University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California

(USC Thesis Other)

Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES: THE ROLE OF SITE AND
DISTRICT LEADERS IN DEVELOPING COLLECTIVE EFFICACY IN PUBLIC
SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

by

Laura Rivas, Gilbert Rodriguez, Ixchel Sanchez, and Cari White

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, 2019

Copyright 2019 Laura Rivas, Gilbert Rodriguez, Ixchel Sanchez, and Cari White
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 2

Acknowledgments
It is with great pleasure that I thank the many people who guided and supported me on
this journey. I begin by acknowledging my dissertation chair, Dr. Castruita, his leadership,
insight, and support have been invaluable; thank you for guiding me through this process. I also
thank Dr. Cash and Dr. Roach for serving on our committee and being amazing leaders who
motivated me every step of the way. I thank the Rossier School of Education and its professors
who inspired me to learn and continue to grow academically. A special thank you to Dr. Briana
Hinga whose passion for education came through every day in her class; the growth I made in
this program would not have been possible without Dr. Hinga. It is because of her dedication,
commitment, and encouragement that allowed me to fulfill my dream of completing the doctoral
program.
I would like to recognize and celebrate my dissertation group, they empowered me with
their constant support, encouragement, and sense of humor. It is with gratitude and appreciation
that I embarked on this journey with three astounding leaders who were my relentless champions
that pushed and pulled me through this arduous process. I miss our many car trips where we
laughed, debated, grew as leaders, solved each other’s problems, and on occasion feared if we
would arrive safely. Thank you for lifting me up each time I fell down.
This journey would not have been possible without the endless love and encouragement
of my best friend and my love. It is because of his unconditional love, understanding, devotion,
and unwavering belief in my ability to achieve this doctoral goal that helped me through each
day. Thank you to my family and friends for standing by me through every endeavor I tackled
and providing me with the support and love necessary to accomplish my goals. I thank all of you
for making my dream of obtaining a doctorate a reality.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 3

Table of Contents
List of Tables 5
List of Figures 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 11
Statement of the Problem 13
Purpose of the Study 14
Research Questions 14
Significance of the Study 15
Limitations and Delimitations 16
Definition of Terms 16
Organization of the Study 17
Chapter Two: Literature Review 19
Introduction to the Topic 19
Professional Learning Communities 19
Historical Context 19
Framework for PLCs 26
DuFour Model. 28
Guiding Principles 28
Model PLCs 33
Collective Teacher Efficacy 34
History of Efficacy 35
Collective Efficacy and Student Achievement 39
Collective Efficacy and PLCs 41
The Role of Leadership: Creating Conditions 43
Historical Perspective: The Evolution of Educational
Leadership 44
Managerial Leadership 44
Instructional Leadership 45
Distributive Leadership 46
Transformational Leadership 47
Framework on Educational Leadership 48
Fullan’s Framework: Leading in a Culture of Change 50
Leading Professional Learning Communities: Principals 52
Communicating a Clear Vision 53
Fostering a Culture of Collaboration 53
Building Knowledge and Capacity 55
Distributing Leadership 56
Aligning Resources for Coherence 58
The Role of District Leaders 59
Fostering Collective Efficacy 61
Summary 63
Chapter Three: Methodology 65
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study 65
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 4

Restatement of the Research Questions 66
Research Design 66
Participants and Setting 67
Instrumentation 68
Data Collection 70
Data Analysis 71
Ethical Considerations 72
Summary 72
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion 74
Introduction 74
Methodology 75
Demographic Data 75
Findings Pertaining to Research Question One 79
Findings Pertaining to Research Question Two 86
Findings Pertaining to Research Question Three 91
Findings Pertaining to Research Question Four 99
Summary and Discussion of Findings 106
Chapter Five: Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusion 109
Summary 109
Purpose of the Study 111
Methodology 112
Sample Population 112
Data Collection 113
Key Findings 114
Limitations 117
Recommendations for Future Research 118
Conclusion 118
References 120
Appendix A: Letter of Invitation 136
Appendix B: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Interview Protocol 137
Appendix C: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Survey 140
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 5

