66
Table 4.2: Summary Sample Data Collection for Focus Groups 70
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
vii
List of Figures
Page #
Figure 2A: PLC Cycle of Inquiry 36
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
viii
Abstract
There is a large body of research that suggests the concept of a professional learning
community (PLC) can promote improved student learning by increasing collective teacher
capacity to meet the diverse learning needs of students (Reeves, 2016; Battersby & Verdi, 2013;
Marzano & DuFour, 2011; Fullan 2010, Senge, 2006; Morrissey, 2000; Hord, 1997). Many
schools have implemented PLCs around the world. Despite the well-documented benefits of
PLCs, there is inconsistency to the extent with which PLCs are implemented within schools and
districts. The purpose of this study was to (a) understand how the elementary division at
Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia (PASA), an independent private school, has
implemented PLCs; (b) learn about promising practices utilized by high performing PLCs to
promote teacher collaboration and high productivity; and (c) understand barriers confronted by
PLCs during the PLC process. A qualitative research design was used to understand the
implementation process through focus group discussions. Focus group discussions were
conducted with all grade levels, kindergarten to grade 5 in the elementary division. Ten themes
emerged from the study (1) an alignment of belief in the mission and vision and purpose of PLCs
by faculty and administration, (2) the elementary school has implemented systems and structures
to support the PLC process, (3) there is a collaborative culture for the PLC process, (4) collective
responsibility for student learning is still at its infancy stage, (5) PLCs are results oriented and
have clearly established SMART goals that align with the elementary school’s strategic plan, (6)
instructional assistants are a strong system of support for learning for students, (7) trust is a key
to high performing PLCs, (8) there is a low level of trust in some PLCs, (9) there is a transient
faculty, and (10) there are an overwhelming number of initiatives that require the time of PLCs
at the school.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Throughout the history of education in America there have been failed attempts to reform
education and to increase student achievement (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Gardner’s open
letter to the American nation in 1983, A Nation at Risk, detailed the poor state of American
education (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). In the report, Gardner pleaded for a) raising standards, b)
increasing rigor, and c) extending the school day and year in order to raise student achievement
(DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Gardner, 1983). Under the George W. Bush administration, the No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy was established in an attempt to promote educational
reform. “This law stipulated that schools must show improving student achievement on
standardized tests until not a single student failed to demonstrate proficiency” (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011, p. 12), and if schools failed to do so, they were penalized. Unfortunately, NCLB
did not produce the results it hoped for, significant improvement in student
achievement. According to the NCLB mandate, if schools did not reach certain proficiency
levels on specified standardized exams; these schools were at risk to be converted to Charter
schools or private schools. (Ainsworth 2013; DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Ravitch, 2010a). The
educational system in America continues to face the following challenges: shortage of qualified
teachers, continued achievement gap and poor academic performance compared to other nations
around the world (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
Teacher Shortage and Achievement Gap
There is a shortage of qualified teachers in the United States (Latifoglu, 2016; Westerfelt,
2016; Ingeroll and Smith, 2004). At first glance it may seem the shortage may be due to the
large number of baby boomers retiring and an increase of student enrollment. Ingeroll and Smith
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
2
(2004) assert, data suggest the shortage of teacher is due to attrition. Teacher attrition rate in the
United States is high, 8% compared to 3% in other countries such as Canada, Finland and
Singapore (Westerfelt, 2016).
The achievement gap based on socioeconomic status, ethnicity and gender has not been
significantly reduced since the Civil Rights of Act of 1964 (Camera, 2016). According to
Hanushek (2016), the Black-White achievement gap persists, the average black student scores at
the 22nd percentile in reading. Schools are struggling to meet the diverse learning needs of
students (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many & Mattos, 2016).
The Programme for International School Assessment (PISA), conducts annual surveys of
how countries around the world perform in reading, math and science. In the recent 2016 report,
involving 72 countries and 540 000 students, the United States was ranked at 25th in
performance (OECD PISA Report, 2016). Western countries such as Finland, Canada, New
Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom all outperformed the United States (OECD PISA
Report, 2016). In the educational race of achievement, America is losing ground; adequate
resources and experienced quality teacher are key factors to improving student achievement
(Darling-Hammond, 2010). As an attempt to address the multiple issues stated above,
professional learning communities (PLCs) have been identified as a possible solution to
educational reform. There has been a movement to utilize PLCs as a process for educational
reform to address the issues of the high percentage of teacher burnout and to increase student
achievement since the 1960s (DuFour et al., 2016). According to DuFour, DuFour, Eaker,
Many and Mattos (2016), PLCs are collaborative teacher teams where teachers work collectively
to ensure all students learn at high levels. Leading educators in the field believe PLCs is a
practice that can increase capacity of educators to meet diverse learning needs of students and
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
3
combat teacher isolation and burnout (Reeves, 2016; Battersby & Verdi, 2013; Marzano &
DuFour, 2011; Fullan 2010, Senge, 2006; Morrissey, 2000; Hord, 1997).
PLCs at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia
Being a professional learning community is a central organizing concept to the
composition of Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia (PASA) as a learning institution. A
pseudonym is used to protect the identity of the school and participants in the study. The school
believes in building teacher capacity through collective inquiry into student learning through
collaborative teams, PLCs (PASA Strategic Focus, 2016). There are over 60 PLCs within the
Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia. The High School, Middle School and Elementary
school vary in the extent to which they have implemented PLCs. While all faculty consistently
agree that PLCs are important (Faculty Survey, 2015); some PLCs within the school tend to have
positive outcomes whereas others do not. The purpose of this study is to examine the
implementation of PLCs at PASA, specifically within the elementary division.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
4
Background of the Study
Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia
The Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia (PASA) is a private international
educational institution located within Southeast Asia. The school was first established in 1956 to
serve children of American executives, diplomats and missionaries (Progressive Academy of
Southeast Asia, n.d.). Currently, PASA is a non-profit school that provides a pre-school to grade
12 American curriculum, that is based on the common core for 3,900 students with diverse
backgrounds and learning needs.
PASA has a vision of being “a world leader in education, cultivating exceptional
thinkers, prepared for the future” (PASA Strategic Focus, 2017). The mission of PASA is to be
“committed to providing each student an exemplary American educational experience with an
international perspective” (PASA Strategic Focus, 2017). The school’s vision is supported by
three strategic anchors, which include a culture of excellence (every student learns at high
levels), a culture of extraordinary care (every student is known and advocated for), and a culture
of possibilities (every student personalizes his/her learning). The 2020 Strategic Plan supports
the mission.
2020 Strategic Plan: The Five Priorities. The school formulated the PASA 2020
Strategic plan in order to support the PASA mission of being, “a world leader in education,
cultivating exceptional thinkers, prepared for the future” (PASA Strategic Focus, 2017). The
PASA 2020 Strategic plan contains 5 areas of focus a) professional learning communities, b)
standards-based approach, c) high impact instructional strategies, d) pastoral care and e) systems
supporting learning. The school believes PLCs are vital to the composition of PASA as a
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
5
learning institution. The school sees PLCs as the engine that drives collective inquiry for
continual improvement and increased student achievement (PASA Strategic Focus, 2017).
PASA first introduced the professional learning community concept in 2012. In 2013,
the superintendent mandated that the PLCs at Work framework to be implemented across the
entire school, K-12. PASA believes all students can learn at high levels. PASA is a learning
organization that believes school improvement is improving professional practice as noted in the
2020 strategic plan where there is a huge emphasis in developing and sustaining PLCs. The
school uses DuFour’s PLC at Work framework for collective professional inquiry which is based
on three big ideas (a) a focus on learning, (b) a culture of collaboration, and (c) a focus on
results. Currently, there are over 60 professional learning communities at PASA; within the
elementary division there are over 20 professional learning communities (PASA Elementary
School Directory, 2016).
According to DuFour’s PLC at Work model, collaborative teacher teams must engage in
the following process in order to improve student learning (a) establish a guaranteed and viable
curriculum; (b) create common formative and summative assessments; (c) establish what
proficiency in standard looks like; and (d) use data from common assessments to inform
instructional practices. Implementing the PLC model requires multiple stages, with over 20
PLCs within the elementary school division at PASA; there is discrepancy in the extent in which
PLCs have been implemented within the PLCs at Work model. The school has invested
resources, time and manpower to implementing PLCs, it is critical to understand the processes
involved in implementing successful PLCs.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
6
Common Core State Standards
Currently under the Trump Administration, the future of the common core standards in
the United States is unclear. Regardless, the standards do exist; PASA is not mandated to follow
the common core as it is an international school. However, PASA is an international school that
follows an American curriculum that prepares children of American expatriates to be college
ready; therefore it is important that the school keep up with standards in the United States. If the
common core is to cease to exist, the different states will again return to determining own
standards and what will be expected for students to learn will differ between states. While
PASA generally follows the common core, it has a tradition of determining its own standards.
PASA will continue to establish high standards for its students and continue to improve and
revise standards as necessary to meet the needs of all students using PLCs as platform to increase
collective capacity to meet student needs.
Currently, 42 of the 50 states in America have adopted the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS) as the core curriculum (Common Core States Standards Initiative, n.d.). The CCSS
defines learning targets from K to 12 in reading, writing and math by grade level (Common Core
States Standards Initiative, n.d.). As noted by Ainsworth (2013), students must be proficient in
standards by the end of each grade level in order to be able to learn the new prescribed standards
the follow school year.
There are a large number of standards within the common core state standards (CCSS)
for students to master (Reeves, 2016; Kramer, 2015; Ainsworth, 2013; Marzano and Kendall,
1998). A strong and viable curriculum that prescribes to the most important and essential
learning targets is key to students learning at high levels (Dufour, Dufour, Eaker, Many &
Mattos, 2016; Darling-Hammond, 2007; Marzano & Waters, 2008). Ainsworth (2013) notes,
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
7
there is a plethora standards in the common core for students to master. This creates a situation
where watered down instruction may be provided to students in an attempt by teachers to cover
the many standards within the common core. As a result, teachers race through content and
determine which standards to be taught based on individual preferences and judgment (Dufour et
al., 2016; Dufour, Dufour, Eaker & Many, 2006). Therefore, in order to establish a common and
viable curriculum, teachers need to collaborate and determine which standards should be deemed
essential from the common core (Ainsworth, 2013). Collaboration can also serve as a proactive
process to prevent teacher burnout and feelings of loneliness and isolation.
Teacher Isolation
Teaching is a lonely and isolated profession (Mirel & Goldin, 2012; Lortie,
1975;). Teacher isolation is a hindrance to improving student achievement and improved
instructional strategies for diverse learning needs of students (Lortie, 1975). Experienced
quality teachers are key to student achievement; yet 30% of beginning teachers leave the
profession within five years, creating a shortage of experienced teachers within the teaching
profession (Darling-Hammond, 2007; Darling-Hammond & Sykes, 2003). Latifoglu (2016)
posits that beginning teachers who are highly committed and altruistic are ones who are most
likely to burn out, feel isolated, and leave the teaching profession early. Attrition is particularly
high for new service teachers, due to student behavior problems, lack of support, low student
motivation in learning and lack of influence in decision-making processes (Latifoglu, 2016;
Ingeroll & Smith, 2004; Ingeroll, 2001). Shortage of qualified teachers can be detrimental to
school environments as well as hinder student achievement (Ingeroll, 2004). It is common for
new teachers to express a lack of support and collaboration. Collaborative teacher teams and
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
8
teacher mentors where veteran teachers mentor and “on board” new service teachers has found to
reduce teacher turnover (DuFour et al., 2016; Ingeroll, 2001)
Learning organizations where teachers collaborate and engage in collective learning is
fundamental to transforming the current state of educational crisis in America (Senge, 2006,
1990). Teacher collaboration that focuses on improving instructional practices and learning are
most impactful for student achievement (Fullan, Gallardo, Hargreaves, 2015). According to
DuFour and colleagues (2016), Professional Learning Communities at Work (PLCs) which
encapsulate the four big ideas, (a) ensuring that students learn; (b) a culture of collaboration; c) a
focus on results and, (d) hard work and commitment is the most promising strategy to build
capacity to “ensure all students learn at high levels” and to reduce sense of isolation for teachers
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many & Mattos, 2016, p. 9). Unfortunately implementing PLCs can
be challenging for schools, including the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand how PLCs have been implemented at the
elementary division at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia (PASA), an international
school that subscribes to an American curriculum. It seeks to understand to how PASA has
implemented DuFours’s PLCs at Work framework. In addition, it seeks to understand promising
practices utilized by high performing PLCs and barriers confronted by PLCs. The following
research questions are to be addressed by this study:
1. How has the elementary division at PASA implemented the PLCs at Work
framework?
2. What are some promising practices PLCs utilize in order to promote team
collaboration and productivity at PASA within the elementary division?
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
9
3. What are some barriers experienced by PLCs at PASA within the elementary
division during the PLC process?
Conceptual Framework
The PLCs at Work model by DuFour et al. (2016) will be used as a framework to
understand how PLCs have been implemented at PASA. As noted by DuFour et al. (2016), there
are three big ideas that are foundational to PLCs (i) a focus on learning; (ii) collaborative culture
and collective responsibility; and (iii) results orientation. Based on the 3 big ideas, there are
seven steps to implementing PLCs:
1. Creating a clear purpose;
2. Building a collaborative culture;
3. Creating a results orientation;
4. Establish a focus on learning;
5. Creating team-developed common formative assessments;
6. Responding when some students don’t learn; and
7. Hiring, and orienting, and retaining new staff.
DuFour’s implementation process will be used to guide focus group discussions.
Importance of the Study
There is limited research on the implementation and development of PLCs at Work
model in international schools. As international schools move toward implementing PLCs for
continual improvement in student achievement and instructional practices, findings from the
study can be used to avoid potential implementation barriers. In addition, findings from the
study can be used to inform promising practices that can be leveraged to help PLCs become
more effective.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
10
PASA has devoted much time, resources and manpower to the implementation and
development of PLCs. Therefore, it is important to understand the implementation process of
successful PLCs and use the findings from this study to reflect and guide PLCs at PASA to
improve on the PLC continuum journey.
Limitations and Delimitations and Definitions
Limitations
Sample. This study seeks to uncover possible promising practices and barriers to
implementing PLCs at Work. It is recognized that the study is only of the elementary school
division at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia. And specifically, only grade level PLCs,
K to 5 were systematically analyzed. As such, the research cannot be generalized to other
schools. The professional learning community experiences of administrators, faculty, and staff
are unique to PASA. In addition, information gathered from participants through focus groups
may be biased as participants are all employees of PASA and participants may feel reticent in
expressing less than positive feelings regarding any school initiatives, including the
implementation of PLCs.
Researcher. The researcher is a member of the elementary school division as a
Kindergarten professional learning community chairperson (PLCC), and acknowledges the
possibility of being bias when conducting focus group discussions.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
11
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
For many decades schools around the world have attempted to reform education in order
to increase student achievement and reduce teacher isolation and burnout, this is especially true
in the United States (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). As noted by DuFour and Marzano, (2011),
educational reform is neither novel nor new. Unfortunately, attempts such as President George
W. Bush’s, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy, President Obama’s Race to the Top (RTTT)
policy and Common Core State Standard Initiative (CCSSI), have not provided radical changes
in educational reform as hoped for by the various political administrations (DuFour & Marzano,
2011, p. 13).
The United States has fallen behind other nations in the world in educational reform;
strategies implemented for educational reform have been less than desirable (Fullan,
2010). DuFour and Marzano (2011) note, educators have at times struggled to meet the learning
needs of students not for of lack of motivation but for lack of capacity. In the current structure of
one classroom teacher to 30 students, educators may struggle to meet the diverse learning needs
of all students (DuFour and Marzano, 2011). Many educators in the industry believe engaging in
professional learning communities is a practice that can build collective capacity for educators to
promote increased learning for all students (Reeves, 2016; Battersby & Verdi, 2013; Marzano &
DuFour, 2011; Fullan, 2010; Senge, 2006; Morrissey, 2000; Hord 1997). This chapter provides
an overview of literature on professional learning communities in three main areas (a) definitions
of professional learning communities, (b) professional learning communities at work and (c)
other central elements that are important to the development and sustainment of PLCs
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
12
What are Professional Learning Communities?
Definition
There are many different definitions for what constitutes as a professional learning
community (PLC). According to DuFour (2004), over the past 60 years there have been multiple
iterations of PLCs in different organizations, as result that the term professional learning
communities has lost much of its significance. It seems that when a group of people get together
within an educational institute, they automatically call themselves PLCs, when in fact people
have just gathered together at a designated location. While there is no one universal definition
for professional learning communities (PLCs), many researchers and educators have attempted to
define PLCs. Hord (1997) notes, in a PLC school, teachers and administrators engage in the
inquiry cycle to seek and share learning. Morrissey (2000) explains, a PLC school is one where
a group of professional educators meet together to learn in a supportive environment, a
community of learners. DuFour, DuFour, Eaker and Many (2010) posit, a PLC consists of a
group of educator who work collaboratively in collective inquiry and engage action research to
improve student achievement. DuFour et al., (2010) further emphasize, PLCs “operate under the
assumption that the key to improved learning for students is continuous, job-embedded learning
for educators” and the collective inquiry process is cyclical and never ending (p. 14).
More recently, DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many and Mattos (2016) clarify, the PLC
process is not a prescribed program that can be bought. It is not something that can be
implemented by an individual teacher or individual administrator. The PLC process is a
philosophy of job-embedded learning for educators to improve student learning through
collective inquiry (DuFour et al, 2016). PLCs are part of a school’s structure and
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
13
culture. Professional learning community is the “central organizing concept” for schools and
individual meetings are “collaborative teams” (Reeves, 2017).
While there is no designated “true definition” for PLCs; however, literature suggests
there are consistent characteristics that are found for most definitions of PLCs. Therefore, a PLC
is a group of educators in a school or school district, who work collectively, collaboratively to
inquire about student learning. The purpose of the collective inquiry is to improve professional
practices to improve student learning, this collective inquiry process is continuous (DuFour,
DuFour, Eaker, Many, Mattos, 2016, p. 10; DuFour & Marzano, 2011, p. 22; Bolam, 2005 p. 7;
Morrissey, 2000, p. 3; Hord, 1997, p. 6)
Professional Learning Communities at Work
PLCs have been discussed and valued in educational literature as early as the 1960s
(allthingsplc.com). Recently, a popular PLC model used by many school districts is the PLCs at
Work framework developed by Rick DuFour and colleagues (DuFour et al., 2016; Kramer, 2015;
Ainsworth 2013). In the book, Learning by Doing, A Handbook for Professional Learning
Communities at Work, DuFour et al. (2016) outline 3 big ideas that drive the work of PLCs (i) a
focus on learning, (ii) a collaborative culture and collective responsibility, and (iii) a results
orientation. In addition, DuFour et al., (2016) assert, in order to successfully implement PLCs
the following are essential (a) a culture that is simultaneously loose and tight, (b) the importance
of effective communication, and (c) closing the knowledge and action gap.
Three Big Ideas
A focus on learning. Early pioneers of PLCs unanimously concur that the core
characteristic of PLCs is a singular focus on student learning, and students are seen as capable
individuals who are able to achieve academically (DuFour et al., 2006, Morrissey, 2000; Bolam
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
14
et al., 2005; Hord, 1997). Therefore, according to DuFour et al., (2016), the purpose behind all
PLCs is to focus on learning and to “ensure all students can learn at high levels” (p. 11). When a
school operates as a PLC, all members within the school have a common understanding that the
school exists in order help all students learn at high levels (DuFour et al., 2016). This translates
to a school-wide commitment where all members of the school work collectively together to
create (a) a common understanding of what students need to learn (power standards), (b) monitor
student learning through common formative and summative assessments, (c) provide timely
feedback, (d) provide systematic intervention that encompasses extra time and support for
students who struggle with learning, and (e) extension for students who have mastered expected
learning targets (power standards) (DuFour et al., 2016). Therefore the main purpose of all
structures, policies and procedures within the organization serve to support the fundamental
commitment of all students can learn at high levels (DuFour et al., 2016).
A collaborative culture and collective responsibility. Lickona and Davidson (2005),
described collaboration and collective responsibility akin to a team of people rowing a boat
together. Each person is assigned to a position with unique responsibilities. Yet everyone works
together for a common goal, to steer the boat in one direction, with collaboration and collective
responsibility the capacity to achieve a common goal is increased. Therefore, the second big
idea according to DuFour et al. (2016) revolves around the notion that all members must work
collaboratively and take collective responsibility for the learning of all students. At the very core
of PLCs are collaborative teacher teams who work interdependently with a common goal and are
“mutually accountable” for all students learning at high levels. The synergy created as a result of
collaboration and collective responsibility leads to a lateral accountability that creates a push and
pull effect where teachers continuously seek to improve instructional practices (Fullan, Gallardo
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
15
& Hargreaves, 2015). In a PLC, teachers collaborate in order to improve instructional practices
that will lead to increased student learning. In PLCs, teachers collaborate to build shared
knowledge in what students need to learn, to create common assessments, to create common
understandings of what performance proficiency means, and to build repertoires of effective
instructional strategies (DuFour et al., 2016). Bolam et al, (2005) conclude, collective
responsibility sustains commitment and increases peer pressure on apathetic members and
reduces isolation.
A results orientation. The third big idea focuses on a results orientation. DuFour et al.
(2016) note that strategic plans alone do not produce results. Instead, clearly articulated goals
produce results. DuFour et al, (2016) assert, “the best way to help people throughout a school
district to truly focus on results is to insist that every collaborative team establish SMART goals
that align with the school and district goal” (p. 89). SMART goals are (a) strategic, (b)
measurable, (c) attainable, (d) results oriented, and (d) time bound (DuFour et al, 2016, p. 90).
Collaborative teams establish SMART goals based on student learning and work collectively to
strive towards achieving the common goal (DuFour et al., 2016). DuFour et al. (2016) explain,
PLCs engage in a cycle that involves the following steps: (a) gather evidence of current levels of
student learning, (b) develop instructional strategies build on learning, (c) implement
collaboratively generated instructional strategies, (d) determine if strategies were effective, and
(e) apply new knowledge in the next cycle of inquiry on student learning (p. 12). Results
orientation increases accountability. When everyone has a common understanding of clearly
defined goals and action steps to achieve prescribed goal, it creates an accountable environment
with a common language to attain results (Fullan, Gallardo & Hargreaves, 2015).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
16
Essential to PLCs
A culture that is simultaneously loose and tight. At the core of the PLC process,
educators are working collaboratively together. Therefore, the PLC process enables teachers to
be responsible for some of the most important aspects of the PLC process. Teachers are
responsible for looking at evidence of student learning, sharing and determining most effective
strategies for student learning and deciding when to implement effective instructional strategies
to target student learning. These are the loose elements. Teachers have full autonomy on above-
mentioned PLC process. However, there are some elements of the PLC process that are tight,
these elements are not negotiable. Tight elements of the PLC process include (a) collaborative
teamwork and collective responsibility of all students, (b) school structure is collaborative where
members are mutually accountable, (c) team establishes a viable curriculum, (d) development of
common formative assessments, (e) creation of systems of intervention and extension, and (f)
evidence of learning is use to inform instruction (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 14).
The importance of effective communication. DuFour et al. (2016) emphasize the
importance of communication. The authors share elements that are considered as tight need to
be consistently and frequently communicated to everyone. However, communication is not
limited to words, communication is congruence with words. Actions need to match with what is
said; therefore, policies, structures and procedures need to align to support PLC work in ensuring
all students learn at high levels (DuFour et al., 2016).