List of Tables
Table 1: Professional learning communities to other models 27
Table 2: Demographics of interview participants 76
Table 3: PLC implementation 78
Table 4: PLC staff development 78

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 6

List of Figures
Figure A: Responses to research question one 81
Figure B: Responses to research question two 87
Figure C: Responses to research question three 93
Figure D: Responses to research question four 101

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 7

Abstract
This study examined the role of leaders in fostering and developing the collective efficacy beliefs
of teachers that make professional learning communities effective in improving student
achievement. The purpose of the study was to examine the perceptions of school leaders about
collective efficacy and the ways in which they enact leadership to advance or impede the
professional learning communities’ ability to produce the intended results. Understanding the
complex system in which schools operate, the role of leaders across the system in developing the
collective efficacy of the PLCs that operate within the system was also studied. This was a
mixed-method study utilizing data collected from surveys and interviews. Secondary principals
and district leaders are central agents in this study. The findings indicated that the relationships
between leadership, PLCs, and collective efficacy are all necessary components in meeting the
needs of students and promoting student achievement. This study begins to identify the
perceptions of secondary site and district administrators’ belief that collaboration in PLCs
increases the sense of collective responsibility for the success of student achievement.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 8

CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Authors: Laura Rivas, Gilbert Rodriguez, Ixchel Sanchez, and Cari White
1

Educational leaders today are challenged with ensuring high levels of learning for all
students; a feat that requires educators to “work collectively and take collective responsibility for
the success of each student” (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, & Mattos, 2016, p. 11).
Professional learning communities have been identified as an effective structure for teachers to
work collectively to improve student achievement. In the educational setting, a Professional
Learning Community (PLC) is defined as “an ongoing process in which educators work
collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better
results for the students they serve” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 10). A group of teachers come
together to work with their peers in collecting and analyzing classroom data, sharing best
practices, and making instructional decisions as a team to ensure high levels of learning for all
the students they serve (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2010). To operationalize PLCs, three
big ideas guide the work – PLCs must focus on learning, build a collaborative culture, and focus
on results (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Karhanek, 2004).
PLCs are based on the premise that teacher collaboration driven by inquiry and results
improves learning for students. The California Department of Education (2012) has recognized
teacher collaboration as a vehicle for consistent, on-going, job-embedded professional
development necessary to sustain an outstanding teaching force. Literature is replete with
descriptions of what a professional learning community is, frameworks for teacher collaboration,
and guides for implementation. Several meta-analysis studies have been conducted to determine

1
Chapters One, Two, and Three were jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this project.
The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by those listed.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 9

the impact of PLCs on student learning outcomes. Lomos, Hoffman, and Bosker (2011) found
that while small, “the relationship between professional [learning] community and student
achievement is positive and significant” (p. 137).
Recognizing the value of collaboration in a professional learning community on student
achievement, many K-12 schools have sought transformation of instructional practices through
the implementation of PLCs. However, achieving a high degree of effectiveness in the
implementation and impact of the PLCs on student learning has proven to be more challenging.
Research has shown that collaboration alone is not enough to improve schools (Servage, 2008).
There are many junctures in the process in which the collaborative work can lead to
unproductive behaviors and the use of ineffective practices that derail the focus and outcomes of
a PLC. Servage (2008) argued that “failure is the collective consequence of our individual
weaknesses, our individual choices, our individual insecurities, our individual fear of change,
and our individual quest for power” (p. 71). Given this challenge, leadership becomes a critical
component to ensure that PLCs can achieve and sustain the intended outcomes. Fullan (2005)
recognized that PLCs offer a viable process for schools to improve student-learning outcomes.
However, he noted that the development of leadership at all levels is integral to the sustainability
and practice of the PLCs, focusing the goals of the organization and nurturing collective efficacy.
DuFour et al. (2016) described that coordination, collaboration, and interdependence
between the district office and school sites are essential to the district-wide implementation of
PLCs. School districts have a responsibility to ensure that all students are provided with a
thorough and effective education by teachers who understand the importance of honing their
teaching skills as well as the importance of continued professional learning (DuFour et al.,
2010). A meta-analysis of research studies to determine the influence of school district
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 10