Closing the knowledge and action gap. Schools and educators understand and realize
the importance of collaboration, timely feedback and the value of examining evidence of
learning to increase student learning. However, there is a disconnect in knowledge and the
active application of said knowledge. Taking action by all educators is imperative. There is a
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
17
discrepancy between knowledge and action in organizational management (DuFour et al., 2016;
Reeves, 2016; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). PLCs will reduce the “action gap” ( DuFour et al., 2016,
p. 19).
Other Elements of PLCs
In addition to the 3 big ideas and essential elements of PLCs outlined by DuFour et al.
(2016), early pioneers such as Hord (1997), Morrissey (2000), Bolam et al., 2005 and DuFour et
al., (2006) posit supportive and shared leadership; shared values and vision; and supportive
conditions are also key characteristics to successful PLCs.
Shared Vision
The discipline of shared vision is the alignment of different goals and values (Senge,
Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, Dutton & Kleiner, 2012). There is an alignment of goals with
all stakeholders related to the school community (supportive staff, teachers, leadership teams and
board members). A school is a “living system” and a common vision can only be realized when
people invest emotions, thinkings and actions into achieving a common goal (Senge et al., 2012).
School improvement requires a shared vision of student learning, that is reflected through the
daily activities of school life by all members of a PLC (DuFour et al., 2016). A PLC school with
a shared vision is a place where students love going to school, where parents are grateful being
part of the school, and where faculty and staff take pride in being part of the institution. The
school has a palpable climate of passion for learning and achievement (Colton, Langer & Goff,
2015). Therefore, visions based on authority alone cannot withstand the test of time; a shared
vision is sustainable and evolves organically through a continuous cycle of action, reflection and
learning by all members or an organization ((DuFour et al., 2016; Senge et al., 2012).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
18
Supportive and Shared Leadership
Shared leadership. A single team or a single teacher cannot accomplish the work
required by PLCs; it requires the concerted effort of an entire school, a PLC school (DuFour et
al., 2016). Effective leaders understand the power of human capital. Effective leaders will share
responsibility by guiding and developing teachers to lead in PLCs. The effective leader
understands, without team level leadership, the collaborative process of focusing on student
learning will most likely fail (DuFour Marzano, 2011; Gallimore, Ermeling, Saunders &
Goldenberg, 2009). The role of principals as authoritative figures that are omnipotent are
irrelevant in a PLC school, in place is shared leadership and shared learning (DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Morrissey, 2000). Kramer (2015) explains, leadership is a “collective endeavor”
and it is distributed among teachers. PLC schools that have demonstrated a positive impact on
student learning engage administrators and teachers in collaborative inquiry in developing
strategies to increase student learning, administrators become learners (Kramer 2015; DuFour &
Mattos, 2013; Morrissey, 2000).
Supportive leadership. Supportive leadership is necessary in order to create an
environment where leadership capacity is developed for all PLC members, the shared leadership
empowers teachers to take charge and lead in implementing innovative practices to improve
student learning (DuFour & Mattos, 2013; Alberta Education, 2006; Hord 1997). One of the
responsibilities of a principal is to provide appropriate support for professional learning. This
will allow teachers to stay committed to own improvement and development. Therefore, the
principal’s role is to continually monitor and support teachers in professional learning
communities, to monitor for progress and to provide feedback on professional growth (DuFour
Marzano, 2011; Morrissey, 2000). In addition, principals must create supportive conditions for
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
19
teacher teams (DuFour Marzano, 2011; Morrissey, 2000). This includes, structural conditions
such as time, location and communication procedures (Morrissey, 2000).
Reasons for Professional Learning Communities
While conventional professional development where consultants or experts are hired by
schools to “train teachers” can provide new learning for teachers, such practice is not always
sustainable and may not meet the needs of all students (Marzano, Heflebower, Hoegh, Warrick,
Grift, Hecker and Wills, 2016). Researchers have provided compelling reasons for schools to
use PLCs as school reform to improve student learning (Reeves, 2016). Literature supports that
professional learning communities are sustainable, can reduce teacher isolation and burnout, and
positively impact on student learning (DuFour et al, 2016; Marzano et al., 2016; DuFour &
Marzano, 2011; Reeves 2010; Bolam et al., 2005, Morrissey, 2000, Hord, 1997).
Sustainable Professional Learning
Ernest Boyer, who helped shape the face of public education in America explained,
“when you talk about school improvement, you are talking about people improvement” (quoted
in DuFour and Marzano, 2011, p. 15). Barber and Mourshed (2007) also asserted, the quality of
education received by students is dependent on the quality of teachers. Therefore, in order to
successfully provide educational improvement, the assumption should be to provide professional
learning on instructional practices (DuFour & Marzano, 2011).
In a dream world, schools are provided with unlimited funds and resources. Each year
millions of dollars can be provided for teacher professional development that is targeted to
improve student learning. Unfortunately, such a world does not exist. Therefore the question
remains, how can schools provide sustainable professional learning for educators in order to
meet the diverse learning needs students?
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
20
Lewin’s social interdependence theory is based on two underlying premises, (a) the
essence of a group is the interdependence among members (created by common goals) and (b) an
intrinsic state of tension within group members motivates movement toward the accomplishment
of the common goal (Johnson & Johnson, 2017, para 6). Deutsch, a graduate student of Lewin,
further developed Lewin’s theory, claiming there are three types of interdependence, positive,
negative, neutral (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). Positive interdependence meant successful
achievement of common group goals. Deutsch (1993) suggests, the most important element in
successful cooperative learning is interdependence. Professional learning communities is based
on teacher collaboration and interdependence. Positive interdependence for PLCs is achieving
the common goal of increased student achievement. Research and theory on PLCs support a
positive effect on instructional practices.
Marzano et al. (2016) assert, one of the most important benefits of PLCs is that they offer
a way of providing sustainable professional development and learning for educators. Opfer and
Pedder (2011) emphasize, professional development and learning for teachers “need to be
sustained and intensive rather than brief and sporadic,” which is the nature of PLCs (p.
384). The 2009 MetLife Survey of the American Teacher found most teachers who were
surveyed felt that teacher collaboration had a positive effect on student and teacher success
(MetLife, 2009; Marzano, 2016). In addition, Hoffman, Dahlman and Zierdt (2009) conducted a
survey involving 56 teachers who were part of a PLC; results from the survey indicate teachers
who were part of a PLC experienced positive impacts in instructional practices and self-
efficacy. Hord (1997) asserts, when seasoned and well-experienced teachers endeavor in
collective inquiry and learning, wisdom and knowledge about instructional practices can be
widely shared among members of the PLC. Rosenholtz studied 78 diverse elementary schools
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
21
(1989) noted, teachers who felt they were supported in a collaborative environment were more
likely to implement new instructional practices acquired through collective inquiry. It is highly
likely the PLCs can be a platform that provide for sustainable and job-embedded professional
learning (Doga, Pringle & Messa, 2015).
Reduction in Teacher Burnout
Freudenberger (1974), an American psychologist described burnout as “feelings of
failure and being worn out or wrung out, resulting from an overload claims on energy, on
personal resources, or on the spiritual strength of the worker” (Friedman, 1991, p. 325). It is
difficult to describe burnout, as it is not tangible; it is often a psychological state. Burnout often
includes three parts (a) emotional exhaustion, (b) depersonalization and (c) diminished personal
accomplishment (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016; Brown & Roloff, 2011; Friedman, 1991; Maslach,
1982a; Maslach & Jackson, 1981; Pines & Maslach, 1980). Friedman (1991) describes teacher
burnout as “a significant decline in the capacity to perform in teaching, extended absenteeism
due to illness and early retirement” (p. 325). There is a high attrition rate of experienced and
talented teachers leaving the profession prematurely due to teacher burnout (Carver-Thomas &
Darling- Hammond, 2017). Roloff and Brown (2011) notes, teachers who experienced burnout
all expressed a sense of incompetency towards teaching. Teacher burnout is detrimental to
student learning (Skaalvik & Skaalvik, 2016; Bousquet, 2012; Roloff and Brown, 2011).
According to Bandura (1997), self-efficacy “is concerned not with the number of skills
you have, but with what you believe you can do with what you have under a variety of
circumstances” (p.37). Bandura (1997) emphasizes, “skills can be easily overruled by self-
doubts” and a person with high self-efficacy can enable her “to do extraordinary things by
productive use of skills in the face of overwhelming obstacles (p. 37). Mintzes, Marcum,
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
22
Messerschmidt-Yates and Mark (2013) explain self-efficacy is one’s confidence to successfully
execute a task. A person who has high self-efficacy will most likely view difficult tasks as a
challenge that can be overcome through hard work and persistence (Mintzes et al., 2013). A
person with low self-efficacy might avoid the difficult task or not attempt to engage in task
(Mintzes et al., 2013). A teacher with high self-efficacy is more likely to engage in multiple
instructional strategies to help students with diverse learning needs increase academic
achievement (Mintzes et al., 2013).
The large-scale study of 78 diverse elementary schools conducted by Rosenholtz (1989)
found a positive correlation between perceived self-efficacy and collaboration among
colleagues. A strong sense of efficacy reduced job burnout for teachers (Skaalvik & Skaalvik,
2016; Schwarzer & Hallam, 2008; Hord, 1997; Friedman, 1991). Evers, Browers and Tomic
(2002) also noted, teachers who positively rated teaching capacity suffered less burnout than
teachers whose scores were lower. Schwarzer and Hallum (2008) also assert, increasing self-
efficacy through social, emotional and professional support regarding instructional practices can
be preventive and reduce teacher burnout. There is overwhelming evidence to support the claim
that professional learning communities can improve student learning, increase teacher efficacy
and indirectly lead to reduction in teacher burnout through increased self-efficacy (Battersby,
2014; Jones, Gardner, Robertson & Robert, 2013; DuFour et al., 2006, 2010; Morrissey, 2000;
Hord, 1997).
Mintzes, Marcum, Messerschmidt-Yates and Mark (2013) conducted a mixed methods
research over a three-year period of 116 elementary school science teachers from Northern
California on changes in personal self-efficacy and outcome expectancy for teachers engaged in
PLCs. Teachers from Grand Valley Unified School district were the experimental group and
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
23
teachers from the Mountain View Joint Unified School district served as the comparison
group. An important finding from the study is teachers who started off with a low sense of self-
efficacy in teaching science, the experimental group, increased significantly over the three years
compared to the control group. Teachers also expressed a change in teaching practices and
student behavior as a result of increased self-efficacy in teaching science. It was noted, “PLCs
offer a less costly and perhaps equally productive way of engaging teachers in the kind of
practice-based, action research that build a community of scholars” and in doing so, enhance
instructional practices to improve student learning (Mintzes et al., 2013, p. 1215).
Improved Student Learning
In his book, Visible Learning, researcher Hattie (2009) describes effective teaching that
increases student learning as “deliberate interventions to ensure that there is cognitive change in
the students” and this “involves an experienced teacher who knows a range of learning strategies
to provide the students when they seem not to understand” (p. 16). Unfortunately, it is not
realistic to expect teachers to be familiar with the exhaustive number of instructional strategies
needed to meet the diverse needs of all learners. Therefore, Fullan (2010) urges educators to
capitalize on the power of “collective capacity” in meeting the needs of diverse learners and
improving student achievement. The defining element of successful schools with increased
student achievement is “a collaborative culture that combined individual responsibility,
collective expectations” and “transparent data on instructional practices” (Fullan, Gallardo &
Hargreaves, 2015). There is a large body of literature asserting a positive impact between PLCs
and student learning (Banerjee, Stearns, Moller & Mickelson, 2017; Akiba & Liang, 2016;
Jappien, Leclerc & Tubin, 2016; Marzano et al., 2016; Fullan, Gallardo & Hargreaves, 2015;
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
24
Helman & Rosheim, 2015; Fulton and Britton, 2011; Visscher & Witziers, 2004; Elmore, 2002;
Lee, Smith & Croninger, 1995, 1997; Louis & Marks; 1996; Newman & Wehlage, 1995).
Lee, Smith and Croninger (1995, 1997) studied results of the National Assessment of
Education Progress and Report of high school students in the subject areas of math and
science. Findings from the study indicate that the “PLC process is strongly and positively
associated with both effectiveness and equity in learning in both mathematics and science” (p.
139). The researchers further assert, more learning occurred when there was consistent
collaboration amongst teachers (Lee, Smith & Croninger, 1997, p. 142). Louis and Marks
(1996) conducted an analysis of data collected from eight elementary schools, eight middle
schools and eight high schools. The researchers examined the relationship between PLCs and
student achievement. The findings strongly support Lee, Smith and Croninger’s (1995, 1997)
assertion of the significant impact PLCs on student learning academic performance.
Fulton and Britton (2011) conducted a comprehensive analysis of six studies on
collaborative teacher structures such as PLCs and student achievement in mathematics. All six
studies demonstrated a positive correlation between student learning in mathematics and PLCs.
Visscher and Witziers (2004) conducted a study exploring the relationship between PLCs and
math scores of 975 middle school and high school students. Results from the study found that
when there was a shared vision, shared goal regarding instructional practices and strategies,
professional practices changed that led to improved student learning.
Recent research and literature continue to suggest a strong relationship between PLCs
and improved student learning (Banerjee et al., 2017; Akiba & Liang, 2016; Jappien et al., 2016;
Marzano et al., 2016; Fullan et al., 2015; Helman & Rosheim, 2015). Banerjee, Stearns, Moller
and Mickelson (2017) conducted a longitudinal study of 21,260 Kindergarten students. The
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
25
study conducted began in 1998 and followed the same cohort of students until 2007 when
students completed 8th grade. Surveys were administered when students were in Kindergarten
(1998), first grade (1999), third grade (2002), fifth grade (2004) and eighth grade (2007). During
each stage, students were assessed in reading and math achievement. Parents, teachers and
administrators were administered surveys. Banerjee et al. (2017), found strong PLCs can
improve math and reading achievement scores for students who have been assigned to teachers
who have felt low self-efficacy during elementary school years. Interestingly, Banerjee et al.
(2017) found that strong collaborative norms did not help with student achievement for teachers
who expressed low job satisfaction levels. The researchers suggested, perhaps teachers found
meeting weekly to plan learning strategies to be a hindrance than helpful in improving
instructional strategies.
Owen (2015) conducted a study on PLCs in innovative contexts to understand the
relationship between PLCs and student learning. The research involved case-study research of
three schools that were considered innovative by OECD Innovative Learning
Environment. Findings from this study strongly align with the notion of the positive impact
PLCs have on instructional practices and student learning (Owen, 2015). Owen asserts (2015),
teachers who were engaged in a PLC that involved planning and co-teaching using an
interdisciplinary approach saw an increase in literacy and numeracy achievement for
students. This was compared to a group of students similar in age and grade level with
traditional teachers who were not part of a PLC. It was noted by the end of the school year,
students’ belonging to the innovative PLC group, performed significantly better in literacy and
numeracy assessments. Although findings indicate an increase in student achievement,
researchers were not able to identify if it was a result of teachers being part of a PLC or because
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
26
of the innovative interdisciplinary approach to teaching. However, researchers noted PLCs
provided a support system for teacher well being and “reinvigorated teacher passion for student
learning” (p. 72).
Akiba and Liang (2016) conducted a study on effects of teacher professional learning
activities on student achievement growth. The authors analyzed survey data from a longitudinal
study of 11,192 students from 467 middle schools. The statewide study examined four years
worth of standardized math scores from Missouri. The data from the results indicate PLCs that
focused on targeted interventions related to specific mathematical standards seem to be more
effective in improving student achievement. The researchers suggest investment in teacher
collaboration and research-based learning activities is likely to lead to improved student
learning. Past and current research continues to support the assertion that strong PLCs can
improve student achievement (Jones, Gardner, Robertson & Robert, 2013).
Criticisms of PLCs
To date there is limited research on the negative impacts of PLCs on student learning.
However, there are sentiments that claim PLCs have provided little impact on improving student
learning and has decreased teacher autonomy (Cuban, 2010). Larry Cuban, professor of
Education at Stanford University, questions in his blog post the impact of change in instructional
practices as a result of weekly PLC meetings. Cuban (2010) asserts there is “underwhelming
display of evidence” on the “impact of PLCs on teaching practices” (para 2). Cuban (2010)
recognizes the power of teacher teams working together to improve student learning, however,
he questions the effect of PLCs because PLC teams are created by administration and thus have
“weak ties.” When there are “weak ties,” teachers are less likely to be compelled to take action
to improve instructional practices. Cuban (2010) notes, PLCs are mandated from a top down
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
27
approach rather than created and driven organically by teachers grounded by daily classroom
practices. As a result, any form of collaboration will be on a superficial level. Cuban (2010)
further posits, voluntary collaboration and groupings of teachers working together for a common
goal is more effective than mandatory PLC groupings. The reason, not everyone wants to
collaborate; forced collaboration is unlikely to create deep learning to increase teacher capacity
in improved instructional practices. According to Cuban (2010), perhaps it might be better if
PLC groupings were formed organically by teachers themselves rather than dictated by
principals.
Barriers to Implementing PLCs
Autonomy of Teaching
At the heart of PLCs is collaboration among teachers. Deep collaboration amongst team
members can be perceived as challenging as it requires trust and is in direct conflict with
traditional teaching autonomy. In traditional teaching, teachers gather to discuss teaching
practices during staff meetings but often return to “old ways” of doing things once they return
back to individual teaching cells of isolated classrooms (Marzano, 2016; DuFour & Marzano,
2011; Talbert, 2010; Lortie, 1975). Talbert (2010) notes, when teaching is privatized, teachers
often resist the idea of deep collaboration on instructional practices, as collaboration can be
perceived as a threat to autonomy. This is often demonstrated in resistance of allowing peer
observations as a means to providing feedback to improve instructional practices.
Implementation of Prescribed Programs
Implementing an “effective program” with lock step lessons and a demanding pacing
guide can hinder the nature of PLCs. This is particularly true when schools and district mandate
that teachers follow programs with “fidelity.” This removes teachers as professionals who
should respond to the needs of students based on performance gaps. Implementing programs
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
28
may stand in the way of “collective judgments to address student learning needs” (Talbert, 2010,
p. 558).
Attrition of Teachers
Robust PLCs consist of veteran teachers with a wealth of teaching experience and
knowledge. Veteran teachers are also well networked with colleagues and outside affiliations to
build instructional knowledge and expertise (Stoll, Roberston, Butler-Kisber, Slar &
Whittingham, 2007; Talbert, 2010). Veteran teachers are pivotal to the advancement and deep
work of PLCs as they provide support and mentorship for new teachers (DuFour et al., 2016,
Talbert, 2010). Talbert (2010) notes, there needs to be a substantial amount of veteran teachers
within each PLC to provide stability and capacity building for the collaborative teams. This may
be a challenge for schools where there are large numbers of new hires with little teaching
experiences and few experienced veteran teachers.
Belief and Mutual Accountability
As noted by DuFour et al. (2016), PLCs hinge on the notion of collective responsibility
and accountability. PLCs are effective, because PLCs leverage on the moral accountability of
teachers, to improve student learning and build collective capacity to improve student learning
(Fullan, Gallardo & Hargreaves, 2015). In order for PLCs to be effective and robust, all
stakeholders must believe that all students can learn at high levels regardless of diverse learning
needs. In addition, teachers must focus on mutual accountability rather than compliance to
systems mandated by administration. It may be challenging to fully implement PLCs if there is a
lack of belief in all students can learn at high levels and a lack of accountability (Talbert, 2010).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
29
PLC Lite
DuFour and Reeves (2016) caution educators regarding the notion of “PLC Lite.” PLC
lite is not PLCs at Work. PLC Lite is when teacher teams and educators rename staff meetings
and call themselves engaging in professional learning communities. When in reality, such
teacher teams partake in professional discussions but fail to take action in implementing
discussed practices. Engaging in PLC Lite will “have no effect on student achievement”
(DuFour & Reeves, 2016, p. 69). DuFour and Reeves (2016) posits, true PLCs must embrace the
following:
• Collaboration and collective responsibility of all students by teacher teams;
• Establishing of a guaranteed and viable curriculum;
• Team created common formative assessments based on power standards;
• Use evidence of learning from common formative assessments to determine intervention
or extension for students and areas of improvement for instructional practices; and
• Create systems of intervention where students who are struggle will receive appropriate
intervention (pp. 69-70).
DuFour and Reeves (2016) urge schools to not label themselves as PLCs when they have not
engaged in the hard work of true PLCs. The researchers caution, PLC Lite is not authentic and
deep implementation of the PLCs, it will lead to lack of results for teachers and students. It is
futile.
Team Dynamics to Successful PLCs
As noted earlier, team collaboration is foundational to all PLCs. Collaboration requires a
team of teachers to work together collectively to achieve the common goal of increasing teaching
capacity and improving student learning (DuFour et al., 2016). If team dynamics such as trust,
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
30
conflict, commitment, accountability and results are not addressed such dysfunctional issues may
arise and can be a hindrance to implementation and advancement of PLCs.
Trust. Lencioni (2012) asserts vulnerability-based trust is necessary to build a cohesive
team. Vulnerability-based trust occurs when team members are truly comfortable in exposing
their weaknesses. This happens when a team member openly admits to needing help or feels
lacking in certain key areas of work. The team member is willing to risk exposing her lack of
skill in a professional context (Marzano et al., 2016; Reeves 2016; Lencioni, 2012). Trust is a
key element in building a cohesive team.
Conflict. Conflict is a disagreement between two parties; it is positive and necessary
within team collaboration. Productive ideological conflict is a willingness to disagree around
important issues and decisions such as instructional strategies to improve student learning and
essential learning targets students must master before moving onto the next grade level
(Lencioni, 2012; Lencioni, 2002). However, productive ideological conflict can only occur
when there is trust among team members. When there is trust, conflict is only a means to
discover the best possible solution to a situation (Lencioni, 2012; Covery 2006; Lencioni
2002). If there is an absence of healthy conflict, false harmony, teams are less likely to engage
in passionate debate of ideas and therefore less likely to develop effective instructional strategies
to improve student learning (Marzano et al., 2016; Lencioni, 2002).
Commitment. Collaboration requires members to be fully committed during healthy
conflict and to put theory into action after a collective decision has been made. Leaders in
organizational management explain that team members are more likely to commit to a decision if
members have had the chance to ask questions, provide input and debate over issues (Kotter
2012; Senge 2012; Fullan 2011; Covey 2006; Reeves 2006; Lencioni, 2002). When teachers
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
31
leave a collaboration session without active commitment around a discussion, teachers are less
likely to return to classrooms and implement agreed upon instructional practices to increase
student learning. DuFour et al., (2016) note, many teachers are willing to commit to PLCs as
long as commitment ends at staff meetings. Teachers are willing to discuss and talk about
instructional practices; however once teachers return back to individual classrooms, they carry
on as they did before. Therefore, at the end of collaboration sessions, cohesive PLCs will take
time to ensure members of the team have a common understanding regarding commitment to
collective decisions on instructional strategies (Marzano et al., 2016; Lencioni, 2012).
Accountability. A team is composed of multiple individuals; it is highly likely that there
will be an individual who will deviate from team decision and action plans. Therefore, team
members must hold each other accountable. Accountability in education is taking responsibility
for student learning. Continuously improving instructional strategies in order for students to
engage in deep learning is at the core of educational accountability (Fullan, Gallardo &
Hargreaves, 2015). Therefore, members of PLCs need to be held accountable for team decisions
when student learning is involved. Internal accountability, such as colleague to colleague within
a PLC occurs when individuals and groups take on the collective responsibility of continuous
improvement for the success of all students.
Focusing on Results. The ultimate goal of collaborative teams is the achievement of
results. Within the educational context, the ultimate goal of PLCs is to increase student
achievement and deepen learning (DuFour et al., 2016; Marzano et al., 2016; Kramer 2015;
Morrissey 2000; Hord 1997). A high functioning team can only be defined as high functioning if
it accomplishes its goal (Lencioni 2012; DuFour et al., 2016). Lencioni (2012) further asserts, if
a team fails to achieve its goals, even if it claims to be a cohesive team that cares about one
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
32
another, it is not a high functioning team. Similarly, PLCs which are not result oriented are not
considered as high functioning, effective PLCs (DuFour et al., 2016). Fullan, Gallardo and
Hargreaves (2015) note, results in education is should not be narrowly defined by test scores, but
by evidence of deep student learning.
Implementation of PLCs at Work
Implementing the PLCs at Work process is change management. There are certain steps
administrators and school leaders must pursue for the successful implementation and
development of PLCs. According to DuFour et al. (2016), these are the steps to implementing
the PLCs at Work process:
• Creating a clear purpose;
• Building a collaborative culture;
• Creating a results orientation;
• Establish a focus on learning;
• Creating team-developed common formative assessments;
• Responding when some students don’t learn; and
• Hiring, orienting, and retaining new staff.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
33
Creating a Clear Purpose
It is difficult for an administrator alone to lead a change process. Leaders who look to
implement the PLC process must seek the support of faculty and staff who have influence in the
organization; therefore the support of key players is needed (Kotter, 2012; Tagg, 2012; Marzano,
Waters & McNulty, 2005; Ramaley, 2002). As noted by Kotter (2012), the key players who
have the capacity to impact change will form the guiding coalition. Selection of members of the
guiding coalition must be done thoughtfully; an effective coalition will have the follow
characteristics:
• Positional powers, some members in the coalition hold key positions within the
organization;
• Expertise, members are diverse and possess expertise in discipline;
• Credibility, enough members of the group possess a good reputation that is respected by
the larger community of the organization; and
• Leadership, members of the group are leaders who can drive change (Kotter, 2012, p.
59).
After the creation of the guiding coalition, collectively the coalition will create the
school’s mission, “a clear and compelling” purpose for PLCs (DuFour et al., 2016). Fullan and
Quinn (2016) explain the importance and need to develop a “shared moral purpose and meaning
as well as a pathway for attaining” the purpose (p. 17). A shared sense of purpose is essential to
any successful organization (Kotter, 2012). Therefore, according to DuFour et al. (2016), the
school’s mission, vision, values and goals will form the parameters in which PLCs will operate.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
34
Table 2.1 Mission, Vision, Values and Goals of Organization (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 39)
MISSION VISION VALUES GOALS
WHY?
Why do we exist?
WHAT?
What must our
school become to
accomplish our
purpose?
HOW?
How must we behave
to achieve our
vision?
HOW WILL WE
MARK OUR
PROGRESS?
FUNDAMENTAL
PURPOSE
COMPELLING
FUTURE
COLLECTIVE
COMMITMENTS
TARGETS AND
TIMELINES
Clarifies Priorities
and Sharpens Focus
Gives Direction Guides Behavior Establishes Priorities
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
Building a Collaborative Culture
According to Many and Sparks-Many (2015) when teachers collaborate, they share
instructional practices and deepen content knowledge. Collaboration allows teachers to
determine effective instructional practices and evaluate when instructional practices have been
successful (Hattie, 2015). The importance of collaboration is seldom disputed by educators;
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
35
however, the purpose of teacher collaboration “to help more students achieve at higher levels can
only be accomplished if the professionals engage in the right work” (DuFour et al., 2016, p.
59). The right work is determined by the following four PLC questions:
a. What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?
b. How will we know if each student has learned it?
c. How will we respond when some students do not learn it? And;
d. How will we extend the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency?
(DuFour et al., 2016, p. 59).
The PLC process is cyclical. It is a never-ending process with the sole intent of ensuring
all students learning at high levels. In order to create conditions for effective collaboration in
doing the “right work,” administrators must (1) create meaningful teams, (2) create time for
collaboration, and (3) clarify the right work (DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 60-69).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
36
Figure 2A PLC Cycle of Inquiry by PASA PLC Task Force 2017; DuFour et al., 2016
Creating a Results Orientation
Marzano, Warrick and Simons (2014) argue schools that have demonstrated the greatest
improvement in student learning have established clear and measurable goals. Therefore, in
order to help PLCs focus on results; administrators should insist PLCs establish SMART
goals. In addition, the PLC’s SMART goal must align with the school’s goal(s). A SMART
goal is Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Results oriented and Measurable (DuFour et al., 2016;
Doran, 1981). DuFour et al. (2016) note, in an educational setting, PLC SMART goals should
include the “language of learning in goals” (p. 93). Goals should focus on outcome, rather on
what teachers will to and what strategies teachers might engage in during PLCs.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
37
Establish a Focus on Learning
In order to improve student learning, teachers must be clear in what students are expected
to learn; and the success criteria for students at the end of each lesson (Hattie, 2009). Schools
that have shown a consistent improvement in student achievement are schools that have created a
“guaranteed and viable curriculum focused on enhancing student learning” (DuFour & Marzano,
2011, p. 91). Standards “refer to the general knowledge, skills and dispositions” students learn
after a lesson or unit (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 115). Marzano and Kendall (1998) note most
schools subscribe to the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Unfortunately, there are too
many standards within the CCSS; there are multiple embedded learning targets within
standards. In other words, there are standards within standards. In order to cover all prescribed
standards within the Common Core, students can only graduate high school after grade 22 (K-
22) (Ainsworth, 2013). As a result, teachers are too busy racing to cover curriculum rather
provide quality teaching and checking for student understanding of concepts taught (Marzano,
1998; Kramer, 2015; Reeves, 2016). Therefore, PLCs must establish power standards.
Power standards. Marzano (2003) explains a guaranteed and viable curriculum
provides student “access to the same essential learning regardless of who is teaching the class
and can be taught in the time allotted” (p. 48). In other words, within a specified time, teachers
will ensure students learn the “knowledge” and “skills” PLCs have determined to be the most
important. The underlying premise to a guaranteed and viable curriculum is the need to “weed”
or “discard” or “eliminate” standards from curriculum (DuFour et al., 2006). However, what is
to be eliminated from the curriculum is not to be determined by individual teachers. The
elimination of standards is done through a thoughtful process where collaborative teacher teams
examine each standard based on the following criteria as suggested by Douglas Reeves (2013):
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
38
endurance, leverage and readiness. By determining power standards, teachers will be able to
establish key areas to assess and provide for intervention when students are not learning. As
noted by leading researchers in the field, power standards represent the minimum students need
to learn in order to be successful the following academic year (Ainsworth, 2013; DuFour et al.,
2006; Kramer 2015; Marzano, 2006). This does not mean teachers only teach power
standards. The power standards represent the “minimum a student must learn to reach high
levels of learning” (Kramer, 2015, p. 21). By identifying power standards, teachers and students
are provided with a focus for learning. This answers the first driving question: What is it we
want students to know and be able to do (DuFour et al., 2016).
Creating Team-Developed Common Formative Assessments
When teachers use formative assessments, student learning increases (Venables &
Venables, 2014; Popham, 2013; Fullan, 2005). Stiggins (2005) describes summative assessment
as assessment of what students have learned at the end of a unit; and in contrast formative
assessments are assessments used to inform teachers and students what needs to be learned by
students. Teachers use formative assessments to measure how students are doing in relation to
achieving the learning target. Teachers will use knowledge gained from formative assessments
to help students reach learning targets (Stiggins, 2005). Formative assessments are administered
frequently to ascertain level of student learning. Therefore, PLCs must develop standard based
common formative assessments. Through common formative assessments, PLCs are able to
answer the driving question: How do we know if our students are learning? (DuFour et al., 2016,
p. 138).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
39
Responding When Students Don’t Learn
Schools that have made significant growth in student achievement are provided timely
and immediate in intervention for students who are not learning (Buffum, Mattos & Weber,
2012; Reeves, 2006). Therefore, a school wide systematic process for intervention and
extension is necessary. In creating systematic processes for intervention and extension, all
students will be provided with timely feedback in how to increase learning. Based on common
formative assessments which are standards based, PLCs will collectively identify students who
need intervention and students who need extension. DuFour et al. (2016), recommend PLCs
calibrate to assess student needs every three to four weeks. This frequent identification of
intervention and extension for students will reduce the probability of creating large knowledge
gaps in between units for students who have been unable to meet learning targets. In addition,
frequent identification will allow for provision of extension for students who have already
demonstrated proficiency in learning targets (DuFour et al., 2016). In order to ensure all students
learn at high levels, intervention can be multiple levels.
Response to intervention (RTI) is a multiple tiered response to meeting the needs of
students who are not learning (DuFour et al., 2016; Buffum et al., 2012). Tier 1 is effective core
instruction delivered by PLCs and classroom teachers based on power standards for all students
(DuFour et al., 2016; Buffum et al., 2012). Tier 2 is supplemental interventions; such as extra-
time and practice provided for students who have not met learning targets based on common
formative assessments (DuFour et al., 2016; Buffum et al., 2012). Tier 2 interventions are
provided by classroom teachers in the PLCs. Tier 3 is intensive remedial support for students
who may be behind a year or more in foundational skills in reading, writing and math (DuFour et
al., 2016; Buffum et al., 2012). Specialist teachers, learning support teachers, will be the ones
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
40
providing such intense remedial intervention at the tier 3 level (DuFour et al., 2016; Buffum et
al., 2012). Students who require tier 3 level support will also receive tier 1 and tier 2 level
support. In providing intervention and extension, PLCs are able to answer the driving questions:
How will we respond when our students don’t learn? ,and How will we respond when our
students do learn? (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 163).
Hiring, Orienting, and Retaining Staff
Effective teachers positively impact student learning (Marzano, 2003). Students who are
successful have had a “series of good teachers, not by chance but by design” (Fullan &
Hargreaves; 2012, p. 16). DuFour et al. (2016) suggest, PLCs become involved in the selection
process of new hires joining PLCs. When PLCs are part of the selection process, members are
more likely to assist new team members to become oriented in her new teaching position, as
there is a sense of ownership. In addition, administrators will seek ways to enrich job and
satisfaction of veteran teachers.
DuFour’s Evaluation of Implementation of PLCs
In the book, Learning by Doing, A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at
Work, DuFour et al. (2016) created a continuum to help PLCs assess current realities and action
steps to help achieve future performance targets. There are 5 stages to the PLC at Work
Continuum for each area of focus (1) pre-initiating, (2) initiating, (3) implementing, (4)
developing, and (5) sustaining. Pre-initiating stage being the stage at which the school is not a
PLC school and the sustaining stage is the most advanced stage on the PLC at Work
Continuum. The continuum is a self-assessment tool schools and PLCs can use to assess their
PLC journeys. It provides an indicator of current realities of PLC and next steps PLCs can strive
towards in the continuous cycle of improving student learning.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
41
There are 11 categories for self-evaluation according to the PLCs at Work Continuum:
1. Communicating effectively;
2. Laying the foundation;
3. Building a collaborative culture;
4. Using school improvement goals to drive team goals;
5. Clarifying what students must learn;
6. Turning data into information;
7. Providing student with systematic interventions and extensions;
8. Selecting and retaining new instructional staff members;
9. Retaining veteran staff members and;
10. Responding to conflict, and
11. Implementing the PLC process district wide (DuFour et al., 2016).
Communicating Effectively
In communicating effectively there are two performance indicators within the PLCs at
Work continuum. The first performance indicator questions if the school has established a clear
purpose and if priorities have been established that align with the school’s purpose? Does the
school have systems and structures in place to implement and monitor action steps to support the
purpose? The second performance indicator questions if leaders in the school communicate
purpose and priorities. DuFour et al. (2016) describes communication as not only through words
but also through actions such as modeling, investment of resources, what is celebrated and what
leaders are willing to eliminate (pp. 16-17).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
42
Table 2.2 The PLCs at Work Continuum: Communicating Effectively (DuFour et al., 2016, pp.
16-17)
Indicator Pre-Initiating Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
The school has
established a clear
purpose and
priorities that have
been effectively
communicated.
Systems are in
place to ensure
action steps aligned
with the purpose
and priorities are
implemented and
monitored.
There is no sense of
purpose or priorities.
People throughout
the school feel
swamped by what
they regard as a
never-ending series
of fragmented,
disjointed, and
short-lived
improvement
initiatives. Changes
in leadership
inevitably result in
changes in direction.
Key leaders may
have reached
agreement on
general purpose and
priorities, but people
throughout the
organization remain
unclear.
Furthermore, if
asked to explain the
priorities of the
school or the
strategies to achieve
those priorities,
leaders would have
difficulty
articulating
specifics. Staff
members would
offer very different
answers if pressed to
explain the priorities
of the school.
There is general
understanding of the
purpose and
priorities of the
school, but many
staff members have
not embraced them.
Specific steps are
being taken to
advance the
priorities, but some
staff members are
participating only
grudgingly. They
view the initiative as
interfering with their
real work.
Structures and
processes have been
altered to align with
the purpose and
priorities. Staff
members are
beginning to see
benefits from the
initiative and are
seeking ways to
become more effective
in implementing it.
There is almost
universal
understanding of the
purpose and priorities
of the school. All
policies, procedures,
and structures have
been purposefully
aligned with the effort
to fulfill the purpose
and accomplish the
priorities. Systems
have been created to
gauge progress. The
systems are carefully
monitored, and the
resulting information
is used to make
adjustments designed
to build the collective
capacity of the group
to be successful.
The leaders in the
school
communicate
purpose and
purpose and
priorities through
modeling,
allocation or
resources, what
they celebrate, and
what they are
willing to confront.
There is no sense of
purpose and
priorities. Different
people in the school
seem to have
different pet
projects, and there is
considerable
infighting to acquire
the resources to
support those
different projects.
Leaders can
articulate the
purpose and
priorities of the
school with a
consistent voice, but
their behavior is not
congruent with their
words. The
structures,
resources, and
rewards of the
school have not
been altered to align
with the professed
priorities.
The school has
begun to alter
structures,
resources, and
reward to better
align with the state
priorities. Staff
members who
openly oppose the
initiative may be
confronted, but
those confronting
them are likely to
explain they are
doing someone
else’s bidding. For
example, a principal
may say, “The
central office is
concerned that you
are overtly resisting
the process we are
attempting to
implement.”
People throughout the
school are changing
their behavior to align
with the priorities.
They are seeking new
strategies for using
resources more
effectively to support
the initiative, and are
willing to reallocate
time, money,
materials, and people
in order to move
forward. Small
improvements are
recognized and
celebrated. Leaders
confront incongruent
behavior.
The purpose and
priorities of the school
are evident by the
everyday behavior of
people throughout the
school. Time, money,
materials, people, and
resources have been
strategically allocated
to reflect priorities.
Processes are in place
to recognize and
celebrate commitment
to the priorities People
throughout the school
will confront those
who disregard the
priorities.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
Laying the Foundation
In laying the foundation, there are four performance indicators that revolve around the
school’s mission, vision, values and goals. A school that has successfully implemented PLCs
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
43
will have a clear sense of its collective purpose. The four performance indicators are (a) learning
for all is the core purpose of the school; (b) there is a shared understanding and commitment to
what the school is attempting to create because of PLCs; (c) there is a commitment to how the
members of a school must behave in order to achieve the shared mission; and (d) the school has
established long term and short term goals to fulfilling the purpose of the school (DuFour et al.,
2016, pp. 47-49).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
44
Table 2.3 The PLCs at Work Continuum: Laying the Foundation (DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 47-49)
Indicator Pre-Initiating Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
Shared
Mission
It is evident
that learning
for all is our
core purpose.
The purpose of
the school has not
been articulated.
Most of staff
members view the
mission of the
school as
teaching. The
operate from the
assumption that
although all
students should
have the
opportunity to
learn,
responsibility for
learning belongs
to the individual
student and will
be determined by
this or her ability
and effort.
An attempt has been
made to clarify the
purpose of the school
through the
development of formal
mission statement.
Few people were
involved in its
creation. It does little
to impact professional
practice or the
assumptions behind
those practices.
A process has been
initiated to provide
greater focus and
clarity regarding the
mission of learning for
all. Steps are being
taken to clarify what,
specifically, students
are to learn and to
monitor their learning.
Some teachers are
concerned that these
efforts will deprive
them of academic
freedom.
Teachers are
beginning to see
evidence of the
benefits of clearly
established
expectations for
student learning and
systematic processes
to monitor student
learning. They are
becoming more
analytical in
assessing evidence
of student learning
and are looking for
ways to become
more effective in
assessing student
learning and
providing
instruction to
enhance student
learning.
Staff members are
committed to helping all
students learn. The
demonstrate that
commitment by working
collaboratively to clarify
what students are to learn
in each unit, creating
frequent common
formative assessments to
monitor each student’s
learning on an ongoing
basis, and implementing a
systematic plan of
intervention when students
experience difficulty.
They are willing to
examine all practices and
procedures in light of their
impact on learning.
Collective
Commitments
(Shared
Values)
We have made
commitments
to each other
regarding how
we must
behave in order
to achieve our
shared vision.
Staff members
have not yet
articulated the
attitudes,
behaviors, or
commitments they
are prepared to
demonstrate in
order to advance
the mission of
learning for all
and the vision of
what the school
might become.
Administrators or a
committee of teachers
have created
statements of beliefs
regarding the school’s
purpose and its
direction. Staff
members have
reviewed and reacted
to those statements.
Initial drafts have been
amended based on
staff feedback. There
is no attempt to
translate the beliefs
into the specific
commitments or
behaviors that staff
will model.
A statement has been
developed that
articulates the specific
commitments staff
have been asked to
embrace to help the
school fulfill its
purpose and move
closer to its visions.
The commitments are
stated as behaviors
rather than beliefs.
Many staff object to
specifying these
commitments and
prefer to focus on what
other groups must do
to improve the school.
Staff members have
been engaged in the
process to articulate
the collective
commitments that
will advance the
school toward its
vision. They
endorse the
commitments and
seek ways to bring
them to life in the
school.
The collective
commitments are
embraced by staff,
embedded in the school’s
culture, and evident to
observers of the school.
They help define the
school and what it stands
for. Examples of the
commitments are shared in
stories and celebrations,
and people are challenged
when they behave in ways
that are inconsistent with
the collective
commitments.
Common
School Goals
We have
articulated our
long-term
priorities,
short-term
targets, and
timelines for
achieving these
targets.
No effort has been
made to engage
the staff in
establishing
school
improvement
goals related to
student learning.
Goals for the school
have been established
by the administration
or school improvement
team as part of the
formal district process
for school
improvement. Most
staff would be unable
to articulate a goal that
has been established
for the school.
Staff members have
been made aware of
the long-term and
short-term goals for
the school. Tools and
strategies have been
developed and
implemented to
monitor for the
school’s progress
toward its goals. Little
has been done to
translate the school
goal into meaningful
targets for either
collaborative teams or
individual teachers.
The school goal has
been translated into
specific goals that
directly impact
student achievement
for each
collaborative team.
If teams are
successful in
achieving their
goals, the school
will achieve its goal
as well. Teams are
exploring different
strategies for
achieving their
goals.
All staff members pursue
measurable goals that are
directly linked to the
school’s goals as part of
their routine
responsibilities. Teams
work interdependently to
achieve common goals for
which members are
mutually accountable.
The celebration of the
achievement of goals is
part of the school culture
and an important element
in sustaining the PLC
process.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
45
Building a Collaborative Culture
Schools that have successfully implemented PLCs collaborate for the common purpose of
helping all students learn at high levels. There are two performance indicators for building a
collaborative culture. The first indicator examines collaborative team structures which include
the following premise (a) Is time provided for routine collaboration?; (b) Is there clarity in
understanding the four questions that drive PLC work?; and (c) Is collaborative team work
monitored and supported by administration? The second indicator in building a collaborative
culture is creating and enforcing team norms. Members of the team will hold one another
accountable to collectively established team norms (DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 80-81).
Table 2.4 The PLCs at Work Continuum: A Collaborative Culture (DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 80-
81)
Indicator Pre-
Initiating
Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
We are organized into
collaborative teams in
which members work
interdependently to
achieve common goals
that directly impact
student achievement.
Structures have been put
in place to ensure:
1. Collaboration is
embedded in our routine
work practice.
2. We are provided with
time to collaborate
3. We are clear on the
critical questions that
should drive our
collaboration.
4. Our collaborative
work is monitored and
supported.
Teachers work
in isolation with
little awareness
of the strategies,
methods, or
materials that
colleagues use
in teaching the
same course or
grade level.
There is no plan
in place to
assign staff
members into
teams or to
provide them
with time to
collaborate.
Teachers are
encouraged but
not required to
work together
collaboratively.
Some staff may
elect to work
with colleagues
on topics on
mutual interest.
Staff members
are congenial
but are not co-
laboring in an
effort to
improve student
achievement.
Teachers have been
assigned to
collaborative teams
and have been
provided time for
collaboration during
the regular
contractual day.
Teams may be clear
regarding how they
should use the
collaborative time.
Topics often focus
on matters unrelated
to teaching and
learning. Some
teachers believe the
team meeting is not
a productive use of
their time.
Teachers have been
assigned to
collaborative teams
and have been
provided time for
collaboration on a
weekly basis during
the regular contractual
day. Guidelines,
protocols, and
processes have been
established in an effort
to help teams use
collaborative time to
focus on topics that
will have a positive
impact on student
achievement. Team
leaders are helping
lead the collaborative
process, and the work
of teams are monitored
closely so assistance
can be provided when
a team struggles.
Teams are working
interdependently to
achieve goals
specifically related to
student achievement
and are focusing their
efforts on discovering
better ways to achieve
those goals.
The collaborative team
process is deeply
engrained in the school
culture. Staff members
view it as the engine that
drives school
improvement. Teams are
self-directed and very
skillful in advocacy and
inquiry. They consistently
focus on issues that are
most significant in
improving student
achievement and set
specific, measurable goals
to monitor student
achievement. The
collaborative team process
serves as a powerful form
of job-embedded
professional development
because members are
willing and eager to learn
from one another, identify
common problems, engage
in action research, make
evidence of student
learning transparent
among members of the
team, and make judgments
about the effectiveness of
different practices on the
basis of that evidence.
The team process directly
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
46
impacts teacher practice in
the classroom, helping
each teacher clarify what
to teach, how to assess,
and how to improve
instruction.
We have identified and
honor the commitments
we have made to the
members of our
collaborative teams in
order to enhance the
effectiveness of our
team. These articulated
collective commitments
or norms have clarified
expectations of how our
team will operate, and
we use them to address
problems that may occur
on the team.
No attention has
been paid to
establishing
clearly
articulated
commitments
that clarify the
expectations of
how the team
will function
and how each
member will
contribute to its
success. Norms
do emerge from
each group
based on the
habits that come
to characterize
the group, but
they are neither
explicit nor the
result of a
thoughtful
process.
Several of the
norms have an
adverse effect
on the
effectiveness of
the team.
Teams have
been
encouraged by
the school or
district
leadership to
create norms
that clarify
expectations
and
commitments.
Many teams
have viewed
this as a task to
be
accomplished.
They have
written the
norms and
submitted them,
but do not use
them as part of
the
collaborative
team process.
Each team has been
required to develop
written norms that
clarify expectations
and commitments.
Many teams have
viewed this as a task
to be accomplished.
They have written
the norms and
submitted them, but
do not use them as
part of the
collaborative team
process.
Teams have
established the
collective
commitments that will
guide their work, and
members have agreed
to honor the
commitments. The
commitments are
stated in terms of
specific behaviors that
members will
demonstrate. The
team begins and ends
each meeting with a
review of the
commitments to
remind each other of
the agreements they
have made about how
they will work
together. They assess
the effectiveness of the
commitments
periodically and make
revisions when they
feel that will help the
team become more
effective.