leadership on student achievement confirmed that effective leadership at the district office level
has a statistically significant impact on student achievement (Marzano & Waters, 2009). A
professional learning community is one model which can assist school-district leadership in
fostering continuous improvement and purposeful peer interaction (DuFour et al., 2016).
According to DuFour and Fullan (2013), district leaders must maintain a commitment to and
focus on building the individual and collective capacity of educators throughout the district; the
district’s work is to ensure that every school is functioning as a professional learning community.
DuFour et al. (2016) described how there is rich research surrounding the importance of
the principal’s role in the PLC process; yet, the nature of that role is ambiguous and constantly
increasing. With departmentalized instruction, it is challenging for a principal to become a
subject-matter expert in each field and, therefore, must develop teacher leaders who will help in
the efforts for continuous improvement. If principals can recognize the difficulty of becoming
subject-matter experts and instead empower teachers who already have subject-matter
competence, then teachers can collaboratively assist in driving the PLC process. Through a
leadership style that balances being directive with stepping into a guiding role, principals can
create a shared leadership model where a team of high-functioning teachers effectively influence
their own team of peers (Wilhelm, 2010).
DuFour and Fullan (2013) cautioned that transforming the culture of a school or a district
from one of isolation to that of true collaboration requires team members, “to work
interdependently to achieve common goals for which members are mutually accountable”
(p. 68). Building on the idea of collective responsibility for student learning, collective teacher
efficacy (CTE) is the shared belief that through collective action, a staff can positively impact
learning outcomes for all students, including students who are disadvantaged and/or disengaged
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 11

(Donohoo, 2017). Research highlighted a positive correlation between collective teacher
efficacy and student achievement; in fact, Hattie (2016), a researcher who has conducted
approximately 1200 meta-analyses surrounding influences on student-learning outcomes, found
that with an effect size of 1.57, the number one factor that influenced student achievement is
collective teacher efficacy. Furthermore, Hattie found that CTE is more than three times more
predictive of student achievement than socio-economic status; is more than double the effect of
prior achievement; more than triple the effect of home environment and parental involvement;
and is also three times more likely to influence student achievement than student motivation and
concentration, persistence, and engagement.
Background of the Problem
Secondary principals today are tasked with an enormous amount of responsibilities; one
of the chief responsibilities is being an instructional leader who ensures all students receive high-
quality instruction and achieve at a high level. In the past, the educational system in America
provided greater access to education than other nations (Darling-Hammond, 2015). As other
countries have invested in education, the US graduation rates have fallen below the rates of most
advanced nations, leaving many young people without access to the economy. According to
Darling-Hammond (2015), only 35% of students in the US gain access to college, compared to
50% in European nations and 60% in Korea. The flat world, as Darling-Hammond described it,
adds pressure for secondary principals to improve student outcomes, which can be accomplished
through implementation of PLCs.
Effective district leaders work with principals to identify the specific skills and important
behaviors that are essential to leading the professional learning community process in their
school (DuFour et al., 2016). In 2010, the U. S. Department of Education published A Blueprint
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 12

for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which
outlined the need for developing effective teachers and leaders and cautioned that school
districts, “must also put in place policies to help ensure that principals are able to select and build
a strong team of teachers with a shared vision” (U. S. Department of Education, 2010, p. 16).
While the document highlighted the importance of building strong teams, it provided very little
guidance on how to build and sustain highly effective teams with high collective efficacy beliefs
to directly impact student learning.
Goddard, Goddard, Kim, and Miller (2015) examined how the strengthening of collective
efficacy beliefs through leadership and teacher collaboration can lead to improved student
achievement and they found that collective efficacy beliefs were a direct predictor of
achievement differences. The researchers used social cognitive theory to describe collective
efficacy beliefs as arising from, “a meta-cognitive process in which group members assess the
relationship between their competence and the nature of the task they face in light of these
sources of efficacy belief shaping information” (Goddard et al., 2015, p. 506). The importance
of collective teacher efficacy has been stressed throughout the literature; however, less is known
about how to develop collective efficacy within PLCs.
To conceptualize the role of leaders in developing collective efficacy, this study drew on
Bandura’s (1998) extension of social cognitive theory from individual to collective agency, or
sense of efficacy. Bandura posited that individual and collective efficacy serves and operates in
similar ways, influencing a group’s goals, effort, and use of resources. In addition, Fullan’s
(2014a) five components of leadership provided insight to examine the enactment of leadership
strategies in developing PLCs. Fullan suggested that leaders increase their effectiveness if they
pursue moral purpose, understand the change process, develop relationships, foster knowledge
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 13