Team members honor the
collective commitments
they have made to one
another regarding how the
team will operate and the
responsibility of each
member to the team. The
commitments have been
instrumental in creating an
atmosphere of trust and
mutual respect. They have
helped members work
interdependently to
achieve common goals
because members believe
they can rely upon one
another. The
commitments facilitate the
team’s collective inquiry
and help people explore
their assumptions and
practices. Members
recognize that their
collective commitments
have not only helped the
team become more
effective, but have also
made the collaborative
experience more
personally rewarding.
Violations of the
commitments are
addressed. Members use
them as the basis for
crucial conversations and
honest dialogue when
there is concern that one or
more members are not
fulfilling commitments.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
School Improvement Goals to Drive Team Goals
Effectiveness of teams is demonstrated through results, not intentions. There is one
indicator to this performance standard, the establishment of SMART goal(s). Teams have
identified a SMART goal, created action steps to achieve SMART goal and work collectively to
achieve the SMART goal that aligns with the mission and vision of the school (DuFour et al.,
2016, pp. 104-105).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
47
Table 2.5 The PLCs at Work Continuum: School Goals Drive Team Goals (DuFour et al., 2016,
p. 105)
Indicator Pre-
Initiating
Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
The members of each of
our collaborative teams
are working
interdependently to
achieve one or more
SMART goals that align
with our school goals.
Each team has identified
specific action steps
members will take to
achieve the goal and a
process for monitoring
progress toward the
goal. The identification
and pursuit of SMART
goals by each
collaborative team are
critical elements of the
school’s continuous
improvement process.
Goals have not
been established
at the district or
school level.
Teams are not
expected to
establish goals.
Teams establish
goals that focus
on adult
activities and
projects rather
than student
learning.
Teams have been
asked to create
SMART goals, but
many teachers are
wary of establishing
goals based on
improved student
learning. Some
attempt to articulate
vary narrow goals
that can be
accomplished
despite students
learning less.
Others present goals
that are impossible
to monitor. Still
others continue to
offer goals based on
teacher projects.
There is still
confusion regarding
the nature of and
reasons for SMART
goals.
All teams have
established annual
SMART goals as an
essential element of
their collaborative
team process. Teams
have established
processes to monitor
their progress, and
members work
together in an effort to
identify strategies for
becoming more
effective at achieving
the team’s SMART
goal.
Each collaborative team of
teachers has established
both an annual SMART
goal and a series of short-
term goals to monitor their
progress. They create
specific action plans to
achieve the goals, clarify
the evidence that they will
gather to assess their
progress, and work
together interdependently
to achieve the goal. This
focus on tangible evidence
of results guides the work
of teams and is critical to
the continuous
improvement process of
the school. The
recognition and
celebration of efforts to
achieve goals help sustain
the improvement process.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
Clarifying What Students Must Learn
There is one performance indicator for this standard. Teams work collaboratively to
create a common understanding in what students are expected to learn. Teams create a shared
knowledge on school and state standards. PLCs have established a guaranteed and viable
curriculum and share clarity of knowledge and skills students must acquire after each unit of
instruction (DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 128-129).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
48
Table 2.6 The PLCs at Work Continuum: What Students Must Learn (DuFour et al., 2016, p.
128)
Indicator Pre-
Initiating
Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
We work with
colleagues on our team
to build shared
knowledge regarding
state, provincial, or
national standards;
district curriculum
guides; trends in student
achievement; and
expectations for the next
course or grade level.
This collective inquiry
has enabled each
member of our team to
clarify what all students
must know and be able
to do as a result of every
unit of instruction.
Teachers have
been provided
with a copy of
state,
provincial, or
national
standards and a
district
curriculum
guide. There is
no process for
them to discuss
curriculum with
colleagues and
no expectation
they will do so.
Teacher
representatives
have helped to
create a district
curriculum
guide. Those
involved in the
development
feel it is a useful
resource for
teachers. Those
not involved in
the
development
may or may not
use the guide.
Teachers are
working in
collaborative teams
to clarify the
essential learning for
each unit and to
establish a common
pacing guide. Some
staff members
question the benefit
of the work. They
argue that
developing
curriculum is the
responsibility of the
central office or
textbook publishers
rather than teachers.
Some are reluctant
to give up favorite
units that seem to
have no bearing on
essential standards.
Teachers have
clarified the essential
learning for each unit
by building shared
knowledge regarding
state, provincial, or
national standards; by
studying high-stakes
assessments; and by
seeking input
regarding the
prerequisites for
success as students
enter the next grade
level. They are
beginning to adjust
curriculum, pacing,
and instruction based
on evidence of student
learning.
Teachers on every
collaborative team are
confident they have
established a guaranteed
and viable curriculum for
their students. Their
clarity regarding the
knowledge and skills
students must acquire as a
result of each unit of
instruction, and their
commitment to providing
students with the
instruction and support to
achieve the intended
outcomes, give every
student access to essential
learning.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
Turning Data into Information
Use data to improve instructional practices. PLCs use data derived from common
formative assessments, evidence of student learning, to promote continuous improvement for
teachers and students. Based on evidence of student learning, teachers will (a) provide
intervention to students who are experiencing difficulty; (b) provide enrichment or extension to
students who have already mastered learning standard; (c) inform and improve instructional
practice of teachers on team; (d) establish professional needs; and (e) measure team progress
towards established SMART goal (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 151).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
49
Table 2.7 The PLCs at Work Continuum: Turning Data into Information (DuFour et al., 2016, p.
151)
Indicator Pre-Initiating Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
Collaborative teams of
teachers regard ongoing
analysis of evidence of
student learning as a
critical element in the
teaching and learning
process. Teachers are
provided with frequent
and timely information
regarding the
achievement of their
students. They use that
information to:
Respond to students
who are experiencing
difficulty.
Enrich and extend the
learning of students who
are proficient.
Inform and improve the
individual and collective
practice of members.
Identify team
professional
development needs.
Measure progress
toward team goals.
The only process
for monitoring
student learning is
the individual
classroom teacher
and annual state,
provincial or
national
assessments.
Assessment
results are used
primarily to report
on student
progress rather
than to improve
professional
practice.
Teachers fall into
a predictable
pattern: they
teach, they test,
they hope for the
best, and then they
move on to the
next unit.
The district has
created benchmark
assessments that are
administered several
times throughout the
year. There is often
considerable lag
time before teachers
receive the results.
Most teachers pay
little attention to the
results. They regard
the assessment as
perhaps beneficial to
the district but of
little use to them.
Principals are
encouraged to
review the results of
state assessments
with staff, but the
fact that the result
aren’t available until
months after the
assessment and the
lack of specificity
mean they are of
little use in helping
teachers improve
their practice.
Teams have been
asked to create
and administer
common
formative
assessments and
to analyze results
together. Many
teachers are
reluctant to share
individual teacher
results and want
the analysis to
focus on the
aggregate
performance of
the group. Some
use the results to
identify questions
that caused
students difficulty
so they can
eliminate the
questions. Many
teams are not yet
using the analysis
of results to
inform or improve
professional
practice.
The school has
created specific
process to bring
teachers together
multiple times
throughout the
year to analyze
results from team-
developed
common
assessments,
district
assessments, and
state or provincial
and national
assessments.
Teams use the
results to identify
areas of concern
and to discuss
strategies for
improving results.
Teachers are hungry for
information on student
learning. All throughout
the year, each member of a
collaborative team
receives information that
illustrates the success of
his or her students in
achieving an agreed-upon
essential standard on team
developed common
assessments he or she
helped create, in
comparison to all the
students attempting to
achieve the same standard.
Teachers use the results to
identify the strengths and
weaknesses in their
individual practice, to
learn from one another, to
identify areas of
curriculum providing
problematic for students,
to improve their collective
capacity to help all
students learn, and to
identify students in need
of intervention or
enrichment. They also
analyze results from
district, state or provincial,
and national assessments
and use them to validate
their team assessments.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
Monitoring each student’s learning. The purpose of PLCs is to help all students learn
at high levels, therefore in order to achieve the goal, teachers must consistently monitor student
learning. Teachers will frequently use common formative assessments to check for student
learning. Teachers will have a shared understanding and agreement on expectations of standards
based student proficiency (DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 153-154).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
50
Table 2.8 The PLCs at Work Continuum: Monitoring Each Student’s Learning (DuFour et al.,
2016, pp. 153-154)
Indicator Pre-Initiating Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
We work with
colleagues on our team
to clarify the criteria by
which we will judge the
quality of student work,
and we practice
applying those criteria
until we can do so
consistently.
Each teacher
establishes his or
her own criteria
for assessing the
quality of student
work.
Teachers have been
provided with
sample rubrics for
assessing the quality
of student work.
Teachers working in
collaborative teams
are attempting to
asses student work
according to
common criteria.
They are practicing
applying the criteria
to examples of
student work, but
they are not yet
consistent. The
discrepancy is
causing some
tension on the team.
Teachers
working in
collaborative
teams are clear
on the criteria
they will use in
assessing the
quality of
student work
and can apply
the criteria
consistently.
Collaborative teams of
teachers frequently use
performance-based
assessments to gather
evidence of student
learning. Members have
established strong inter-
rater reliability and use the
results from these
assessments to inform and
improve their individual
and collective practice.
The team’s clarity also
helps members teach the
criteria to students, who
can then assess the quality
of their own work and
become more actively
engaged in their learning.
We monitor the learning
of each student’s
attainment of all
essential outcomes on a
timely basis through a
series of frequent, team-
developed common
formative assessments
that are aligned with
high-stakes assessments
students will be required
to take.
Each teacher
creates his or her
own assessments
to monitor student
learning.
Assessments are
typically
summative rather
than formative. A
teacher can teach
an entire career
and not know if he
or she reaches a
particular skill or
concept better or
worse than the
colleague in the
next room.
The district has
established
benchmark
assessments that are
administered several
times throughout the
year. Teachers pay
little attention to the
results and would
have a difficult time
explaining the
purpose of the
benchmark
assessments.
Teachers working in
collaborative teams
have begun to create
common
assessments. Some
attempt to
circumvent the
collaborative
process by
proposing the team
merely use the
quizzes and tests
that are available in
the textbook as their
common
assessments. Some
administrators
question the ability
of teachers to create
good assessments
and argue that the
district should
purchase
commercially
developed tests.
Teachers
working in
collaborative
teams have
created a series
of common
assessments and
agreed on the
specific
standard
students must
achieve to be
deemed
proficient. The
user-friendly
results of
common
assessments are
providing each
member of the
team with
timely evidence
of student
learning.
Members are
using that
evidence to
improve their
assessments and
to develop more
effective
instructional
strategies.
Collaborative teams of
teaching gather evidence
of student learning on a
regular basis through
frequent common
formative assessments.
The team analysis of
results drives the
continuous improvement
process of the school.
Members determine the
effectiveness of
instructional strategies
based on evidence of
student l earning rather
than teacher preference or
precedent. Members who
struggle to teach a skill are
learning from those who
are getting the best results.
The frequent common
formative assessments
provide the vital
information that fuels the
school’s system of
interventions and
extensions. The
assessments are formative
because (1) they are used
to identify students who
need additional time and
support for learning, (2)
the students receive the
additional time and
support for learning, and
(3) students are given
another opportunity to
demonstrate they have
learned.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
51
Systematic Interventions and Extensions
Intervention is extra time and support needed to help students master an essential learning
target(s). A multi-tiered system addresses four outcomes:
• Every student will end the school year mastering essential skills knowledge and
behaviors (power standards) required for the next grade level (tier 1);
• Some students will need extra time and support to master grade level power standards at
the end of each unit of study (tier 2)
• Some students may enter a grade level without mastery of previous grade level power
standards. Students in such situation will require intensive intervention (tier 3); and
• Some students may need all three outcomes mentioned above to succeed.
Extension is provided to students when a student has mastered grade level power
standards. Extensions can take many different forms, access to more of the grade level
curriculum, access to above grade level curriculum or guiding students into in depth learning for
grade level power standards are all possible forms of extension (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 176).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
52
Table 2.9 The PLCs at Work Continuum: Systematic Interventions and Extensions (DuFour et
al., 2016, pp. 176)
Indicator Pre-Initiating Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
We provide a system
of interventions that
guarantees each
student will receive
additional time and
support for learning if
he or she experiences
initial difficulty.
Students who are
proficient have access
to enriched and
extended learning
opportunities.
What happens when
a student does not
learn will depend
almost exclusively
on the teacher to
whom the student is
assigned. There is
not coordinated
school response to
students who
experience
difficulty. Some
teachers allow
students to turn in
late work; some do
not. Some teachers
allow students to
retake a test; some
do not. The tension
that occurs at the
conclusion of each
unit when some
students are
proficient and ready
to move forward and
others are failing to
demonstrate
proficiency is left to
each teacher to
resolve.
The school has
attempted to
establish specific
policies and
procedures
regarding
homework, grading,
parent notification
of student progress,
and referral of
students to child
student teams to
assess their
eligibility for special
education services.
If the school
provides any
additional support
students, it is either
a “pull-out” program
that removes
students from direct
instruction or an
optional after-school
program. Policies
are established for
identifying students
who are eligible for
more advanced
learning.
The school has
taken steps to
provide students
with additional time
and support when
they experience
difficulty. The staff
is grapping with
structural issues
such as how to
provide tie for
intervention during
the school day in
ways that do not
remove the student
from new direct
instruction. The
school schedule is
regarded as a major
impediment to
intervention and
enrichment, and
staff members are
unwilling to change
it. Some are
concerned that
providing students
with additional time
and support is not
holding them
responsible to their
own learning.
The school has
developed a
school wide
plan to provide
students who
experience
difficulty with
additional time
and support for
learning in a
way that is
timely,
directive, and
systematic. It
has made
structural
changes such as
modifications in
the daily
schedule to
support this
system of
interventions.
Staff members
have been
assigned new
roles and
responsibilities
to assist with
the
interventions.
The faculty is
looking for
ways to make
the system of
intervention
more effective.
The school has a highly
coordinated system of
interventions and
extensions in place. The
system is very proactive.
Coordination with sender
schools enables the staff to
identify students who will
benefit from additional
time and support for
learning even before they
arrive at school. The
system is very fluid.
Students move into
intervention and
enrichment easily and
remain only as long as
they benefit from it. The
achievement of each
student is monitored on a
timely basis. Students
who experience difficulty
are required, rather than
invited to utlize the system
of support. The plan is
multilayered. If the
current level of time and
support is not sufficient to
the help a student become
proficient, he or she is
moved to the next level
and receives increased
time and support. All
students are guaranteed
access to this system of
interventions regardless of
the teacher to whom they
are assigned. The school
responds to students and
views those who are
failing to learn as “under-
supported” rather than “at
risk.”
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
Employment of Staff
DuFour et al., (2016) recognize the importance of hiring effective teachers for
students. Therefore there are two indicators for employment of staff. The first indicator is
regarding selecting and retaining new teachers. In successful PLCs, the selection and orientation
of new teachers is a collaborative effort by both teachers and administrators. This is a shift from
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
53
traditional hiring practices where administrations are the only people involved in the hiring
process. In PLCs at Work, PLC members are part of the hiring process and provide input to
administration regarding the selection process. In addition, PLC members take on the role of
mentoring and orienting new hires. The second employment indicator is retaining veteran staff
members. Based on the PLCs at Work model, administrators conduct annual interviews with
veteran staff to show appreciation of service and to discuss career enrichment opportunities
(DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 204-206).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
54
Table 2.10 The PLCs at Work Continuum: Employment of Staff (DuFour et al., 2016, pp.204-
206)
Indicator Pre-Initiating Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
Our instructional staff
selection process
includes input from
several sources and
evidence of the
candidate’s teaching
effectiveness. We
have an intentional
orientation program
that ensures new staff
members have the
ongoing support of
both their teammates
and administrations
Hiring decisions are
made by personnel
office. The school
site has little or no
say regarding who
will be assigned to
the school. The
orientation for new
staff members is
limited to the first
week of school and
focuses on helping
new staff members
learn about policies
and procedures.
The principal
has the major
responsibility
for hiring
decisions. The
principal makes
those decisions
primarily based
on his or her
perceptions of
candidates
during the
interview
process. New
staff members
may be assigned
a mentor.
The principal
solicits the opinion
of others in making
the decisions. The
assistant principal,
department
chairperson, or team
leaders are included
in the interview
process. They have
worked together to
create interview
questions that
present the
candidates with
scenarios to
determine if they
will be a good fit for
the PLC process and
for their potential
team. The
collaborative team
process is
considered the
primary strategy for
supporting new staff
members as they
make their transition
into the school.
Because the
collaborative team is
primarily responsible
for ensuring new staff
members have a
positive experience in
the school, team
members participate in
the interview and
selection process. In
addition to scenario-
based questions, the
process includes a
thorough review with
each finalist of team’s
norms, essential
outcomes, common
assessments, and
protocols for analyzing
data. The principal
and team also observe
finalists teach an
essential skill. Once a
candidate is hired,
every team member
accepts responsibility
for her or her success.
The principal
continues to meet with
the new staff members
on a regular basis.
Teacher leaders have
created an ongoing
professional
development program
based on the needs of
new teachers. The
program is presented
each month.
Selection and
orientation of new staff
members are recognized
as a joint responsibility
of teachers and
administrators.
Members of a teaching
team are fully engaged
in the selection process,
and their perceptions
and preferences play a
major role in hiring.
Teachers have assumed
the leadership role in the
monthly orientation
program. Every new
staff member recognizes
that there are many
people to turn to and
talk to for assistance
who are interested in
their success. The
comprehensive
orientation process is so
much a part of the
school’s culture that it
continues without
interruption even when
the principal and key
teacher leaders are no
longer at the school.
Our school has a low
rate o teacher turnover
because of an ongoing
process to create the
conditions that lead to
high levels of teacher
satisfaction. We
recognize that
working together to
make our school a
high-performing PLC
is a key factor in
creating the
satisfaction and sense
of accomplishment
that lead to high
teacher retention
rates.
There is no process
for gathering
information about
the concerns and
hopes of veteran
staff members
outside the
negotiation process.
Administrators are
often surprised to
hear the concerns
and question how
widespread they
might be.
The personnel
office
administers
teacher
satisfaction
surveys each
year and
conducts exit
interviews when
staff members
leave the district
to find out why
they are
leaving.
The principal meets
with a representative
group of teachers on
a quarterly basis to
identify and address
issues that are of
concern to the
faculty.
The principal makes a
point to express
appreciation to the
staff members
individually and
collectively. The
principal sends
personal notes of
appreciation to
individual members of
the staff on a regular
basis. The school’s
progress on the PLC
journey is noted and
celebrated.
The leadership team
recognizes that one of
its primary
responsibilities is to
identify and remove
obstacles and
impediments so that
educators can succeed at
what they are being
asked to do. The
principal conducts stay
interviews with key
individual staff
members to express
appreciation and explore
strategies for enriching
their jobs.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
55
Responding to Conflict
To be able to handle conflict is an important indicator of successful collaborative
teams. In the PLCs at Work model, PLCs recognize that conflict is necessary to challenge
existing assumptions in order to innovate. Advanced PLCs are open to examining data and
instructional practices to challenge existing assumptions on student learning. Conflict is tool for
learning and improving instructional practices (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 227).
Table 2.11 The PLCs at Work Continuum: Responding to Conflict (DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 227)
Indicator Pre-Initiating Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
Members of the staff
recognize that conflict
is an essential and
inevitable by-product
of a successful
substantive change
effort. They have
thoughtfully and
purposefully created
processes to help use
conflict as a tool for
learning together and
improving the school.
People react to
conflict with
classic fight or
flight responses.
Most staff
members
withdraw from
interactions in
order to avoid
contact with those
they find
disagreeable.
Others are
perpetually at war
in acrimonious,
unproductive
arguments that
never seem to get
resolved. Groups
tend to regard
each other as
adversaries.
Addressing
conflict is
viewed as an
administrative
responsibility.
School leaders
take steps to
resolve conflict
as quickly as
possible. The
primary
objective in
addressing
disputes is to
restore the
peace and return
to the status
quo.
Teams have
established norms
and collective
commitments in an
effort both to
minimize conflict
and to clarify how
they will address
conflict at the team
level. Nonetheless,
many staff members
are reluctant to
challenge the
thinking or behavior
of a colleague. If
the situation
becomes too
disturbing, they will
expect the
administration to
intervene.
Staff members have
created processes to
help identify and
address the underlying
issues causing conflict.
They are willing to
practice those
processes in an effort
to become more
skillful in engaging in
crucial conversations
that seek productive
resolution to conflict.
Staff members view
conflict as a source of
creative energy and an
opportunity for building
shared knowledge. They
have created specific
strategies for exploring
one another’s thinking,
and they make conscious
effort understand. They
see ways to test their
competing assumptions
through action research
and are open to examining
research, data, and
information that support or
challenge their respective
positions. They approach
disagreements with high
levels of trust and an
assumption of good
intentions on the part of all
members because they
know they are united by a
common purpose and the
collective pursuit of shared
goals and priorities.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
Implementing the PLC Process District-wide
District-wide implementation is the final performance indicator for the PLCs at work
continuum. For this indicator, administrators of all levels of the school: superintendent, deputy
superintendent, curriculum director and divisional principals have a deep understanding and
commitment to the PLC process. The key focus for all members is student learning and
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
56
improvement of student achievement. It is the administrative team’s responsibility to support the
work of PLCs (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 249).
Table 2.12 The PLCs at Work Continuum: District-wide (DuFour et al., 2016, pp. 249)
Indicator Pre-Initiating Initiating Implementing Developing Sustaining
The district has
demonstrated a
sustained commitment
to improving schools
by developing the
capacity of school
personnel to function
as a PLC. District
leaders have been
explicit about specific
practices they expect
to see in each school,
have created a process
to support principals
in implementing those
practices, and monitor
the progress of
implementation.
There is no
focused and
sustained district-
wide process for
improving
schools.
Improvement
efforts tend to be
disconnected,
episodic, and
piecemeal.
Projects come and
go, but the
cultures of schools
remain largely
unaffected.
The district has
announced that
schools should
operate as
professional
learning
communities
and may have
articulated a
rationale in
support of
PLCs, but the
process remains
ambiguous, and
educators at the
school site view
it as just one of
many initiatives
raining down
upon them from
the central
office. Little is
done to monitor
implementation.
Some central
office leaders
and principals
demonstrate
indifference to
the initiative.
Central office
leaders made a
concerted effort to
build shared
knowledge and to
establish a common
language regarding
the PLC process
throughout the
district. They have
called for schools to
operate as PLCs and
clarified some of the
specific structural
changes to support
teacher
collaboration and
systems of
interventions that
they expect to see in
each school. They
monitor the
implementation of
the structural
changes and offer
assistance to schools
that seek it. Some
schools move
forward with
effective
implementation,
while others merely
tweak their existing
structures.
Professional practice
is impacted in some
schools and no in
others.
Central office leaders
have put processes in
place to develop the
capacity of principals
to lead the PLC
process in their
schools, monitor
implementation of the
PLC process, and
respond to schools that
are experiencing
difficulty. Building
level and central office
leaders have begun to
function as their own
collaborative team and
work interdependently
to achieve common
goals and identify and
resolve issues that are
interfering with the
PLC process.
Individual schools are
examining ways to
become more effective
in the PLC process.
Administrators at all levels
function as coordinated,
high-performing teams
characterized by a deep
understanding of and
commitment to the PLC
process. They consider
that process not as one of
several improvement
initiatives, but rather as the
process by which they will
continuously improve
student and adult learning.
They are intensely focused
on student learning and
make student learning and
make student achievement
data transparent among all
members. They work
together collaboratively to
resolve problems, develop
deeper understanding of
the PLC process, and learn
from one another. They
are committed to the
collective success of the
team and the individual
success of each member.
Used with permission. From Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™, Third Edition by Richard
DuFour, Rebecca DuFour, Robert Eaker, Thomas W. Many, and Mike Mattos. Copyright 2016 by Solution Tree Press, 555 North Morton Street,
Bloomington, IN 47404, 800.733.6786, SolutionTree.com. All rights reserved.
Summary
The theory and studies reviewed in this chapter support the notion that PLCs can be an
effective process for continual school improvement. The shared vision of meeting the needs of
diverse learners and helping all students build the capacity to learn at high levels is at the core of
PLCs. The PLCs at Work framework is a collaborative process that allows for job-embedded
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
57
professional development that is focused on targeted improvement of instructional practices
(DuFour et al., 2016). There are multiple benefits to PLCs, as reviewed by the literature,
however; there are three key benefits to PLCs (a) sustainable professional learning; (b) reduction
in teacher burnout; and (c) improved student learning. Schools in the United States, Canada,
Britain, Australia, New Zealand and international schools around the world have implemented
PLCs (DuFour et al., 2016; Marzano et al., 2016). Schools vary in the type and extent to which
they have implemented PLCs. Some schools with PLCs tend to have positive outcomes whereas
others have less than favorable outcomes. Considerable time and resources are needed in order
to implement PLCs; therefore, it is critical that we understand the processes involved in
implementing successful PLCs.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study is to understand how PLCs have been implemented at the
elementary division of the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia (PASA), an international
school that subscribes to an American curriculum. It seeks to understand factors that have
influenced the implementation and development of PLCs. In addition, it seeks to understand
promising practices utilized by high performing PLCs and barriers confronted by PLCs that are
not functioning as effectively. The following are research questions to be addressed by this
study:
1. How has the elementary division at PASA implemented the PLCs at Work framework?
2. What are some promising practices PLCs utilize in order to promote team collaboration
and productivity at PASA within the elementary division?
3. What are some barriers experienced by PLCs at PASA within the elementary division
during the PLC process?
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
58
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
This chapter provides an overview of the methodology, beginning with a rationale for the
method of study followed by demographics and characteristics of participants. It will then
proceed to describe instruments and protocols used followed by a section explaining the data
collection process. Finally, it will conclude with an explanation of how data was coded and
analyzed for emerging themes and findings.
Rationale for Method of Study
Qualitative research is a constructivist approach for exploring and understanding how
individuals and groups make meaning of a situation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016; Creswell, 2014;
Maxwell, 2013). Qualitative methods rely on words, pictures, images, texts and documents. As
noted by Merriam and Tisdell (2016), there is no single truth in the world, but there are multiple
truths. Therefore, through a qualitative approach, researchers are able to understand “the
meaning people have constructed; that is, how people make sense of their world and the
experiences they have in the world” (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016, p. 15). Key features to the
qualitative approach include:
• Natural setting, data to be collected in field where participants experience the issue;
• Researcher as key instrument;
• Multiple sources of data;
• Inductive and deductive data analysis;
• Emergent design;
• Reflexivity, how the background of the researcher might create bias and influence
direction of the study;
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
59
• Holistic account, creating a larger theme or picture that emerges from the study
(Creswell, 2014, p. 186).
This study used a qualitative approach; the intention of the study was to seek an
understanding of how PLCs were implemented at PASA within the elementary school. In
addition, the study sought to understand promising practices utilized by high functioning PLCs to
promote collaboration and barriers PLCs experienced when engaging in the PLC process.
Participants
In qualitative research, nonprobability, purposeful sampling is the method of choice
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher wants to gain an understanding of the issue at hand,
therefore, the sample chosen for the study will be one that is appropriate based on a set of pre-
determined criteria (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Selection of participants was done in a
thoughtful and purposeful manner. For this study, there were three different categories of
participants (a) administrators, (b) professional learning community chairpersons and grade level
teachers. A list of faculty members and administrators grouped according to grade level PLCs
with job descriptions was obtained from the elementary school office to create focus groups. In
order to ensure balanced perspectives, grade level teachers in the elementary division with varied
years of experience at PASA were purposefully selected, both recent hires (less than 5 years at
PASA) and veteran teachers (more than 10 years of experience at PASA) were selected.
Faculty and administrators who satisfied the criterion were sent individual invitation e-
mails to participate in the study. The e-mail explained the purpose of the study and asked the
faculty or administrator to consent to a focus group discussion. Pre-determined times and dates
were provided for focus groups.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
60
Table 3.1 Focus Group Participants
Focus Group Role Participants Length of Discussion
1 Teacher A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A6, A7 70 minutes
2 Administration B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 60 minutes
3 Teacher C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, 56 minutes
4 Teacher D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8 55 minutes
5 Teacher E1, E2, E3, E4, E5, E6, E7, E8 54 minutes
6 PLCC F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 65 minutes
7 Teacher G1, G2, G3, G4, G5 51 minutes
8 Teacher H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 54 minutes
Access. Prior to sending participation invites to selected participants, the researcher
made an appointment to speak with the divisional principal to seek permission to conduct the
study within the elementary division. After receiving verbal approval to conduct the research
with the principal, the researcher met with the 4 deputy principals to seek approval to conduct
the study with the respective grade levels within the division. Each deputy principal provided a
verbal approval for the researcher to conduct the study. Finally, a formal request to conduct the
study within the elementary school was sent to the division principal in the form of an e-mail.
The divisional principal responded back with an official approval to conduct the study by return
of e-mail.
An initial invitation email was sent to individuals based on above selection criterion. The
email explained the purpose of the study and invited participants to a 90-minute focus group
discussion. The e-mail also clearly outlined that participation in focus group discussions were
voluntary and participants were able to withdraw participation at anytime during the focus group.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
61
A total of 49 participants responded to the focus group invitations. A total of 8 focus groups
were conducted. The size of focus groups ranged from 5 to 8 participants per session.
Instrumentation
The instrument used for this study was a semi-structured focus group guide. The focus
group guide was divided into four sections. The first section comprised of questions one through
three, which focused on how PLCs have been implemented according to the PLCs at Work
framework. Questions were formulated based on the evaluation rubric of PLC journeys in
Learning by Doing: An Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work™ (DuFour et
al., 2016). Section two and three pertained to promising practices and barriers experienced by
PLCs in implementing the framework. The final section consisted of an open-ended question,
asking participants what advice they would give schools that would like to embark upon the PLC
journey. Elaboration and clarification probes were used throughout the discussions. Questions
such as “Can you please explain?” or “What do you mean?” or “You mentioned…can you talk a
bit more about that?” Probing questions were not explicitly part of the focus group guide;
however probes were used when necessary throughout the 8 discussion groups.
Table 3.2 Interview Questions Related to Implementation
What is the purpose of school?
1. How has PASA established purpose and priorities that align with the school’s mission and vision?
2. Does the school have systems and structures in place to implement and monitor action steps to
support purpose of PLCs?
3. How has PASA established purpose and priorities that align with the school’s mission and
vision?
4. Does the school have systems and structures in place to implement and monitor action steps to
support purpose of PLCs?
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
62
Table 3.3 Interview Questions Related to Collaboratioin
What is collective responsibility?
5. What do you see as the core purpose of the school?
6. Do you feel there is a shared understanding to what the school is attempting to create as a result of
PLCs?
7. Do you feel there is a shared commitment to what the school is attempting to create as a result of
PLCs?
8. Do you feel the school has established goals to achieve the purpose of PASA as a PLC school?
9. How has the school provided time for routine collaboration?
10. How has the school provided a common understanding the four driving questions behind PLCs?
• What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?
• How will we know if each student has learned it?
• How will we respond when some students do not learn it?
• How will we extend the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency? (DuFour et
al., 2016, p. 59)
11. How has collaborative teamwork been monitored and supported by administration?
12. How have grade level PLCs created norms?
13. How have grade level PLCs enforced norms?
14. How did PLCs establish SMART goals?
15. How have teams established a guaranteed and viable curriculum?
16. How do PLCs use data to improve instruction?
17. How do PLCs use data to monitor student learning?
18. How do your PLCs provide systematic intervention for students who don’t meet learning targets?
19. How are new hires selected at PASA?
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
63
20. What is the role of PLC members when a new member joins the team?
21. How do administration support career enrichment opportunities for veteran teachers (over 10
years of experience)?
22. How do PLCs provide extension for students who have already reached levels of proficiency?
23. How are new hires selected at PASA?
24. What is the role of PLC members when a new member joins the team?
25. How do administration support career enrichment opportunities for veteran teachers (over 10
years of experience)?
26. How does your PLC respond to conflict?
27. How does the administrative (superintendent, deputy superintendent, office of learning and
divisional principals) team support the work of PLCs?
Table 3.4 Interview Questions Related to Barriers
What are some barriers to implementing PLCs?
28. What are some roadblocks that you have experienced that have prevented PLCs from
collaborating or doing PLC work?
29. Was it difficult implementing PLCs at PASA? Why?
Table 3.5 Interview Questions Related to Insights
What else should we know about implementing PLCs?
30. What advice would you give to schools beginning their PLC journey?
31. Anything else you would like to share regarding the implementation and development of
PLCs at PASA?
Data Collection
A focus group occurs when the “researcher interviews participants in a group” (Creswell,
2014, p. 191). Focus groups can provide the advantage of enabling the researcher to observe
nuances such as facial expressions and body languages that cannot be observed from a paper or
online survey. In addition, a focus group discussion will allow the researcher control over the
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
64
questions. Limitations to focus groups include (a) information obtained reflect views of
interviewees only; (b) researcher’s presence as facilitator may bias the response of participants;
and (c) some participants may be less likely to speak as openly in front of other members
(Creswell, 2014). Rather than individual interviews, focus groups were used to collect data.
Focus groups provided for two main advantages, the researcher was able to meet with more
people with less time commitment and a group setting allowed for generation of different ideas
based on participants’ responses.
Five of the focus group discussions took place in the Kindergarten collaborative space.
The space is designated for group meetings and the environment provides for privacy. Three of
the focus group discussions took place in the researcher’s classroom. When focus group
discussions took place in the classroom; it was during times when no school was in session. The
classroom also provided for privacy for open and honest discussions. Ninety minutes were
allocated for each focus group; however in reality the focus group discussions lasted between 54
to 70 minutes. The researcher used two voice-recording devices, an iPhone and a Sony audio
recorder. Two devices were used as a preventive measure in the event of equipment failure.
Prior to the beginning of each focus group discussion participants were informed of the use of
recording devices and were given the opportunity to decline participation. No participant
declined to participate.
As part of the focus group protocol, participants received a verbal explaintion of the
purpose of the study and the following information: (a) participation is voluntary, (b) participates
can decline, (c) identity of participants will be kept anonymous, pseudonyms will be used, and
(d) individuals may drop out anytime during the interview. Participants were informed the
purpose of the audio recordings was for transcribing of data after the interviews and the use of
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
65
audio recording freed up the researcher to interact freely during the focus group discussions.
Participants were informed audio recording was voluntary and during anytime throughout the
interview, participants had the option to request to stop the audio recording. In addition to the
recording device, the researcher took notes on the focus group discussion guide for probing
questions and key phrases that were not part of the original guide. In addition to verbally
explaining the protocol, the researcher also provided an informed consent document for
participants to sign for agreeing to participate in the study. The consent document contained
information on the purpose of the study and focus group discussion protocols.
Ethical Considerations
Ethics are the moral principles that guide a person’s behavior during an activity
(Velasquez, Andre, Shanks & Meyer, 2010). As noted earlier, at the beginning of the study and
before data collection, the researcher identified the purpose of the study and stated the benefits of
the study to participants. The study will provide insights in how PASA has implemented PLCs
in relation to the PLCs at Work framework. The study will also provide insights on promising
practices and barriers to implementing PLCs. The researcher did not pressure participants in
participating in the research. Participants were told involvement is voluntary and at any time
participants could have withdrew from the participating in the research. In order to to show
appreciation for voluntarily participating in the study, participants were given a small coffee
voucher. The researcher used pseudonyms for participants and data collected has been saved in
passcode-protected devices only. The researcher clearly understands there is no falsifying of
data and findings.
Data Analysis
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
66
The descriptive data gathered from the focus discussions were dense and filled with a
wealth of information. Some of the information was useful, some not as relevant; therefore, the
researcher had to “winnow” the data. The researcher focused on some parts of the data collected
and devoted less attention to others (Creswell, 2014). The first step in qualitative data analysis
is to transcribe voice recordings. After the researcher conducted focus group discussions the
researcher transcribed the data the following evening. After transcribing, the researcher read over
the data collected from focus group discussions (Creswell, 2014; Maxwell, 2013). After reading
through each focus group discussion transcript, the researcher made notes of general impressions
and overall ideas gathered from all discussions.
After the transcribing of data collected the researcher replaced all names of participants
and assigned code names to participants to protect the identity of participants. After code names
were assigned the researcher proceeded to conduct data analysis. The researcher picked one
focus group discussion transcript to focus on first. The focus group discussion was read and
highlighted for (a) notes and memos, (b) recurring phrases, (c) key phrases or words, and (d) key
phrases and words that align with literature. The researcher color-coded the data based on the
following:
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
67
Table 4.1 Key Phrase and Color Codes
Key Phrases Color Code
Mission, Vision and Purpose Highlight Red
Barriers Highlight Yellow
Systems and Structures Highlight Purple
Collaborative Culture and Collective
Responsibility
Highlight Green
Conflict Highlight Grey
Promising Practices Green Font
Instructional Assistants Black Font
Data Red Font
Strategies to Build Trust Blue Font
Each unit of highlighted descriptive data was copied and pasted into a spreadsheet under
the column labeled as key phrases or chunks, one unit of descriptive data per row. Data analysis
of the units of descriptive data generated categories and eventually the emergence of key themes.
Throughout the data analysis process, the three research questions, conceptual framework of the
three big ideas of PLC, and literature framed the identification of units of descriptive data that
were selected, highlighted and coded. This process was repeated for all eight focus group
discussion transcripts for emerging categories and themes.
Qualitative study is different from quantitative study; “qualitative study provides the
reader with a depiction in enough detail to show that the author’s conclusion makes sense”
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The researcher is key to qualitative research as qualitative research
is interpretative research. The researcher’s background, experiences, values, gender, bias, values
and history all influence how data is collected and interpreted (Crewell, 2014). The researcher is
aware of her possible bias towards the research topic as she is the Kindergarten professional
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
68
learning community chairperson (PLCC) and she brought certain assumptions and biases to the
study.
Conclusion
The purpose of a qualitative study was to explore the views, perspectives and insights of
participants (Creswell, 2014). For this study it took on the form of focus group discussions.
Regardless of methodology, the researcher was key to the data collection and analysis process.
The researcher was prepared, well-versed and disciplined and stayed focus during focus group
discussions to gather data for the research topic. Participants were informed participation was
voluntary and during anytime they had the option to withdraw participation. Voluntary
participation is an integral part to data collection. In chapter four the results of the study will be
shared and major findings will be presented. The study will conclude with a summary of
findings, implications of practice and recommendations for future research in chapter five.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
69
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to understand how professional learning communities
(PLCs) have been implemented at the elementary division at the Progressive Academy of
Southeast Asia (PASA), an international school that subscribes to an American curriculum. The
study focused on grade level professional learning communities which follows DuFour’s model
of PLCs as a framework to guide team collaboration. While the school has devoted much time,
resources, and manpower to the implementation and development of PLCs, there is limited
understanding in (1) how PLCs have been implemented at PASA, (2) promising practices high
functioning PLCs have utilized to promote team collaboration, and (3) barriers experienced by
PLCs during the PLC process. The first three chapters of this study provided an introduction to
the problem of practice, a comprehensive literature review on PLCs and a description of the
methodology in how data was collected. This chapter will share findings that emerged from data
collected and analyzed.
Participants
This qualitative study used a case study approach to collect data by conducting focus
groups from the faculty of the elementary division at PASA, Kindergarten to Grade 5. A
purposeful sample of 49 faculty and administrators participated in 8 focus group discussions.
Participants were selected to represent the typical composition of grade level collaborative teams
within the elementary school division, classroom teachers and learning support teachers assigned
to grade levels. Learning support teachers are specialists such as interventionists, speech and
language pathologists, counselors, librarians and coaches.
It is important to note that administrators and PLC chairpersons were not intermixed with
grade level focus group discussions. Instead, the researcher conducted a focus group for
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
70
administrators only and a focus group for PLC chairpersons only. Also, the researcher is the
Kindergarten PLC chairperson, therefore, she did not conduct a focus group with the
Kindergarten team. Instead she conducted multiple focus groups with collaborative teams until
there was a saturation of data. Upon saturation of data, it was not necessary to conduct a focus
group with the Kindergarten team. The above was done purposefully to create a safe space for
participants to be open and honest in how PLCs have been implemented within the division.
Table 4.2 Summary Sample Data Collection for Focus Groups
Focus Group Role Participants Length of Discussion
1 Teacher A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
A6, A6, A7
70 minutes
2 Administration B1, B2, B3, B4, B5 60 minutes
3 Teacher C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, 56 minutes
4 Teacher D1, D2, D3, D4, D5,
D6, D7, D8
55 minutes
5 Teacher E1, E2, E3, E4, E5,
E6, E7, E8
54 minutes
6 PLCC F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6 65 minutes
7 Teacher G1, G2, G3, G4, G5 51 minutes
8 Teacher H1, H2, H3, H4, H5 54 minutes
This chapter will share findings that emerged from data collected and analyzed from
focus group discussions based on DuFour’s PLC framework. Focus groups were used to gain
insights on the topic, and selection of participants was done in a thoughtful and purposeful
manner (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016) as it sought to understand how PLCs were implemented
within the elementary division of PASA. In order to help participants remain anonymous, a code
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
71
has been assigned to each participant. Findings for the following research questions will be
shared:
1. How has the elementary division at PASA implemented PLCs?
2. What are some promising practices PLCs utilize in order to promote team collaboration
and productivity at PASA within the elementary division?
3. What are some barriers experienced by PLCs at PASA within the elementary division
during the PLC process?
Elementary School Division at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia
The three school divisions at PASA are high school, middle school and the elementary
school. There are over 1700 students enrolled in the elementary division at PASA. The
leadership team at the elementary school consists of 4 deputy principals and a principal. Each
deputy principal is responsible for supervising two grade levels (PS & PK, KG & 1, 2 &3 and 4
& 5) and the principal oversees the entire division. There are multiple classes per grade level as
PASA is a large institution (eg. 10 kindergarten and 12 grade one classes). The structure of the
elementary school is such that the professional learning community chairperson (PLCC) and
small PLC leaders, are responsible for leading and guiding grade level teams to meet the learning
needs of students based the 4 PLC process questions (DuFour et al., 2016):
a. What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?
b. How will we know when each student has learned it?
c. How will we respond when some students do not learn it?
d. How will we extend the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency? (p. 59)
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
72
Research Question #1: How has the elementary division at PASA implemented PLCs?
Research question one was intended to understand to how PASA has implemented PLCs
based on the three big ideas of the PLCs at Work framework (i) a focus on learning, (ii) a
collaborative culture and collective responsibility, and (iii) a results orientation.
A Focus on Learning
Mission, vision and purpose of professional learning communities. Two themes
emerged from the data collected and analyzed for a focus on learning (a) there is an alignment of
mission, vision to the purpose of PLCs, and (b) systems and structures have been implemented to
support the work of PLCs to improve student learning. There is a common understanding and
belief among teachers and administrators of the vision and mission of the school and how the
mission and vision of PASA aligns with the purpose of PLCs, to improve student learning.
While not all teachers and administrators were able to recite word for word and line for the line
verbatim the school’s mission and vision, they were able to express the sentiments and shared a
common belief in the school’s vision, mission and purpose of PLCs. Senge (2012) notes, visions
based on a top down approach are not sustainable and will not motivate faculty and staff to
realize the mission and vision for the institution. Senge (2012) further posits, a common vision
can only come to fruition when people of an organization invest time and energy into the
common goal of improvement of student learning.
During focus group discussion 1, teachers shared their beliefs and purpose of PLCs.
Teacher A1 shares her belief in the purpose of PASA and PLCs, “I think it is the vision and
mission. Providing an exemplary education. But also preparing students to be exceptional
students prepared for the future. I really think that is what we are here for. To make that a
realization.” Teacher A2 describes accountability of student learning at PASA as the purpose of
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
73
PLCs. Teacher A2 explains, “it’s about we want kids to learn these things...there needs to be a
process by which we ensure we are doing that. And there is a measure of consistency across the
grade level and vertically across the school.” Teacher A3 then refers to the school’s strategic
anchors (a) a culture of possibilities, (b) a culture of excellence, and (c) a culture of extraordinary
care. Teacher A3 explains the purpose of PLCs is to provide extraordinary care for students to
ensure that “no one falls between the creaks. So we are trying as hard as we can. PLCs is to
provide the individualized needs for everyone.” Immediately following teacher A3’s
explanation, Teacher A7 explains that the purpose of PLCs is “to ensure all students learn at high
levels and that ties in with the mission and vision. PLCs ensure the accountability that actually
happens.”
Teacher C4 in focus group #3 also mentioned how the strategic anchors at PASA guided
the practice of teachers and collaborative teams. Teacher C4 explains, “in your small PLC you
will be going for excellence, the extraordinary care [with the] different groups [group of students
based on learning target proficiency]...the strategic anchor and mission always guides what we
do. Even if it is not intentional it guides what we do.” Teacher D1 in focus group #4 expressed
the purpose of PLC as steps the team takes to get where students need to go. Teachers in all 7
focus groups at some point expressed a common understanding and belief in the school’s
mission, vision and how they align to the purpose of PLCs. This common belief is also shared
by the elementary school leadership team.
In focus group #2, which consisted of the elementary leadership team, Administrator B2
expresses how the mission, vision, and the strategic anchors fit naturally when there is a focus on
learning. Administrator B2 goes on to explain how a focus on learning is the driving force
behind the school’s strategic plan, “all students learn at high levels and at some point it [the
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
74
learning] is personalized.” In all 8 focus groups, faculty and administration, there was consistent
belief and understanding in how the school’s mission and vision align to support the purpose of
PLCs, to ensure all students learn at high levels. This finding is consistent with the notion that
when a school is a PLC school, all members of the school have a common understanding and
belief that the primary purpose of a school’s existence is a focus on student learning (DuFour et
al., 2016, Bolam et al., 2005; Morrissey, 2000; Hord, 1997).
Systems and structures. A common sentiment expressed by all members of the 8 focus
groups is there are systems, structures and policies in place to provide support for the PLC
process. DuFour et al. (2016) posit, a school’s structures, policies and procedures should serve
the purpose and work of the PLC process. The elementary school has created structures and
systems such as time, format and professional development to support the PLC process.
Time for collaboration. It is the responsibility of the school to provide time for teachers
to collaborate and create systems where collaboration is a routine of practice (DuFour et al.,
2016). Five years ago, there was no common meeting time during the school day for teachers to
collaborate in the elementary school, teachers had to meet after school (Administrator B1, Focus
Group #2). The school has now created a schedule where collaborative teams have a common
meeting time during the school day to meet twice a week for a minimum of 60 minutes. As a
result, all collaborative teams across the elementary school division have PLC meetings twice a
week (Administrator B1, Focus Group #2). Teacher B5 recognized that the schedule “where
everyone is available to meet at the same is massive support for systems to support PLCs”
(Focus Group #1). The elementary division has invested in creating a schedule where teachers
are provided time to routinely collaborate during the school day.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
75
Structure of professional learning communities. It is the responsibility of the school to
organize teachers into “collaborative teams in which members work interdependently to achieve
the common goals that directly impact student learning” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 80). PLCs are
mostly organized according grade levels (preschool to grade 5) and specialist teachers are
organized by content area expertise (PE, Art, Music, Technology). In the elementary division
the size of grade level PLCs are large; very often can be over 20 people on a grade level PLC.