building, and strive for coherence. These frameworks provide a lens from which to examine the
intersection of leadership and collective efficacy in a learning organization.
The literature surrounding the positive impact of PLCs in improving student achievement
is plentiful. There is ample research encompassing the needed structures and processes that must
be implemented in the PLC process as well. It was also made clear throughout the literature that
teachers are an integral element of successful PLCs and that the principal’s role in building
capacity and district leadership to facilitate the process is critical. However, there is a gap in the
literature addressing role of leadership at the site and district levels in developing teachers’
collective efficacy in PLCs to impact learning for students.
Statement of the Problem
PLCs are a strong vehicle to help teachers improve learning outcomes for all students;
however, there is a lack of knowledge about why processes within the PLC model are not
embraced by all teachers. The importance of the principal’s leadership in developing strong PLC
leaders cannot be underestimated; yet, there is not a clear understanding of how a principal’s
leadership facilitates or hinders the development of the collective efficacy needed to sustain
strong PLCs.
There are many factors that contribute to the effectiveness of professional learning
communities. Developing collective efficacy to help drive the PLC process is a strong
contributing factor that remains a challenge. This problem of practice was approached from the
leadership lenses at the site and district level, with principals and assistant superintendents in
educational services. By better understanding how leadership fosters collective efficacy within
PLCs, the better understanding there will be about increasing student achievement through the
PLC process.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 14

This dissertation addressed the statement of the problem related to leaders’ approach in
changing the educational structures from having individual teachers working in isolation into
PLCs that embrace collective efficacy. School principals, district directors, assistant
superintendents, and superintendents’ leadership use PLCs as a tool to develop a systemic
structure to promote a culture of collective efficacy with their teacher teams. The way in which
leadership develops collective efficacy to meet the needs of all students in being college and
career ready remains a problem that needs further exploration.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the role of leadership in developing
collective efficacy in PLCs. The study examined the perceptions of school leaders about
collective efficacy and the ways in which they enact leadership to advance or impede the PLCs’
ability to produce the intended results. Understanding the complex system in which schools
operate, the role of leaders across the system in developing the collective efficacy of the PLCs
that operate within the system was also studied. Principals and assistant superintendents of
educational services are central agents in the study.
Research Questions
The following research questions guided the study.
1. What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
2. How do secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder the work of their
PLCs?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 15

3. How are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents fostering or hindering collaboration in professional learning communities
(PLCs)?
4. Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
Significance of the Study
This study is significant as it will add to the body of knowledge about the role of
secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in
developing collective efficacy in professional learning communities. Despite the growing body
of information about professional learning communities in the K-12 sector and their positive
impact on student learning, the role of secondary school principals, district directors, assistant
superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in PLCs has been limited.
Increasing our knowledge about how secondary school principals, district directors, assistant
superintendents, and superintendents develop and impact collective efficacy will lead us to a
better understanding of how leadership has a direct relationship to student achievement. This
study is essential to understanding the impact secondary school principals, district directors,
assistant superintendents, and superintendents’ leadership has on the collective teacher efficacy;
because of the extensive implementation of PLCs in K-12, it is important to understand how
effective PLCs are developed and nurtured. The data gathered from this study attempted to
provide insights to the development and sustainability of professional learning communities and
augment the understanding of how leaders can enhance the collective efficacy beliefs of teacher
teams.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 16

Limitations and Delimitations
Limitations of the study include the uniqueness of the PLC implementation model being
examined, administrator self-reporting surveys, bias of the researchers’ interview questions, and the
sample size. One final limitation of the study is that the data gathered from the rubric and survey are
only self-reported. Next steps would include using a similar process to include a larger
representation from different districts, as well as the perceptions of administrators from other sites
who work with PLCs. The study is limited on the generalizability and application across other PLC
models and the number of participants in the self-administered rubric and survey.
Furthermore, the delimitations of the study are associated with availability of time and
resources. The findings may need to be reevaluated if they are to be used as a generalization for how
collective efficacy, leadership, and PLCs correlate to student academic outcomes.
Definition of Terms
Capacity Building: capacity building relates to interdependent practice explained as
collaboration of professionals within schools and across local authorities with the purpose of
transforming, learning, and teaching (Stringer, 2009).
Collaboration: the systematic process in which we work together to analyze and impact
professional practice in order to improve our individual and collective results (DuFour, 2003).
Collective Efficacy: is meant to signify an emphasis on shared beliefs within a group’s
capability for action to achieve an intended effect, coupled with an active sense of engagement
on the members of the group (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004).
Distributed Leadership: theory reinforces that there are multiple sources of influence
within any organization and has focused particular attention on the ‘leader plus-’ aspect of the
leadership work (Harris, 2013).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 17

Instructional Leadership: variety of activities such as defining an instructional vision or
mission; managing the instructional program through teacher supervision, curriculum planning,
program coordination, and monitoring student learning; and promoting a productive student and
teacher learning environment through the promotion of professional learning among staff and the
enforcement of academic standards (Coldren & Spillane, 2007).
Learning Community: “teachers and administrators who take an active, reflective,
collaborative, learning-oriented, and growth-promoting approach toward the mysteries, problems
and perplexities of teaching and learning” (Mitchell & Sackney, 2011, p. 12).
Professional Learning Communities: an educational setting that can be defined as a group
of teachers working with their peers to collect and analyze classroom data, share best practices,
and make instructional decisions as a team (DuFour et al., 2010).
Self-efficacy: refers to perceived capabilities for learning or performance at designated
levels (Bandura, 1989). Those with high self-efficacy participate more readily, work harder,
persist longer, show greater interest in learning, and achieve higher levels (Bandura, 1989).
Social Cognitive Theory: holds that portions of an individual's knowledge acquisition can
be directly related to observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and
outside media influences (Bandura, 1989).
Teacher Leaders: “classroom teachers who influence their fellow teachers and other
colleagues in ways that improve the teaching and learning environments within their schools”
(Huggins, Klar, Hammons, & Buskey, 2016, p. 201).
Organization of the Study
This research study was organized into five chapters, with Chapter One beginning with
an overview, purpose of the study, and four research questions that guided the research, as well
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 18

as limitations, delimitations, and definition of the terms being utilized in the study. A review of
current literature related to the study such as professional learning communities, collective
efficacy, and social cognitive theory will be presented in the second chapter. Chapter Three
includes an outline of the methodology of the research design, surveying and interviewing
teachers and site and district administrators, and data collection procedures. The findings of the
research and an analysis of the data will be presented in Chapter Four. The study concludes in
Chapter Five with a summary of the study and will also include implications and
recommendations for future research regarding the role of leadership in developing collective
efficacy.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 19

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Authors: Laura Rivas, Gilbert Rodriguez, Ixchel Sanchez, and Cari White
2

Introduction to the Topic
Improving student achievement for all students through collaboration within professional
learning communities is a common educational reform that many districts in California have
adopted. Donohoo (2017) asserted that, “the key to turning around schools that struggle to
support student learning lies in the ability of formal and informal leaders to cultivate collective
efficacy” (p. xvi). Given the wide implementation of PLCs across the educational sector, it is
important to examine how leaders can foster and develop collective efficacy to unleash the full
power and benefit of PLCs. This section is a review of the extant literature as it relates to each
of the three constructs examined – professional learning communities, collective teacher
efficacy, and leadership.
Professional Learning Communities
Historical Context
In 1983, A Nation at Risk (U. S. Department of Education, 1983) was released to the
American public by the National Commission on Excellence in Education. This report criticized
America’s public education system, stating that American schools were in jeopardy due to the
substandard education that its students were receiving. After the report was released, there were
a burst of educational reforms that followed the release of the report, in an effort to improve
American public education (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008). A Nation at Risk brought forth
an immediate need for the improvement of our educational practices. Successful education
reform was demanded by the public and prompt improvement was expected. American
education has seen massive changes and reforms since its inception more than 200 years ago