The school has created a structure where grade level PLCs are divided into smaller PLCs
consisting of 4 to 5 teachers per small PLC. The smaller PLCs allow for more in depth
discussions of student learning and collective responsibility (Administrator B3). Teacher A5
states, “by having the money [stipend] for the head [chairperson] of the PLCs and small PLC
leader structure...that is a commitment to PLCs. They are putting the money where they see
value” (Focus Group #1). Teacher E5 shares the benefits of a the smaller PLC structure that has
been recently implemented by the elementary school division, “I had a bit of a mind shift
yesterday during data day because at the end of the day we kept saying out of 86 students out of
86 students and in my head at the end of the day there are 86 students X graders.” This is a
change in the mindset of collective responsibility. For the “first time I felt a responsibility for 86
kids…I am responsible for 86 kids” (Teacher E5, Focus Group #5). The smaller PLC structure
has allowed for deeper collaboration and collective responsibility of student learning. The
school has provided a variety of different formats how collaborative teams are structured.
Professional development. The quality of a teacher makes a difference in student
learning; in order to improve teacher quality, it is paramount to provide professional learning on
instructional practices (Barber & Mourshed, 2007). PLC leaders and content leaders have been
provided training on how to facilitate meetings by Laura Lipton (Teacher B1). Teacher C5
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
76
notes, “they [the school] provides us with a lot of PD, a lot of training, and they provide us with
the whys.” Teacher A1 notes, “you have to actively stagnate at this school, it is impossible to
not learn at this school.” Teacher E7, Teacher F6 and Teacher B1 from different focus groups
both share that not only are experts brought to PASA to provide PD for teachers on the PLC
process, teachers are also provided with opportunities to go overseas to attend workshops for
Response to Intervetion (RTI) and PLC. In addition, Teacher F6 notes, “recently the PLC
Institute was just here over the weekend. The school paid for all PLC leaders to attend the
institute.” The school has also provided opportunities where faculty members of the PLC task
force from respective divisions provided PD on the PLC process; such PD was a great way for
faculty to be reminded of the PLC process and a good way to share resources in how to
implement the PLC process (Teacher A3, Focus Group #1). The school has invested much time
and resources into providing professional development opportunities for teachers to support PLC
work.
System of onboarding new hires. Ingeroll (2001) notes, new service teachers and new
hires are less likely to burnout and leave the profession if they are part of a collaborative team
assigned to a teacher mentor. Every year there are new hires that join the elementary division at
PASA. The school understands the power of PLCs and the importance of providing support to
new hires. Administrator B3 shares, “we rely on PLC teams to onboard people the best way
possible.” Administrator B4 also said, “we need to tap...um..your PLCs is your PD. Our veteran
teachers can really help [on board new hires]. Teacher F4 shared she was the mentor teacher for
new hires the previous schoo year for 5 new teacher hires. Every Friday she would e-mail an
agenda with important topics of discussion for the new hires. She would then meet with the
mentees the following Monday. She noted that in addition to casually meeting teachers, the
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
77
weekly meetings provided a structure for her to really get to know the new teachers and provide
necessary support; however it was a lot work. This year new hires for her grade level are shared
among small PLC leaders. Each new teacher is assigned to a small PLC. Teacher F1 also shared
that her grade level has a mentor mentee structure to onboard new teacher hires. Similar to
Teacher F4’s grade level, all new teacher hires are divided so that 1 mentor is paired with 1 new
teacher hire. Again, each small PLC leader is a mentor for a new teacher hire. Teacher F5 notes,
“it is just like with kids, you have to differentiate” in providing support for new teachers, “some
don’t want much guidance. Some want a lot.” In addition, to relying on PLCs and veteran
teachers, the Office of Learning (OOL) which is responsible for professional development for
faculty and staff, has taken an active role in onboarding new hires on the PLC process. “For the
last couple of years, the office of learning has really onboard new hires on what PLCs are about”
(Administrator B1, Focus Group #2). The school has taken steps to provide support for new
hires in the PLC process and adapting to teaching at PASA.
Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility
Collective culture and collective responsibility is the second big idea for PLCs. Fullan et
al. (2015) argue, as a result of a collaborative culture and collective responsibility, lateral
accountability is created which encourages teachers to continuously seek ways to improve
instructional practices. A collective culture and collective responsibility is created when teachers
collaborate to identify power standards, create common formative assessments, determine
proficiency for mastery and improve instructional practices to meet needs of students (DuFour et
al., 2016). In other words, when collaborative teams focus on the PLC process, the four
questions, a collaborative culture is created. There is a collaborative culture within the
elementary division; however collective responsibility is at its infancy. Collective responsibility
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
78
is providing targeted instruction to students who are struggling with learning not only by the
classroom teachers but also by all members of a professional learning community. It is the
collective responsibility of all members to support a student’s learning.
Collaborative culture. In all 7 focus group discussions, teachers have stated that grade
levels have worked together as a large PLC to identify power standards, created formative
assessments, determine proficiency in mastery of learning targets and share instructional
strategies to improve student learning specific to learning targets. This is part of the grade level
SMART goal protocol mandated by the elementary school administration. Both teacher H1 and
H5 note, “last year we did that for math and this year we will do it for writing.” There is an
understanding that every professional is responsible for the learning of the students and within
PLCs teachers use data to identify students who will need intervention or extension
(Administrator B1, Focus Group #2). And slowly there is a shift in thinking. Administrator B4
notes “there is a shift in regular classrooms where extension activities take place in the
classroom.” In addition, some grade levels have adopted acceleration block where targeted
intervention involves the whole team, all hands on deck, and the team can see growth over the
year (Administrator B1). The all hands on deck approach has not consistently taken place across
all grade levels; collective responsibility has yet to be so ingrained that it is part of the school
culture (Administrator B2).
Collective Responsibility. The paradigm shift of collective responsibility is only at the
very beginning stage at the school. This sentiment is further expressed by most teachers for all 7
of the focus group discussions. As teacher C4 notes, “unfortunately no matter what it is…it goes
back to the classroom teachers...some people who say it [collective responsibility] but there is no
action or responsibility.” “Clearly it [collective responsibility] is not our culture,” (Teacher C1,
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
79
Focus Group #3). “I don’t think there is collective responsibility yet,” (Teacher D6, Focus
Group #4). Teacher A1 shares, “sure the explanation that has been given. But the actual
understanding of what RTI [response to intervention] of what that looks like, it is still pretty
messy and grey. Maybe there is a shared understanding but there is not a shared application.”
The school has not provided clear guidelines to teachers on how to help students who are
identified by teachers who need extra support, tier 2 support students. Tier 2 support students
require supplemental interventions in addition to effective core instruction which includes
differentiated instruction. Buffum et al. (2012) assert, collaborative teacher teams who share the
same curriculum should “take primary responsibility for tier 2 supplemental interventions for
students who have failed to master the team’s identified essential [power] standards” (p. 33).
Teacher H4 shares her frustration with not having a clear protocol in how to provide support for
a student who is struggling with learning,
“We have new students and they have not received services and it is now October
because we cannot decide if they can receive services or not outside of the classroom. I
am providing tier 2 instruction in the classroom. They’ve come here needing support.
But we don’t know what to do. We have taken away systems and protocols before
deciding on how we are about to go about. Getting our students serviced.”
Teacher H2 shares her understanding of collective responsibility and confusion in how to support
students who require tier 2 support,
“I know that tier 2 I don’t think...um... just as a outside person from learning support or
just looking in tier 2 is messy and it is not always easy to decide who is tier 2 and I think
it is really messy for teachers. Both learning support and classroom teachers these
middle ground kids it has been my experience that the other kids in tier 3 actually make a
lot more growth than the tier 2 kids.”
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
80
While collective responsibility has yet to take root and become part of the school culture,
some PLCs are highly collaborative and feel comfortable in reaching out to team members to ask
for instructional strategies to meet the learning needs of students. Teacher E3 shares,
“The non-threatening piece…I need help with a student I don’t feel like a loser teacher.
How can you help me. I don’t feel threatened. If someone comes and asks me for help.
Sure what can I do to help. It is not that my doors are closed…I have my 22. Go away.
That fear is not there. You are not being questioned. People do not think you are no
good cause you are asking for help. It is for the kids” (Focus Group #5).
The paradigm shift of collective responsibility is slowly evolving within the elementary division
as Teacher D5 states,
“We are evolving in terms of those other people [all hands on deck]. Last year…we did
math fact…wait a minute I am not a math person. That took a little talking and
understanding then people were on board. As we reach out to our team to help more then
there is more of a buy in [for collective responsibility]…” (Focus Group #4).
As a classroom teacher, Teacher E5 shared how her sense of collective responsibility changed
from being only responsible for the 22 students in her class to being responsible for learning of
86 students, the students within her small PLC,
“I had a bit of a mind shift yesterday during data day because at the end of the day we
kept saying out of 86 students out of 86 students and in my head at the end of the day
there are 86 students, first graders. Wait no…there is 3 times of that. That was the first
time I felt a responsibility for 86 kids…I am responsible for 86 kids…even though there
is a 3 times that amount…but 86 seems manageable and doable. And so I think that…”
(Focus Group #5).
There is a collaborative culture within the elementary division. However, the notion of a shared
collective responsibility for the learning of all students is only beginning take root.
Results Orientation
Smart goals. DuFour et al. (2016) strongly suggest that collaborative teams establish
SMART goals that align with the school’s strategic plan. Through establishing clearly defined
SMART goals, collaborative teams will become results oriented. The findings show grade levels
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
81
throughout the ES division have established SMART goals for student learning. Administrator
B2 describes how the SMART goal process has helped collaborative teams with the PLC
process, “the SMART goal established by PLCs is about the PLC process, the four questions.
The teams are answering the 4 questions through the SMART goal” (Focus Group #2).
Administrator B2 goes on to explain that by looking at the standards collectively, creating
formative assessments that align with the standards using the assessment results from the
formative assessments to determine how to respond when students do not understand the
learning; and how to respond when students have already mastered the learning, teams are
creating results where there is an increase in student learning (Focus Group #2). Administrators
monitor the progress of PLC SMART goals by officially meeting with teams three times
throughout the academic year, beginning of the school year, mid-year and end of the school year.
During these official meetings, PLCs share out to administration the progress of established
SMART goals. This creates multiple levels of accountability (Administrator B5, Focus Group
#2). As a result, teachers can “no longer just teach to the mid-stream. You need to provide
personalized learning to where each child is...provide intervention and extension where the child
needs to go (Administrator B3, Focus Group #2). This is demonstrated by how Teacher F3
worked with several teachers to provide extension for 5 students within the grade level who have
already met learning targets in writing.
“Writing being our SMART goal and I had 2 students in my class. 5 students from
different class that already met or exceeded pre assessment for third grade. What were
we going to do for these students. They met with tech coach and librarian and literacy
coach. They were kind of on their own. We checked in once a week, the others 3 times
a week. They went over to high school and did surveys. Just understanding how to push.
Collaboration with teachers, you brainstorm. Keep them on the same topic with our
curriculum” (Teacher F3, Focus Group #6).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
82
Teacher G3 shares the importance of having a SMART goal and how having a SMART goal
helped the PLC become more effective in increasing student learning,
“I think when I first became part of the XXX grade, the team wasn’t really a PLC, it was
just more like grade level meetings. Like we would meet twice a week. Sometimes we
would focus on student work and sometimes we would focus more on admin stuff. I
think over the past 3 years we actually had a SMART goal it really has helped transform
PLCs having a focused SMART goal and even our first year on reading coming up with
power standards and we did a lot of stuff about reading but we did not focus on power
standards and we did not divide up into small PLCs and things were more the big
structure. Over the past year having the small PLC has really helped. Like size wise and
kinda to facilitate. To be more effective as a PLC.”
In the elementary school, all collaborative teams, PLCs, have clearly established SMART goals.
The SMART goal work drives the work of the team which is the PLC process, the 4 questions.
According to DuFour et al. (2016) there are three big ideas to the implementation of the
PLC process (i) a focus on learning, (ii) collective culture and collective responsibility, and (iii)
results orientation. Under the big idea of a focus on learning, two themes emerged (a) there is an
alignment of mission, vision to the purpose of PLCs at PASA, and (b) systems and structures
have been implemented to support the work of PLCs to improve student learning. In addition,
there is a common understanding and belief among teachers and administrators of the vision and
mission of the school and how the mission and vision of PASA aligns with the purpose of PLCs,
to improve student learning. Collective culture and collective responsibility is the second big
idea for PLCs. Based on the evidence of data, there is a collaborative culture within the
elementary division; however collective responsibility is at its infancy stage. The third big idea
is results orientation. The findings show grade levels throughout the ES division have
established SMART goals for student learning. The ES division is results oriented. The next
section will focus on promising practices PLCs utilized to promote team collaboration and
productivity.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
83
Research Question # 2: What are some promising practices PLCs utilize in order to
promote team collaboration and productivity at PASA within the elementary division?
Research question two was intended to uncover promising practices high function PLCs
have utilized to increase team collaboration and productivity. Two themes that emerged from
the data collected and analyzed for promising practices utilized by high functioning PLCs are 1)
utilizing instructional assistants to provide support as part of the PLC process; and 2) employing
strategies of relationship building and engaging in healthy conflict to build trust.
Promising Practices
Instructional assistants. Timely and frequent feedback is very important to effective
learning because it helps students recognize misconceptions before misconceptions become
ingrained (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett & Norman, 2010). In a typical classroom the
ratio is 1 teacher to 22 students; it can be difficult for the teacher to reach all 22 students in a
timely and frequent manner to provide appropriate feedback to support student learning. Upon
collecting and analyzing the data, a theme that emerged was classroom instructional assistants
(IAs) play an important role in supporting student learning, especially providing tier 2
intervention support in the classroom. The instructional assistants often work simultaneously
with teachers in the classroom providing feedback to students. Teacher C1 states,
“My assistance...she truly is an assistance. I sit with her and we talk about...how we will
go around and work with kids. Even with math. There was one time I was out because
of a student and I said , “Lucy, just teach it...you have seen what I have been doing.” I
came back in and sat at the back of the group. And she was teaching it great. We need to
make sure we have assistances that can actually do this kind of thing.”
Teacher C3 also shared similar sentiments in math, “This works because in math I have told my
IA to check with students..she goes about…she was teaching them the 1 strategy…they just
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
84
catch on…I think to utilize the IA…there is only one of you and 22 kids.” Teacher H1 in
another focus group asked,
“Wouldn’t you say the IAs are the people who help the tier 2 kids the most? You will do
a lesson they will be working independently and there will only be so many teachers to
go around. And they seem to be helping tier 2 the most.”
Teacher H1 goes on to explain, “I had one [instructional assistant] all day before, she was a
teacher. And she was valued.” Teacher H5 explains how teaching is structured differently with
an instructional assistant in the class, “In my class I work my day around when I have her
[instructional assistant]. Depending on when I have her, I do my writing workshop because she
is great.” A theme that emerged was the importance and value of having an instructional
assistant in the class to assist student learning. Teacher D7 says, “having a lot of help…having
an IA…I am very very grateful. There are people who do not have IAs…they have no help.”
The instructional assistant is another teacher in the classroom who students can rely on for
support and is an important part of the PLC process, someone who assists in providing targeted
intervention when students are not learning. Having instructional assistants in classes to support
learning is a promising practice.
Building trust. According to Lencioni (2012), vulnerability-based trust is at the core to
building a cohesive team. In order to reach out to members on a PLC for help to support
students who are not learning in a classroom, there must be trust among the team otherwise no
teacher will be willing to become vulnerable and admit there are students not learning in her
class. However, trust needs to be cultivated through time and action (Lencioni, 2012).
Relationships. Taking the time to get to know team members and building relationships
is a routine practice Teacher E3 utilizes to build trust on the PLC,
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
85
“Building relationships is the most important thing over anything else. I purposefully
make an effort to talk to everyone on the team. Not matter what. It might not even be
without an agenda. New people I went in more to build a relationship. By doing
that…when we met as a group the new people has someone they can befriend. They
would feel more comfortable. Once those relationships were built the other stuff is a lot
easier.”
Teacher D4 shares having a personal relationship with team members helps build trust,
“There is a strong balance between personal connection and trust. As I see how our PLC
is working…everyone is doing great things in the classroom and I have personal
relationship with everyone, it might not be a social one but it is a strong professional
relationship.”
Responsibility of speaking up. A consistent finding is all participants viewed conflict as
healthy and necessary to push the thinking of one another to improve instructional practices.
Lencioni (2012) coins the term of healthy conflict where one’s thinking is challenged and pushed
as “productive ideological conflict.” Teacher F1 shares when the team is able to engage in
conflict where everyone’s voice is heard then trust can be built. However it is the responsibility
of each member to speak up. In some instances, teams have created protocols where it is an
agreed norm where team members are required to voice opinions. Teacher G4 talks about the
importance of the norm, “that norm keeps everyone professionally accountable. I think [it]
creates a more trusting environment.” On voice and conflict, Teacher F1 said the following,
“It is really important that within a team, people do have a voice and that you really make
sure everybody’s voice is heard otherwise you get all that back talk that you really don’t
want. So if you are going to disagree or not have something to say it is your
responsibility to actually say at the meeting so that your view is then taken into account.”
Teacher F2 explains we learn through healthy conflict and it is the individual responsibility of
team members to speak up,
“And that’s really how we learn. Like I think everyone owes it to kind of say their
opinion even if I don’t agree with you. That is how we can really go in depth and change
our thinking and learn new things from other teachers so I kinda of think just thinking
your way is the only way is kind of an obstacle.”
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
86
Teacher C4 talk about the importance of disagreeing in order to have deeper conversations,
“Take it back to kids…teaching is part of us…it is not something we can leave at the
office door…we all have certain ideas of how things should be done…whatever your
opinion is just bring it back to the kids…one of things in our PLCs we don’t really
argue…we need a bit of a back and forth. But sometimes you really need to make sure
you have those deeper conversations. You need to have the responsibility to share.
Teaching is different. Not like an office. Teaching is personal.”
Similar to Teacher C4, Teacher D4 pushes for disruption and the breaking of peace because the
stakes are high when we have conflict over student learning; it is important to push the thinking
of one another. Having routine healthy conflicts is a promising practice, the opposite of not
having healthy conflict is false harmony and can be a hindrance to PLCs (Lencioni, 2012).
Teacher D4 puts it poignantly, “Is it worth keeping the peace? Is it in the best interest of the
students?” Building trust through relationship building and holding one another accountable to
having healthy conflict and speaking one’s mind professionally are promising practices for
PLCs.
Based on analysis of data, utilizing instructional assistants to provide support as part of
the PLC process; and employing strategies of relationship building and engaging in healthy
conflict to build trust are promising practices PLCs utilized to promote collaboration. The next
section will focus on barriers experienced by PLCs when implementing the PLC process.
Research Question # 3: What are some barriers experienced by PLCs at PASA within the
elementary division that hinder team collaboration and productivity?
Research question three was intended to uncover barriers experienced PLCs that have
hindered team collaboration and productivity. Three themes emerged from the data collected
and analyzed for barriers encountered by collaborative teams and have hindered the PLC
process.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
87
Barriers
Trust/Fear. According to Lencioni (2012), when there is an absence of trust, team
members will not be willing to expose themselves and become vulnerable and reach out for help
when needed. This is detrimental to the PLC process, job-embedded professional development
where teachers improve instructional strategies based on needs of student learning is dependent
on teachers being vulnerable and exposing themselves. An absence of trust creates a situation of
fear and false harmony where teams will not engage in open and healthy conflict to push one
another’s thinking and ask questions (Lencioni, 2012). A theme that emerged from the data
collected and analyzed is that there is a low level of trust and a sense of fear in some
collaborative teams. Teacher A3 shares,
“There is a huge trust problem. They are trying but there are a couple of teams where
trust is just not there. People were feeling they were not valued. They go out with tears.
Conflict is not handled well. We are striving to have norm and conflicts. I think it is
individual teams. The bottom line is if people do not have trust, it does not work. If
there is a lack of trust it can derail a PLC. What matters most is to get everyone to feel
valued. People first. Let’s focus on people first…from admin and the other things will
come. Teams were following the rules, but no real trust. To me you have to recognize
and do something about it. Following the rules does not mean everything is OK. We
need to have hard conversations.”
Teacher A2 noted at first, barriers were more structural such as common times, protocols and
space. Most PLCs have since resolved structural barriers. Barriers have not evolved, “We are
talking about trust and individual personalities…administrators need to help check that to grow
and support and continue to provide support…we have moved from logistics to growing it and
making it better…structure before to now about people/relationships.”
Similarly, Teacher A7 talks about the continuum of barriers and how barriers in the past
have changed from structural or concrete ones which are easier to confront to less tangible ones
such as fear and vulnerability, “now the fear is about exposure…now you need to bring that
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
88
data…you are being vulnerable…fear has been in some form a barrier in the process.” Teacher
F4 talks about the fear of sharing data and the fear of being judged,
“Sharing data is scary for some teachers. Just the whole idea of exposing yourself.
Sharing that with your peers. It is one thing sharing your spreadsheet. Exposing yourself
to peers is scary. Especially if you are in a PLC group that you don’t get along that is
very scary.”
Teacher F2 provides insights into the false harmony of the team where people are fearful of
speaking up during PLC meetings,
“Trust is very important. Sometimes we are just having conversations where are just
trying to get along. To unpack standards it is important to have conversations where you
are listening and you are debating and going back and forth. This allows for reflecting
and thinking and having those conversations. Sometimes we do not get into those in
depth type of conversations because we do not have the trust there and we kind of just
say ok we agree and then maybe we are not really agreeing.”
Teacher H1 puts it simply, “there has been missing trust.” Teacher F3 states, there has been a
high turnover rate in some grade levels for faculty and staff. And, “getting everyone involved
takes time and trust. That kind of goes into building relationships. These are obstacles we have
faced before.” As part of being an international school, the teacher population can be transient.
Having high turnover rates can be hinderance to team building, as mentioned earlier, building
trust requires time.
Transient population. A consist theme that emerged from the data collected and
analyzed is the barrier of having a transient teaching population. Trust is built through consistent
action over time (Covey, 2006). It is difficult to build trust when members of a team are
constantly changing. Administrator B5 says, “it is challenging...this is a transient school.”
Teacher D6’s experience shares how transient the school can be,
“Transient nature of international teachers. I am the most senior person on the team and I
have only been here for 5 years. We have spent more time on 1 and 2 [PLC questions]
because we didn’t know what the kids are suppose to know. When I came we moved to
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
89
envision math then readers and writers workshop. We had 5 people leaving. Huge
roadblock.”
In order for collaborative teams to deeply engage in the PLC process a team needs to be
composed of a large amount of veteran teachers for stability and capacity building of new
teachers (Talbert, 2010). The theme of high turnover rates for collaborative teams was
mentioned in more than a couple of focus groups.
Teacher F5, “ A lot of turnover on team...There was such high turnover.”
Teacher G2, “I have a new PLC every year.”
Teacher G3, “I would like to see consistency of PLCs. Where you are working longer
than 2 years…people leave…transient nature.”
The high turnover rate of people on PLCs is a barrier to deep implementation of the PLC
process.
Initiative overload. A theme that emerged consistently from all 8 focus groups is the
number of initiatives that are confronted by teachers. All initiatives compete for individual
teacher time and time from PLC meeting times. The sentiment from teachers is there needs to be
more focus on the important things and less competing initiatives. Organizations that are
focused have leaders who make “conscious choices not only about what they will do but also
about what they will not do” (Reeves, p. 31). The nature of teaching is already demanding and
requires teachers to constantly attend to multiple issues at any given time; on top of that if
teachers are also required to take on multiple new initiatives it may cause teacher burnout
(Friedman, 1991). Teacher burnout will be at the expense of student learning (Carver-Thomas &
Darling-Hammond, 2017).
Teacher E1 shares frustration on not having enough time, “We rush through things we
don’t have time for reflection…and just focusing on one thing.” Teacher E8 also has similar
views, “Slow down, being new…there inquiry, rti, field trips, parent communication……just
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
90
slow down and let us do it well…go deeper and smaller things.” Teacher F4 uses the snowball
effect as an analogy to describe how it feels with the many initiatives with limited time at hand,
“Time. Obstacle. We have these 2 hours a week. It takes a lot of time to look at data.
We almost need a block of time. If we are going to look at data for each subject if we are
truly looking at data. We still have teachers moving classes for math from last year.
There is this like a snowball that is rolling down the mountain. We just don’t have
enough time to do all the subject area well. Time is the biggest challenge moving
forward.”
Teacher A2 summarizes, “The sheer of number things we have to focus on…” is a barrier.
Professional Learning Community Lite. Douglas Reeves (2016) cautions schools in
engaging in “PLC Lite” where collaborative teams engage in professional dialogue but do not
take action in implementing changes discussed. With so many things competing for the time of
PLCs, there is a danger of engaging in “PLC Lite.” Teacher H3 says, “There seems to be always
something that needs to be done that pushes the small PLC [meeting] times away.” Teacher H5
adds,
“You have to use that time to get things done otherwise you don’t get things done. You
want to do the power standards for writing but then you also have Social studies and
science pushing through so what do you do. So the PLC time gets taken again.”
The amount of professional development time provided by experts in the field for science and
social studies has infringed on PLC work (Teacher H1, Focus Group 8). Teacher H2, “PD took
up most of our time. We reschedule or replace [PLC meeting times] because of PD.” Teacher
F3 shares the difficulty of prioritizing initiatives as PLC chairperson,
“That is not easy. There are so many people who want your team’s time. And you are
right. We have the same issue. Team members need to meet every time during the day
about something. How can we manage so teachers do not burn out?”
Teacher A3 states, “In reality it is a sprint. Reality is if you are the classroom teacher it hits
you.” The amount of initiatives is even more daunting for new hires as new hires already need to
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
91
acclimatize to a new country and become familiar with a new working environment. Teacher G3
shares,
“Coming on board would be easier if there was not always so much new stuff. The
amount of new things we have to ingest is overwhelming. Give people time to solidify
understanding of things. There is always something new for us to learn and master.”
To engage in the PLC process requires investment of significant amounts of time and energy.
This is particularly true for elementary school teachers because elementary school teachers are
responsible for student learning in all subject areas (reading, writing, math, science, social
studies and social emotional learning). With so many initiatives competing for PLC time, some
PLCs have engaged in “PLC Lite” and have found that the number of assessments and amount of
data generated is at times a hinderance to the PLC process.
Data. Teachers understand the importance of data and how data can be used to improve
student learning. More importantly, teachers understand the value of data derived from
formative assessments and how powerful this information can be when teachers use it to drive
instruction. Using data to drive instruction is a core part of the PLC process (DuFour et al.,
2016). A theme that emerged from collecting and analyzing the data is the school requires
teachers to collect a lot of data; however teachers are not clear with the purpose of some of the
data collected and how to use aggregate data like MAP scores in a meaningful way. Without
such clarity, it becomes extra work where teachers are spending time inputting data that is not
always used purposefully for instruction. Teacher H2 explains how data is useful and not useful,
“I have seen really good decisions being made [using data]. My biggest concern because
of the job I do is that many of the kids that I work with have problems in the classroom..
um...they don’t come up on the data. They are not the ones. I am worried that the school
focus on data too big and they are forgetting about the child. That is my overarching
goal. It think data is fantastic. And there use to be a point where there was none [data]
and that was not good either but I feel like that has gone uber to the other side an ah…”
Teacher C4 tells about the importance of both formative data and summative data,
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
92
“We all use formative data. Which is very important to help us teach and inform our
teaching. The school is very much focused on summative data. Which is why we do
MAP testing. Formative data does not need to be a percentage. There is a lot of way of
showing evidence of learning....But because there is a human element of bias. We need a
common language which why summative data is needed.”
Teacher D3 agrees that data is useful especially with sharing information with the parent
population. Teacher D3 explains parents want to see data in order to support decisions teacher
make regarding students. Teacher C4, “It [data] is good to give us background of kids.”
Over the past few years the school has changed. Previously, teachers did not collect student
data. Teacher H4 notices a difference in how data has helped streamline processes when
referring students for learning support,
“Ya and I agree with you on that the data side has definitely tidied up this is my XX year.
It has gone from there use to be days where we didn’t use data where you would have
some teachers who nominate half their classes for learning support and other teachers
would be if they nominated 1. So having the data tighten up is good. But I do agree it
has swung, the pendulum has almost gone too far the other way.”
While teachers understand and see the importance of collecting data on student learning, there is
a consistent perception that teachers collect a lot of data. “I think there is a time and place for
data. But we are almost on overkill. We need to input all data for every assessment” (Teacher
C5, Focus Group #3). Teacher D6 shares the number of assessments students must complete in
order for teachers to gather required data,
“All the testing we have done…MAP testing…RLA…MATH BOY [beginning of year]
assessment which took 2 days, BOY [beginning of year] writing assessment...took 2
days, first reading unit, 2 days...spelling, the inventory and the no excuse, the kids that
were pulled out for AIMSweb, Sunday, AMP, CTC…ERLA…Explorations…hours of
testing…this is only September 20.”
Teacher C1 questions the purpose of all the data gathered from assessments and the purpose of
inputting the data onto a spreadsheet. Teacher C3 adds,
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
93
“I think…we focus and concentrate on too much data rather than the end product. I don’t
think we need 7 sheets of data to know Johnny doesn’t know his alphabet. We have
it…we have some evidence…as a PLC team we don’t need to spend days and days
collecting data and reviewing data. At the end of the day we know where our kids
are…formative data for a practitioner is very important...the process is very important.”
A few teachers have shared the untapped potential of MAP scores. MAP scores can be analyzed
to provide insightful information to teachers for student learning. A few teachers have expressed
wanting to learn more about MAP scores but lacking the knowledge and time to do that.
Teacher H1 explains, “It’s funny. I think we are really good at collecting data but we
don’t do anything with the data. And I have a public school background where we
collected lots of data and sat and over analyzed data and over plugged people into
programs. Um and I think comparatively there is not really any real analysis of all and I
am also not sure how great like CTCs are super subjective. You and I don’t know if that
is really great data. And then we have the MAPs test which is not subjective, way more
objective but the MAPS test gives you so much data. But we had data day and nothing
came of it because we had no time to dig into.”
Teacher H5 wants to unpack the data from MAP scores but, “We don’t know how to look at it
and it goes down to time and that requires a little bit of training.” Teacher H4 notes,
“I do think that I could figure it out because I have used it in the past and dug a little
deeper but it takes time so I would need to take an hour or more of that time. I just
haven’t taken the time to dig deeper because it has not been on my priority list. The
priority list is with the next thing that I have to do to get done right. The lesson plans the
units the assessments the everything that we have to do.”
Teacher G3 shares her thoughts on data and data collection, “I think we are collecting so much
data all the time we just don’t have time to pause and look at the data. Look it over. Right now I
feel all I am doing is grading stuff and inputting stuff? Collecting data and inputting data into a
spreadsheet is a barrier when teachers do not have time to reflect on the data and dig deep to
understand what the data can tell about student’s learning. Trust issues, a transient population of
faculty and initiative overload are barriers to implementing the PLC process.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
94
Conclusion
The qualitative data collected from the focus group discussions revealed (a) teacher and
administrator perceptions in how the elementary division at PASA has implemented PLCs based
on DuFour’s three big ideas, (b) some promising practices high functioning PLCs have utilized
to promote team collaboration, and (c) barriers experienced by PLCs when implementing the
PLC process. There are a total of 10 themes that emerged from the study:
1. There is an alignment of belief in the mission and vision of PASA to the purpose PLCs
by faculty and administration.
2. The elementary school has implemented systems and structures to support the of the PLC
process.
3. There is a collaborative culture for the PLC process questions 1 to 4, collective inquiry as
a team.
4. Collective responsibility of student learning is still at its infancy stage.
5. PLCs are results oriented have clearly established SMART goals that align with the
elementary school’s strategic plan.
6. Instructional Assistants are a strong system of support for learning for both classroom
teachers and students.
7. Trust is a key to high performing PLCs.
8. There is a low level of trust in some PLCs.
9. There is a transient faculty because PASA is an international school.
10. There is an overwhelming number of initiatives that require the time of PLCs.
The first 5 themes that emerged revolve around how PLCs have been implemented in the
elementary division based on the 3 big ideas of PLCs. The two themes that emerged from the
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
95
data collected and analyzed for a focus on learning are (1) there is an alignment of mission,
vision to the purpose of PLCs, and (2) systems and structures have been implemented to support
the work of PLCs to improve student learning. There is a common understanding and belief
among teachers and administrators of the vision and mission of the school and how the mission
and vision of PASA aligns with the purpose of PLCs, to improve student learning. In addition,
The elementary school has created structures and systems to support the work of PLCs such as
time, structural format of collaborative teams, professional development and processes to
onboard new hires. Similar to PLC big idea one, a focus on learning, two themes emerged when
analyzing data collected from the PLC big idea two, a collaborative culture and collective
responsibility.
The two themes that emerged from a collaborative culture and collective responsibility
are (3) there is a collaborative culture within the elementary division, and (4) collective
responsibility of student learning is at its infancy stage. Collaborative teams have worked
together on the 4 PLC questions (a) What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?,
(b) How will we know when each student has learned it?, (c) How will we respond when some
students do not learn it?, and (d) How will we extend the learning for students who have
demonstrated proficiency? (p. 59). However, taking action and implementing questions 3 and 4
are still primarily the responsibility of the classroom teacher. The third and last PLC big idea is
results orientation.
One theme that emerged under the results orientation category is (5) SMART goals are
well established in the elementary division. PLCs establish a single SMART goal for each
collaborative team, the goal is common where all team members strive towards achieving the
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
96
same goal. Administrators monitor progress of established SMART goals by meeting with teams
three times throughout the year.
The following two themes that emerged from data collected center around promising
practices utilized for the PLC process. First, (6) instructional assistants (IAs) play a large role in
supporting student learning. Teachers teach differently when there is another adult in the
classroom. It is important that the school empower IAs in more teaching responsibilities and less
clerical responsibilities. Second, (7) without trust, the team cannot function well as a PLC. It is
important that the PLC members take time to get to know one another and build meaningful
relationships. Through deep relationships, trust can be gradually built. When trust is in tact,
teams can engage in healthy conflict; however it is the responsibility of each team member to
voice opinions in order to engage in deep conversations about student learning.
Three themes emerged in analyzing data collected for barriers and hindrances to the PLC
process. First, (8) there is a low level of trust in some PLCs. The low level of trust has led to a
lack of healthy conflict and a fear of being vulnerable and asking for help in improving student
learning. Second, (9) the faculty population at PASA is transient. As a result of the transient
population, it is difficult to build trust with a revolving door of team members on PLCs. Third,
(10) there are too many initiatives competing for PLC time. As result, some PLCs have engaged
in PLC Lite and have not been able to find time to reflect on student learning data. In chapter
five there will be a summary of themes, implications for practice and recommendations for
future research.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
97
CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study was to understand how professional learning communities
(PLCs) have been implemented at the elementary division at the Progressive Academy of
Southeast Asia (PASA), an international school that subscribes to an American curriculum. The
context of the study was the elementary school division of the Progressive Academy of Southeast
Asia, a Preschool to 12 private international school located in Southeast Asia, where engaging in
the PLC process in collaborative teams is an expectation for all faculty. While the school has
devoted much time, resources, and manpower to the implementation and development of PLCs,
there is limited understanding in (1) how PLCs have been implemented at PASA, (2) promising
practices high functioning PLCs have utilized to promote team collaboration, and (3) barriers
experienced by PLCs that have hindered team collaboration.
This qualitative study used a case study approach to collect data by conducting focus
groups from the faculty of the elementary division at PASA, Kindergarten to Grade 5. A
purposeful sample of 49 faculty and administrators participated in 8 focus group discussions.
The focus group discussions were recorded, transcribed and coded according the following
categories:
● A focus on learning;
● A collaborative culture and collective responsibility;
● A results orientation;
● Promising practices; and
● Barriers.
This chapter will share a summary of findings, implications for practice and recommendations
for future research.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
98
Summary of Findings
An analysis of data collected from the focus group provides an understanding of teacher
and administrator perceptions of how PLCs have been implemented in the elementary division
based on DuFour’s three big ideas. In addition, the qualitative data also sheds light on some
promising practices high functioning PLCs have utilized to promote team collaboration and some
barriers experienced by PLCs when implementing the PLC process. From the data analysis, 10
themes emerged regarding the implementation of PLCs at PASA:
1. There is an alignment of belief in the mission and vision of PASA to the purpose PLCs
by faculty and administration. The alignment of the mission and vision of the school and
the purpose of PLCs drives the work of the faculty and administration of the elementary
division.
2. The elementary school has implemented systems and structures to support the work of
the PLC process. The school has created a schedule where teachers are able to meet as a
PLC twice a week for an extended period of time during the school day to engage in the
PLC process. For grade level (K to 5), there are two PLC structures. The large PLC
which consists of the entire collaborative team. The primary responsibility of the large
PLC is to focus on questions 1 and 2 of the PLC process. The small PLCs, generally
consisting of three to four teachers per small PLC focus on questions 3 and 4 of the PLC
process.
3. There is a collaborative culture for the PLC process, questions 1 to 4, collective inquiry
as a team. Teachers have worked together to unpack standards, identify power standards,
create common formative assessments and determine proficiency mastery for standards.
This has been a collaborative process.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
99
4. Collective responsibility of student learning is still at its infancy stage. While teachers
have engaged in the PLC process collaboratively, individual classroom teachers continue
to be considered as the primary person responsible for the learning of the students in each
class. The enrolling classroom teacher is the one responsible for the learning of the 22
students.
5. PLCs at PASA are results oriented. PLCs in the elementary division have clearly
established SMART goals that align with the division’s strategic plan. Each PLC has to
engaged in the PLC process for either reading, writing or math. This process will
continue until all three subject areas have been addressed.
6. Instructional Assistants are a strong system of support for learning for both classroom
teachers and students. Instructional assistants are second teachers in the classroom.
Teachers structure the day differently with the support of an instructional assistant.
Instructional assistants provide support for student learning.
7. Trust is a key to high performing PLCs. Building relationships is foundational to being a
cohesive team. When relationships are established, trust is cultivated. Healthy conflict
and deep discussions are able to take place when trust is in tact. It is the responsibility of
each team speak up and voice thoughts and opinions during discussions.
8. There are differing levels of trust on some PLCs. In PLCs where there is a lower level of
trust, people are reluctant to speak in an open and honest manner. Sharing of student data
when levels of trust are not high can be challenging.
9. There is a transient faculty because PASA is an international school. The high teacher
turnover rate has made it difficult to build trust in PLCs. In addition, as a result of the
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
100
high turnover rate, collaborative teams have had to invest more time focusing on
questions 1 and 2 of the PLC process for new hires.
10. There is an overwhelming number of initiatives that require the time of PLCs. The new
initiatives are competing for PLC meeting times. Time set aside for the PLC process has
been taken by competing initiatives; there has been less collaborative time spent on
looking at student learning as result of competing initiatives. There is not enough time
for teachers to dig deep and reflect on data collected of student learning.
The first theme demonstrates there is a common understanding and belief among teachers
and administrators of the vision and mission of the school and how the mission and vision of
PASA align with the purpose of PLCs, to improve student learning. DuFour et al., (2016) states,
the primary purpose of PLCs is to focus on learning and to “ensure all student can learn at high
levels.” (p. 11). As a result of PLCs, teachers will be able to improve teaching and increase
student learning (DuFour & Marzano, 2011). Therefore, teachers much engage in the PLC
process that asks the following questions as noted by DuFour and Marzano (2011):
a. What is it we want our students to know?
b. How will we know if our students are learning?
c. How will we respond when student do not learn?
d. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are proficient? (p.
23)
PLCs are one of the top 5 priorities in the PASA Strategic plan. The school believes
PLCs are vital to the composition of PASA as a learning organization. By having PLCs in the
school-wide strategic plan and in the elementary school strategic plan, the school has clearly
communicated the importance of PLCs to all stakeholders.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
101
The second theme demonstrates systems and structures have been implemented to
support the work of PLCs to improve student learning. DuFour and Marzano (2011) clearly
state, in order to build “a collaborative culture through high-performing teams schools will
ensure that collaborative teams are given time during the contractual day and year to meet on a
regular basis.” The school has created time within the work day for collaborative teams to work
and engage in the PLC process. Teachers do not need to meet outside of the work day to focus
on student learning. This is significant because not having time for teachers to meet
collaboratively within the work day could have been a potential roadblock and could have foiled
the school’s plan in implementing PLCs during its early stages of implementation. In addition
to providing time for teams to meet during the day, the school recognizes some grade level PLCs
are very large in composition, over 20 people per team. The school has created a system where
the large PLC is divided into a few smaller PLCs. The smaller PLCs consists of a PLC leader
and 3 to 4 teachers. The school also has established structures on how to onboard new hires with
a mentor and mentee system. And the school has provided and continues to provide multiple
forms of professional development for faculty and staff on the PLC process.
The third and fourth findings are related to collaborative culture and collective
responsibility. The third theme asserts there is a collaborative culture in the PLCs at PASA.
DuFour et al. (2016), explain that collaboration can only take place when teachers engage in the
“right work” and the right work “help more students achieve at higher levels” (p. 59). The right
work is the PLC process, the four questions. Collaborative teams as a PLC at the elementary
division have worked together on the 4 PLC questions (a) What is it we want our students to
know and be able to do?, (b) How will we know when each student has learned it?, (c) How will
we respond when some students do not learn it?, and (d) How will we extend the learning for
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
102
students who have demonstrated proficiency? (p. 59). The fourth theme sheds light on the fact
that there is a shared commitment to PLCs and there has been collaboration in answering the 4
PLC questions; however collective responsibility for students has yet to fully take root. Taking
action and implementing questions 3 and 4 are still the primary responsibility of the classroom
teacher.
The fifth theme claims PLCs at PASA are results oriented. As noted by DuFour and
Marzano (2011), if the goal of the PLCs is to improve student learning then PLCs must share the
same goal, thus SMART goals. Teams need to set a common goal and immediately work on
achieving the goal in respective classrooms (DuFour & Marzano, 2011; Gallimore, Ermeling,
Saunders & Goldenberg, 2009). SMART goals are well established in the elementary division.
PLCs establish a single SMART goal for each team, the goal is a common one where all team
members strive towards achieving the same goal. Administrators monitor progress of
established SMART goals by meeting with teams three times throughout the year.
The sixth theme asserts instructional assistants (IAs) play a large role in supporting
student learning. Teachers teach differently when there is another adult to support students in the
classroom. In a class of 22 students, it can be difficult to provide timely and frequent feedback
to all students by a single teacher. However, it is well documented that timely and frequent
feedback is key to effective learning (Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett & Norman, 2010).
Very often instructional assistants are seen as a second teacher in the classroom by teachers and
parents. Instructional assistants play a pivotal role in student learning and providing tier 2
learning support for some students.
The seventh theme uncovers the importance of trust. Trust is something that needs to be
cultivated over time. High functioning PLCs that engage in healthy conflict have high levels of
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
103
vulnerability-based trust. In vulnerability-based trust team members recognize individual
shortcomings, failures and areas that require assistance; members see the strength of other team
members and draw on each other’s strengths (Lencioni, 2012; DuFour at al, 2016;). In order to
cultivate trust, team members need to take the time to build relationships. In addition, the way
members behave in meetings help build trust. Each team member is responsible for building a
cohesive and trusting team; one of the key responsibilities is to voice one’s opinions. Members
owe it to the team to speak up when there is ideological conflict; it is the responsibility of each
team member voice opinions in order to engage in deep conversations about student learning.
The eighth theme claims there is a lower level of trust on some PLCs. Lencioni (2012)
posits, the most important foundation to building a high functioning team is trust. When there is
a low level of trust, there is higher level of fear which leads to avoidance of productive conflict
(Lencioni, 2012). As a result, “teams prefer artificial harmony to insightful inquiry and
advocacy” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 71). The low level of trust has led to a reluctance of sharing
data to colleagues and exposing oneself in fear of judgement. The fear of being vulnerable
reduces the likelihood of reaching out to team members for help to improve student learning.
The ninth theme asserts there is a transient teacher population and as a result; it has been
difficult to cultivate trust and build relationships for some PLCs. Trust is cultivated through
time; through action (Covery, 2006). In some grade levels half of the team consists of new
members. The lack of stability of team members has slowed down the work of some PLCs.
With so many new members on the team, teams have had to constantly review questions 1 and 2
formally. As a result time has been taken away for questions 3 and 4.
The tenth theme emphasizes that there are too many initiatives competing for PLC time.
Teachers consistently shared there are too many things going on competing for their time and
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
104
PLC time. When there is a focus on everything, there really is no focus (Reeves, 2016). Other
things that are not part of the PLC process have used precious PLC meeting time and as a result
PLC lite has taken place in some PLCs. In addition, as a result of competing initiatives that take
up PLC meeting time, teachers have not been able to find time to pause and reflect on data which
is a key part to the PLC process and student learning.
Implications
This study focused on how PLCs have been implemented, promising practices utilized by
high performing PLCs and barriers experienced by PLCs while engaging in the PLC process. It
is evident that the school has provided much time, effort and support to faculty to engage in the
PLC process. The school has and continues to view PLCs as an important unifying concept in
improving student learning and providing job-embedded professional development for faculty.
Therefore, in order to continue to refine and improve on the PLC process, the school should take
note of the following implications derived from the themes that emerged (a) empowering
instructional assistants with more responsibilities that support student learning and less clerical
work; (b) continue to cultivate collective responsibility for student learning; (c) action steps need
to be established to increase levels of trust on some teams; and, (d) action steps need to be
established to prioritize and focus initiatives.
Instructional assistants. Timely and frequent feedback where students are able to
practice and implement changes based on feedback creates an environment for effective learning
(Ambrose, Bridges, DiPietro, Lovett & Norman, 2010). Teachers are well aware of the
importance of providing targeted instruction and feedback to students to improve and extend
learning. However, it is difficult for teachers to reach all students all the time. In a typical
elementary classroom, the ratio is 1 teacher to 22 students. It is difficult to provide for targeted
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
105
small group instruction when there is only 1 teacher in the classroom. Traditionally, the primary
responsibility of instructional assistants were more clerical and less supporting student learning.
Over the years the responsibility of instructional assistants have changed. A recommendation of
practice is to empower instructional assistants with more responsibilities that support student
learning and less clerical work. In addition, it is recommended that the school provide relevant
professional training from qualified experts on topics that support student learning. It is also
recommended that all enrolling classroom teachers (Preschool to Grade 5) be assigned a full time
instructional assistant.