2
Chapters One, Two, and Three were jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this project.
The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by those listed.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 20

(DuFour & Marzano, 2011). History provides insight as to the purpose of these reforms and why
they did not succeed in the long term. The fact remained that the United States educational
system needed to improve. The results of A Nation at Risk are still felt today; it was the starting
point for teacher accountability for student achievement. The expectations of American schools
are much different today than they were a century ago. No longer are teachers asked to simply
instruct without reflection and problem solving. Teachers are no longer expected to work in
isolation; all educators are held accountable for the achievement of their students (DuFour et al.,
2008). As a result, they must find a way to bring about change to produce positive results
(DuFour et al., 2008). During the late 1980s and the early 1990s, some veteran teachers began
speaking out about the need to readdress the way teachers teach and assess students, collaborate
with peers, and critically reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of their own teaching practices
(AllThingsPLC, n.d.). Although small in number, this group of veteran teachers from unrelated
schools began to command the attention of fellow educators and educational research
(AllThingsPLC, n.d.). The one commonality that emerged from these schools that became
apparent was a concept termed “professional learning communities” (PLCs).
The characteristics of a professional learning community developed from a variety of
sources. In his book Shoolteacher, Lortie (1975) interviewed hundreds of teachers and
established that they worked in total isolation, especially in relation to other professions. Lortie
also found that many teachers preferred this privacy because of its lack of pressure or demands
from supervisors. According to Hord (2004) during the mid to late 1980s, the characteristics of
work setting and work culture and their effects on employees began to be a topic of research and
exploration within the private corporate world and the public education sector.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 21

During the late 1980s, teacher workplace factors were also topics of conversation related
to teaching quality. Susan Rosenholtz (as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d.) in her 1989 research of
78 schools, found that where there were characteristics of “learning-enriched school” there was
evidence of collective commitments to student learning in collaborative settings, “where it is
assumed improvement of teaching is a collective rather than individual enterprise, and that
analysis, evaluation, and experimentation in concert with colleagues’ [goals] are conditions
under which teachers improve” (History of PLC, para. 2). In addition, Rosenholtz (as cited in
Hord, 2004) established “that teachers with a strong sense of their own efficacy were more likely
to adopt new classroom behaviors and that a strong sense of value and efficacy encouraged
teachers to stay in the profession” (p. 6). Rosenholtz’ study indicated that “teacher collaboration
linked to shared goals focused on student achievement led to improved teacher learning, greater
certainty about what was effective, higher levels of teacher commitment. . . ” (AllThingsPLC,
n.d., History of PLC, para. 2). These characteristics collectively paved the path for “greater
gains in student achievement” (AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC, para. 2).
In the following year, 1990, Peter Senge’s book, The Fifth Discipline, was published and
distributed throughout the business world in America (as cited in Hord, 2004). Senge (1990, as
cited in Hord, 2004) stated that performing for someone else’s approval created an environment
that promotes second-rate practices. Instead, employees should learn to become more adaptable
and to generate solutions to problems (Senge, 1990, as cited in Hord, 2004). Senge (1990, as
cited in Hord, 2004) saw this newly conceptualized organization of learning as one “where
people continually expand their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and
expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where
people are continually learning how to learn together” (p. 6).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 22

Over the next year, Senge’s (1990, as cited in Hord, 2004) book and his
conceptualization of continuous improvement through learning organizations or communities of
practice moved from the business sector and corporate America in the American educational
systems. As Senge’s (1990, as cited in Hord, 2004) concepts were investigated by educators and
discussed in professional literature, Senge’s learning organization became known as learning
communities in the field of education. “As Peter Senge and his associates (1994) observes
ultimately, a learning organization is judged by results” (as cited in DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour,
2005, p. 20). This caught the attention of many in the field of education because there was so
much dissatisfaction with the quality of education at the time and the need for schools to be
accountable for results.
McLaughlin and Talbert’s (1993, as cited in Hord, 2004) research also supported
Rosenholtz’ conclusions, their research suggested “that when teachers had opportunities for
collaborative inquiry and its related learning, the result was a body of wisdom about teaching
that could be widely shared” (p. 6). “In 1995, Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage reported on
research of over 1,200 schools. Much of the research was limited to quantitative [research]
studies (test scores and surveys) but included intensive, in-depth case studies as well”
(AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC, para. 6). Through this mixed research they found, “the
most successful schools were those that used restructuring tools to help them function as
professional learning communities” (AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC, para. 6). Newmann
and Wehlage (1996, as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d.) “clarified that in these schools, educators
engaged in a collective effort to achieve a clear, commonly shared purpose for student learning;
created collaborative culture to achieve the purpose, [and] took collective . . . responsibility for
the learning of all students (History of PLC, para. 7). In 1995, Sharon Kruse, Karen Seashore
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 23

Louis, and Anthony Bryk (as cited in AllThingsPLC) “reported their findings that schools most
effective in terms of student achievement operated as professional learning communities
characterized by reflective dialogue, deprivatization of practice, collective focus on student
learning, [and] collaboration . . .” (History of PLC, para. 8, 9). Regardless of consistent
conclusions or researchers regarding the power of professional learning communities’ ability to
impact schools, teachers, and students, that research was not arousing a significant desire from
schools to implement professional learning communities as a reform tool. As a response to the
lack of interest or implementation, Kruse et al. wrote in 1995 (as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d.)
“Professional community within schools has been a minor theme in many educational reform
efforts since the 1960s. Perhaps it is time it became a major rallying cry among reformers, rather
than a secondary whisper” (History of PLC, para. 11).
An important step in converting the professional learning community concept from a
“secondary whisper” to “a major rally cry” was the publication of Professional Learning
Communities at Work™: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement by Richard
DuFour and Robert Eaker (Solution Tree Press, 1998). (as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d.,
History of PLC, para. 12).
According to Michael Fullan, a leader of school reform for over 25 years, it was during this time
that interest in PLCs moved from a “whisper” of researchers to a “rallying cry” among the field
of educators (as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC, para. 18).
The transformation of public schools is essential if educators are going to meet the
academic needs of all learners. Professional learning communities have been at the forefront of
reform efforts as a means of transforming schools to improve student achievement (Hord, 2004).
The literature indicated that innovative schools where PLCs are implemented showed greater
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 24

increase in student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Eaker & Keating, 2008; Lomos et al.,
2011; Louis & Marks, 1998; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). DuFour and Eaker (1998) studied
the collaborative efforts among PLC members, the academic gains made by students, and the
benefits to teaching and learning where PLC practices were implemented. Literature also
established that academic gains were made by students in schools where PLCs were a common
practice (Lee, Smith, & Croninger, 1995). A review of 10 schools in Lee et al.’s (1995) study
revealed that academic gains were made by students in schools where PLCs were implemented.
The study found that teaching practices benefited from the PLC and that collaborative
conversations among members of PLCs had positive impact on student achievement. There is
evidence that the collaborative practice of PLCs in schools is beneficial to both teaching and
learning (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Lee et al., 1995; Lieberman, 1995; Lomos et al., 2011; Louis
& Mark, 1998; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Newmann & Wehlage, 1996).
As the concept of PLCs spread throughout the field of education, so did the stories of
schools who successfully implemented the professional learning community as a reform tool.
Adlai Stevenson High School District 125 in Lincolnshire, Illinois (also known as Stevenson
High School, SHS) was a frequently cited school because it drew the attention of many
educators. Before the first day of school at Stevenson High School, the school area had two
conflicting sets of constituents; they split into two separate schools, one of which was Adlai
Stevenson High School (n.d.). Stevenson High School had a rocky start; three months before the
start of the new year, they had an unfinished school building, no board of education, and there
was not a school principal. At the beginning of the school year, the school lacked student desks,
had minimal text books and no library books, and still had no principal. Despite the unsteady
start, the constituents of SHS were determined to create one of the best high schools in the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 25