SMART goal. The school has created a collaborative culture where teachers have
worked together to engage in the PLC process for the 4 PLC questions; however collective
responsibility for students has yet to fully take root. Responsibility continues to be that of the
classroom teacher for taking actions in responding to questions 3 (How will we respond when
some students do not learn it?) and question 4 (How will we extend the learning for students who
have demonstrated proficiency?). As noted by DuFour and Marzano (2011), teams need to set
the same student learning goals and take action in taking steps in working towards that same goal
of improving student learning. It is recommended that all members who are part of the grade
level PLC partake in establishing the same SMART goal. Currently, members who are not
classroom teachers such as counselors, librarians, coaches, and learning support teachers are part
of grade level PLCs. However these members each have a SMART goal that is different from
the grade level PLC SMART goal. Grade level PLC SMART goals are results oriented to
student learning. SMART goals that are not tied to grade level PLC SMART goals may not
always involve student learning. It is noted, without a common goal for everyone, all hands on
deck, PLC discussions will be shallow and without deep commitment by members to increase
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
106
student learning (DuFour et al, 2016; Gallimore, Ermeling, Saunders & Goldenberg, 2009).
Through deep commitment to collective responsibility, taking action and implementing questions
3 and 4 will no longer be the responsibility of just the classroom teacher.
Trust. DuFour et al. (2016) clearly state, without trust, more importantly, vulnerability-
based trust, “some teachers would prefer not to know their strengths and weakness in relation to
their colleagues’ because it is not worth the risk of being exposed and vulnerable” (p. 71). The
absence of trust is fear which creates a dominoes effect where there is an avoidance of healthy
ideological conflict which is a cornerstone to the PLC process. Therefore it is recommended that
expertise and guidance be provided by a neutral person in creating an action plan in helping
PLCs build trust horizontally (within the team) and vertically (between administration and the
team). It is only after high levels of trust have been established can PLCs move forward in
engaging in meaningful work, the PLC process.
Prioritize. When teachers and PLCs are juggling too many things at time; there is a risk
of infringing on PLC time. When PLC time is infringed and not used for the PLC process there
is a danger of engaging in PLC lite (Reeves, 2016). PLC lite is not focused on student learning
and is not action oriented. Teachers do not have time to pause and reflect deeply on student data
and evidence of learning. Looking at evidence of learning to determine how to provide
intervention and extension is at the heart of the PLC process. Therefore, the final
recommendation is for the school to establish an action plan to prioritize the multiple initiatives
that teachers are constantly confronted with on a day to day basis. In addition, school leaders
will define and communicate clearly priority and non-priority initiatives to faculty and staff.
Non-priority initiatives are not to be focused on during PLC meetings. This means, precious
PLC inquiry time is reserved strictly for PLC work, to improve student learning.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
107
Recommendations for Future Research
This study focused on the perspective of grade level PLCs (kindergarten to grade 5),
faculty that work directly with the core curriculums for reading, writing and math and the
elementary division leadership team on the implementation of the PLC process. An analysis of
the data identified that specialist teachers such as English Language Learner, PE, art and music
teachers are also key players in supporting student learning. However, specialist teachers were
not part of the focus group discussions that were conducted for this study. Therefore, it is
suggested to conduct a study to understand how PLCs have been implemented for specialist
teachers. It would also be insightful to conduct a study that included teachers from the Early
Learning Center (ELC). In addition, PLCs have been implemented school wide across all
divisions high school, middle school and elementary school. It is suggested that studies be
conducted to understand how PLCs have been implemented across all divisions with the school.
Conclusion
Throughout the history of education, leaders and governments have sought ways to
improve student learning. Schools throughout time continue to struggle to meet the diverse
learning needs of students (DuFour et al., 2016). PLCs have been identified as a promising
practice that can increase teacher capacity to improve student achievement and address issues of
teacher attrition and burnout (Reeves, 2016; Battersby & Verdi, 2013; Marzano & DuFour, 2011;
Fullan 2010, Senge, 2006; Morrissey, 2000; Hord, 1997). Educational research has provided a
wealth of information on how to implement the PLC process successfully in schools. Putting the
research into action, improving student achievement and ensuring all students learn at higher
levels, is paramount to the future of education.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
108
This study examined how PLCs have been implemented in the elementary division;
seeking to understand promising practices utilized by high functioning PLCs and barriers
experienced by PLCs that hindered the PLC process. Overall, the implementation of PLCs at
PASA has been positive and this is evident in the amount of teacher support provided by the
school in systems and structures, policies and professional development. There is a clear
understanding of the school’s mission and how the mission aligns with the purpose of PLCs by
faculty. The school has invested much time and effort in providing professional development on
the PLC process and how to use the PLC process to improve student learning. PLCs throughout
the elementary division have engaged in the PLC process and have collectively examined the
four PLC questions. In addition, the elementary school is results oriented and each PLC within
the division has successfully established clear SMART goals every year. The school continues
to place an emphasis on the importance of the PLC process as demonstrated by the school’s
strategic plan and top 5 priorities. PASA is a well funded, well resourced school with highly
qualified teachers with well established systems and structures to support the implementation of
PLCs. Further research is recommended to better understand the nuances that are vital in
successful implementation of the PLC process that increase student learning.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
109
References
Ainsworth, L. (2013). Prioritizing the common core: Identifying specific standards to emphasize
the most. Englewood, Colorado: Lead Learn Press.
Akiba, M., & Liang, G. (2016). Effects of teacher professional learning activities on student
achievement growth. The Journal of Educational Research, 109(1), 99-110.
Althauser, K. (2015). Job-embedded professional development: Its impact on teacher self-
efficacy and student performance. Teacher Development, 19(2), 210-225.
Ambrose, S. A., Bridges, M. W., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M. C., & Norman, M. K. (2010). How
learning works: Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. San Francisco,
California:John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Macmillan.
Banerjee, N., Stearns, E., Moller, S., & Mickelson, R. A. (2017). Teacher job satisfaction and
student achievement: The roles of teacher professional community and teacher collaboration
in schools. American Journal of Education, 123(2), 000-000.
Barber, M., Mourshed, M., & Whelan, F. (2007). Improving education in the gulf. The McKinsey
Quarterly, 3947
Battersby, S. L., & Verdi, B. (2015). The culture of professional learning communities and
connections to improve teacher efficacy and support student learning. Arts Education Policy
Review, 116(1), 22-29.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
110
Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M., Greenwood, A., & Smith, M.
(2005). Creating and sustaining effective professional learning communities. Bristol:
University of Bristol y Departament of Education and Skills.
Brown, L. A., & Roloff, M. E. (2011). Extra-role time, burnout, and commitment: The power of
promises kept. Business Communication Quarterly, 74(4), 450-474.
Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2012). Simplifying response to intervention: Four
essential guiding principles. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Camera, L. (2016). Achievement gap between black and white students still gaping. Retrieved
from https://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2016/01/13/achievement-gap-
between-white-and-black-students-still-gaping
Carver-Thomas, D., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2017). Addressing California’s growing teacher
shortage.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. IAP.
Colton, A. B., Langer, G. M., & Goff, L. S. (2015). Create a safe space to learn. Journal of Staff
Development, 36(3), 40-45.
Covey, S. M. (2006). The speed of trust: The one thing that changes everything. Simon and
Schuster.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
111
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Sage publications.
Cuban, L. (2010). Larry cuban on school reform and classroom practice
professional learning communities: A popular reform of little consequence. Retrieved
from https://larrycuban.wordpress.com/2010/10/06/professional-learning-communities-a-
popular-reform-of-little-consequence/
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world, educational inequality, and america's future. The
flat world and education. How america's commitment to equity will determine our future,1-
26. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Darling‐Hammond, L. (2007). Race, inequality and educational accountability: The irony of ‘No
child left behind’. Race Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 245-260.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Sykes, G. (2003). Wanted, A national teacher supply policy for
education:The right way to meet the "highly qualified teacher" challenge. Education Policy
Analysis Archives, 11, 33. doi:10.14507/epaa.v11n33.2003
Deutsch, M. (1993). Educating for a peaceful world. American Psychologist, 48(5), 510.
Doran, G. T. (1981). There’sa SMART way to write management’s goals and
objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a" professional learning community"? Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6-11.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
112
DuFour, R. (2015). How PLCs do data right. Educational Leadership, 73(3), 22-26.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing: A
handbook for professional learning communities at work (3rd ed.). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree,
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2015). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2015). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Mattos, M. (2013). Improve schools? Educational Leadership, 70(7), 34-39
DuFour, R., & Reeves, D. (2016). The futility of PLC lite. Phi Delta Kappan, 97(6), 69-71.
Education, A. (2006). Professional learning communities: An exploration. InPraxis Group Inc,
1-80.
Elmore, R. F. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: The imperative for
professional development in education. Secondary Lenses on Learning Participant Book:
Team Leadership for Mathematics in Middle and High Schools, 313-344.
Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burn‐out. Journal of Social Issues, 30(1), 159-165.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
113
Friedman, I. A. (1991). High and low-burnout schools: School culture aspects of teacher
burnout. The Journal of Educational Research, 84(6), 325-333.
Fullan, M. (2005). The tri-level solution. Education Analyst-Society for the Advancement of
Excellence in Education.
Fullan, M. (2010). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Corwin
Press.
Fullan, M. (2011). Change leader: Learning to do what matters most. John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M., & Quinn, J. (2016). Coherence. The Right Drivers in Action for Schools, Districts,
and Systems. Corwin Press.
Fullan, M., Rincón-Gallardo, S., & Hargreaves, A. (2015). Professional capital as
accountability. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 23(15), 1-22.
Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From
good teachers to great teaching. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.
Gallimore, R., Ermeling, B. A., Saunders, W. M., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). Moving the learning
of teaching closer to practice: Teacher education implications of school-based inquiry
teams. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 537-553.
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y.W., Baker, W., Campbell, A., & Crosby, E.A. (1983). A nation at risk:
imperative for educational reform 65. United States Department of Education.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
114
Hanushek, E. A. (2016). What matters for student achievement. Education Next, 16(2), March
12, 2016.
Hattie, J. (2015). What works best in education: The politics of collaborative expertise. Open
Ideas at Pearson. Pearson, London.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800 meta-analyses on achievement. Abingdon:
Routledge.
Helman, L., & Rosheim, K. (2016). The role of professional learning communities in successful
response to intervention implementation. Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 89-101)
Springer.
Hoffman, P., Dahlman, A., & Zierdt, G. (2009). Professional learning communities in
partnership: A 3-year journey of action and advocacy to bridge the achievement
gap. School-University Partnerships, 3(1), 28-42.
Hord, S. M. (2009). Professional learning communities: Educators work together toward a shared
purpose. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1), 40-43.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational
analysis. American educational research journal, 38(3), 499-534.
Ingersoll, R. M., & Smith, T. M. (2003). The wrong solution to the teacher shortage. Educational
leadership, 60(8), 30-33.
Jackson, S. E., & Maslach, C. (1982). After‐effects of job‐related stress: Families as
victims. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 3(1), 63-77.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
115
Jäppinen, A., Leclerc, M., & Tubin, D. (2016). Collaborativeness as the core of professional
learning communities beyond culture and context: Evidence from canada, finland, and
israel. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 27(3), 315-332.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T.An overview of cooperative learning. Retrieved
from http://www.co-operation.org/what-is-cooperative-learning/
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social
interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
Jones, M. G., Gardner, G. E., Robertson, L., & Robert, S. (2013). Science professional learning
communities: Beyond a singular view of teacher professional development. International
Journal of Science Education, 35(10), 1756-1774.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick's four levels of training evaluation.
Association for Talent Development.
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change (new ed.). Boston: Harvard Business Review.
Kramer, S. V. (2015). How to leverage PLCs for school improvement. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Latifoglu, A. (2016, January 27). I quit: Why do so many young teachers abandon the
profession?. Retrieved
from http://www.refworks.com/refworks2/default.aspx?r=references; MainLayout::init#Zt-
pN8ieEFih_OQxMP44; start
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
116
Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the
equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 128-
150.
Lencioni, P. (2006). The five dysfunctions of a team. John Wiley & Sons.
Lencioni, P. M. (2012). The advantage, enhanced edition: Why organizational health trumps
everything else in business. John Wiley & Sons.
Lickona, T., & Davidson, M. (2005). Smart & good high schools: Integrating excellence and
ethics for success in school, work, and beyond: a report to the nation. Character Education
Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in
restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757-798.
Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. ASCD.
Marzano, R. J. (2006). Classroom assessment & grading that work. ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Heflebower, T., Hoegh, J. K., Warrick, P., Grift, G., Hecker, L., . . . Wills, J.
(2016). Collaborative teams that transform schools the next step IN PLCS. Bloomington,
IN: Marzano Research.
Marzano, R. J., & Kendall, J. S. (1998). Awash in a sea of standards. Aurora, CO: Mid-
Continent Research for Education and Learning.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2008). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Solution Tree Press.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
117
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., 1948, McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach. Sage.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Markow, D., Macia, L., & Lee, H (2013). The met life survey of american teachers: Challenges
for school leadership. New York, NY: Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.
Mintzes, J. J., Marcum, B., Messerschmidt-Yates, C., & Mark, A. (2013). Enhancing self-
efficacy in elementary science teaching with professional learning communities. Journal of
Science Teacher Education, 24(7), 1201-1218.
Mirel, J., & Goldin, S. (2012). Alone in the classroom: Why teachers are too isolated. The
Atlantic. 17.
Morrissey, M. S. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration.
Newman, F., & Wehlage, G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and
educators by the center on organization and restructuring of schools. Alexandria, VA:
Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
118
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results in
focus. (Annual Survey Report). Secretary-General of the OECD.
Owen, S. M. (2015). Teacher professional learning communities in innovative contexts:‘ah hah
moments’,‘passion’and ‘making a difference’for student learning. Professional
Development in Education, 41(1), 57-74.
Pines, A., & Maslach, C. (1980). Combatting staff burn-out in a day care center: A case
study. Child Care Quarterly, 9(1), 5-16.
Popham, W. J. (2013). Tough teacher evaluation and formative assessment: Oil and
water? Voices from the Middle, 21(2), 10.
Ramaley, J. A. (2002). Moving mountains: Institutional culture and transformational change. In
R. Diamond (Ed.), A field Guide to Academic Leadership 59-74. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Ravitch, D. (2010). Why I changed my mind. The Nation, 27.
Reeves, D. (2016). From leading to succeeding. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Reeves, D. B. (2006). The learning leader: How to focus school improvement for better results.
ASCD.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. Addison-
Wesley Longman Ltd.
PASA elementary school directory 2016 to 2017 (2016).
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
119
PASA grade level data spreadsheets. (2013; 2014; 2015; 2016). Unpublished manuscript.
PASA strategic focus. Retrieved from https://www.pasa.edu.sg/page.cfm?p=357
Schoolteacher: A sociological study dan C. lortie. (1975). The American Biology Teacher, 37(9),
547-548. doi:10.2307/4445421
Schwarzer, R., & Hallum, S. (2008). Perceived teacher self‐efficacy as a predictor of job stress
and burnout: Mediation analyses. Applied Psychology, 57(s1), 152-171.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practices of the learning organization (2006th
ed.). Currency, New York: Crown Publishing Group.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Crown Publishing Group.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., & Dutton, J. (2012). Schools that
learn (updated and revised): A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and
everyone who cares about education. Crown Publishing Group.
Shanks, T., Andre, C., Velasquez, M., & Meyer, M. J. (2010). What is ethics?
Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2016). Teacher stress and teacher self-efficacy as predictors of
engagement, emotional exhaustion, and motivation to leave the teaching
profession. Creative Education, 7(13), 1785.
Sparks, S. K., & Many, T. W. (2015). How to cultivate collaboration in a PLC. Solution Tree
Press.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
120
Stiggins, R. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in
standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87(4), 324-328.
Tagg, J. (2012). Why does the faculty resist change? Change: The Magazine of Higher
Learning, 44(1), 6-15.
Talbert, J. E. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems hinder
or engender change. Second international handbook of educational change, 555-571
Venables, D. R. (2014). How teachers can turn data into action. ASCD.
Visscher, A., & Witziers, B. (2004). Subject departments as professional communities? British
Educational Research Journal, 30(6), 785-800.
Wagner, T. (2014). The global achievement gap: Updated edition. Perseus Books Group.
Welcome to singapore american school. Retrieved
from https://www.pasa.edu.sg/page.cfm?p=349
Westervelt, E. (2016). Frustration. Burnout. Attrition. It's time to address the national teacher
shortage
Retrieved from http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/09/15/493808213/frustration-burnout-
attrition-its-time-to-address-the-national-teacher-shortage
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
121
Appendix A
Focus Group Discussion Guide
Interview Guide on Implementation of PLCs at PASA
Hello ________________________,
Thank you for agreeing to participate in this focus group discussion. I value your
thoughts and views. Information gathered today is part of my dissertation research, and will
contribute to my understanding of the implementation of PLCs at PASA within the elementary
division.
There are four parts to this focus group interview. The first part will focus on your
perceptions on to what extent PLCs within the elementary division have been implemented
according to DuFour’s PLCs at Work framework. The second part will focus on promising
practices you have experienced while implementing PLCs. The third part will focus on barriers
experienced when implementing PLCs at Work at PASA. And the last part will focus on any
insights you have for implementing PLCs in the future.
Would it be ok if I recorded our session? The recording will only be used for research
purposes. As mentioned in my e-mail, I will not use your real name; I will use pseudonyms to
provide anonymity. (If the participant does not agree to be recorded I will take notes on my
computer). I understand you do not want to be recorded. Please be patient with me, I will be
taking detailed notes and will take some time. I want to represent you accurately through your
words and not my interpretation of your words. I am going to begin by asking you some
questions about your perceptions of the implementation of PLCs.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
122
Part I Research Question 1: How has the elementary school at PASA implemented the PLCs at
Work Framework?
Communication on Purpose of School
1. How has PASA established purpose and priorities that align with the school’s mission
and vision?
2. Does the school have systems and structures in place to implement and monitor action
steps to support purpose of PLCs?
Laying Foundation: Sense of Collective Purpose
3. What do you see as the core purpose of the school?
4. Do you feel there is a shared understanding to what the school is attempting to create a
result of PLCs?
5. Do you feel there is a shared commitment to what the school is attempting to create as a
result of PLCs?
6. Do you feel the school has established goals to achieve the purpose of PASA as a PLC
school?
Building a Collaborative Culture
Collaborative Team Structures
7. How has the school provided time for routine collaboration?
8. How has the school provided a common understanding the four driving questions behind
PLCs?
• What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?
• How will we know if each student has learned it?
• How will we respond when some students do not learn it?
• How will we extend the learning for students who have demonstrated proficiency?
(DuFour et al., 2016, p. 59)
9. How has collaborative teamwork been monitored and supported by administration?
Collaborative Culture
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
123
10. How have grade level PLCs created norms?
11. How have grade level PLCs enforced norms?
School Improvement to Drive Team Goals
12. How did PLCs establish SMART goals?
Clarifying What Students Must Learn
13. How have teams established a guaranteed and viable curriculum?
Turning Data into Information
Use Data to Improve Instructional Practices
14. How do PLCs use data to improve instruction?
15. How do PLCs use data to monitor student learning?
Systematic Interventions and Extensions
16. How do your PLCs provide systematic intervention for students who don’t meet learning
targets?
17. How do PLCs provide extension for students who have already reached levels of
proficiency?
Employment of Staff
18. How are new hires selected at PASA?
19. What is the role of PLC members when a new member joins the team?
20. How do administration support career enrichment opportunities for veteran teachers (over
10 years of experience)?
Responding to Conflict
21. How does your PLC respond to conflict?
Implementing the PLC Process District Wide
22. How does the administrative (superintendent, deputy superintendent, office of learning
and divisional principals) team support the work of PLCs?
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
124
Part II
Research Question #2: What are some promising practices PLCs utilize in order to promote team
collaboration and productivity?
1. What are some practices that helped promote collaboration among team members?
2. What are some practices that helped guide the implementation process? Made the
process easier to implement?
Part III
Research Question #3: What are some barriers to implementing PLCs?
3. What are some roadblocks that you have experienced that have prevented PLCs from
collaborating or doing PLC work?
4. Was it difficult implementing PLCs at PASA? Why?
Part IV: Other
5. What advice would you give to schools beginning their PLC journey?
6. Anything else you would like to share regarding the implementation and development of
PLCs at PASA?
This concludes the focus group interview. Thank you for your participation.
IMPLEMENTATION OF PLCS AT PASA
125
Appendix B
Request for Participation E-mail
Dear__________________________,
I am writing to request your participation in a research study that seeks to understand how PLCs
have been implemented within the elementary division at PASA. This work is part of my
dissertation research to meet the requirements of the USC EdD program here at PASA in which I
am enrolled. Participation in this research is voluntary. You may decline participation at any
time throughout the study. The research questions for this study are the following:
1. How has the elementary division at PASA implemented the PLCs at Work framework?
2. What are some promising practices PLCs utilize in order to promote team
collaboration and productivity?
3. What are some barriers experienced by PLCs?
For the purpose of this research I am requesting that you participate in a focus group. The focus
group session will last approximately 90 minutes and will occur on PASA school grounds. Any
information I obtain from the interview will be used for research purposes only. You will remain
anonymous; information gathered may be used in my reporting. I will not use your name;
instead a pseudonym will be used.
If you have questions regarding this study please feel free to contact me, or my committee chair,
Larry Picus, at lpicus@rossier.usc.edu.
Thank you for your support.
Sincerely,
Lisa Wan
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
There is a large body of research that suggests the concept of a professional learning community (PLC) can promote improved student learning by increasing collective teacher capacity to meet the diverse learning needs of students (Reeves, 2016
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...
PDF
The impact of professional learning community on teacher learning and student achievement: a qualitative approach
PDF
Considerations for personalized professional learning at International Academy of South East Asia: a gap analysis
PDF
Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California
PDF
Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study
PDF
Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school
PDF
Elementary school principals' impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California
PDF
Middle school principals’ impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California
PDF
Application of professional learning outcomes into the classroom: an evaluation study
PDF
Implementation of the PLC coaching model at American Community School
PDF
Improving professional learning for teachers
PDF
Approaches to teaching for twenty-first century learners in South Korea: An evaluation study of GSS
PDF
How does working in an ILE at ISSA influence teacher practice?
PDF
Implementation of a Reggio inspired approach at the progressive academy of Southeast Asia's Early Childhood Center
PDF
Strategies for inclusion of students with autism: an online professional learning curriculum for general education teachers
PDF
Authentic professional learning: a case study
PDF
Sustainable intervention for learning gaps in middle school mathematics: a gap analysis
PDF
Examining the learning environments of urban high school educators who are culturally aware and serve a majority of students from historically marginalized populations
PDF
Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California
PDF
The relationship between teacher planning, classroom environment, instruction, reflection, and professional responsibilities and teacher retention
Asset Metadata
Creator
Wan, Lisa Chi Yan
(author)
Core Title
Implementation of professional learning communities at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
02/27/2018
Defense Date
12/01/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
collaboration,OAI-PMH Harvest,PLCs,professional learning communities,teacher teams
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Picus, Larry (
committee chair
), Chung, Ruth (
committee member
), Reeves, Douglas (
committee member
)
Creator Email
cylisawan@gmail.com,lisawan@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-479536
Unique identifier
UC11268392
Identifier
etd-WanLisaChi-6068.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-479536 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WanLisaChi-6068.pdf
Dmrecord
479536
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Wan, Lisa Chi Yan
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
collaboration
PLCs
professional learning communities
teacher teams