country, so they held strong and stayed the course (Adlai E. Stevenson High School, n.d.).
Stevenson has grown since its opening to become one of the largest high schools in the area; in
the 2014-15 Stevenson enrollment was over 4000 students. A pivotal time in the success of SHS
came in the 1980s when two significant events positively impacted SHS’s goal to ensure a
quality education for their students. The first impetus came in the form of A Nation at Risk in
1983 (U. S. Department of Education, 1983). As previously mentioned, this report’s
condemnation of America’s public education system devastated the educational community.
During this time, the District 125 Board of Education used the Nation at Risk report and the
hiring of Dr. Richard DuFour, both in 1983 as a “springboard” to reemphasize the desire to be
the best and ensure quality education for all students in their community (Adlai E. Stevenson
High School, n.d.).
To ensure a quality of education for all its students, SHS put into place a plan and process
for students who were not learning. This was a small part of a reform framework that later
became known as a professional learning community (AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC).
SHS developed a pyramid of intervention that helped identify and assist students who were
struggling. In addition, a number of other reforms were made for the benefit of student learning
such as the encouragement of Advanced Placement classes for all students, six-week grading
periods, a Freshman Mentor Program, and encouragement to participate in co-curricular
programs (Adlai E. Stevenson High School, n.d.). Consequently, SHS became known as a
leading example of professional learning communities. Adlai Stevenson High School was
applauded for its collaborative staff atmosphere and the assessment of student and staff learning
based on data driven, measurable results. Dr. DuFour was one of the leaders in this paradigm
shift, and as a result, was eventually in high demand as a consultant for school reform via
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 26

professional learning communities (Adlai E. Stevenson High School, n.d.). As the success of
SHS became known, schools and districts alike wanted the opportunity to improve their own
educational systems. SHS was ranked as the best public high school in America in 2017 (Niche,
2018).
Framework for PLCs
There has been a progression of PLC frameworks; there are several models that have
risen to the forefront. The four professional learning community models that were explored for
this study, were (a) DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) PLC model, (b) Hord’s (1997) PLC model,
(c) Marzano, Waters, and McNulty’s (2005) purposeful community model, and (d) Wenger,
McDermott, and Snyder’s (2002) communities of practice model (see Table 1 for a summary of
the four models). Several of these PLC models have similarities, such as all four models listed
state that there should be a shared mission, vision, and values, a joint enterprise by all
stakeholders. The foundational merits of each of the above-mentioned PLC frameworks can be
found in various types of organizations, but professional learning communities have primarily
been implemented in educational environments. In addition, the DuFour and Eaker’s (1998)
professional learning communities’ framework focused on results, which differs from the other
three frameworks. Also, only Marzano et al.’s (2005) purposeful communities organizational
learning framework clearly communicates the presence of collective efficacy while the other
three frameworks, DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) professional learning communities, Hord’s (1997)
professional learning communities, and Wenger and Snyder’s (2000) communities of practice,
indirectly communicate the presence of collective efficacy. In communities of professional
learning practice, the construct of collective efficacy was specifically integrated into the
organizational planning of the professional learning practice; in comparison, the other three
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 27

professional learning frameworks subtly integrate collective efficacy into their design. For the
purpose of this study, the DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) professional learning community will be
utilized with regards to this study’s professional learning community framework model.

Table 1
Professional Learning Communities to Other Models
Professional Learning
Community DuFour and
Eaker (1998)
Professional Learning
Community Hord
(1997, 1998)
Purposeful
Community
Marzano, Waters,
& McNulty (2005)
Communities of
Practice Wenger
& Snyder (2000)
Shared mission, vision,
values, and goals
Shared values and
vision
Accomplish a purpose
and produce outcomes
that matter to all
stakeholders

Joint enterprise
Collective inquiry into "best
practices” and "current
reality"
Collective learning and
application of that
learning
Passion,
commitment and
identification with
group's expertise

Collaborative teams focused
on learning
Build and
exchange
knowledge

Action, orientation and
experimentation
Shared personal
practice

Commitment to continuous
improvement
Supportive conditions-
structures and
relationships

Agreed-upon
processes

Results orientation

Shared and supportive
leadership

Use all available
assets

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 28

Table 1 (Cont’d.)
Professional Learning
Community DuFour and
Eaker (1998)
Professional Learning
Community Hord
(1997, 1998)
Purposeful
Community
Marzano, Waters,
& McNulty (2005)
Communities of
Practice Wenger
& Snyder (2000)

Collective efficacy

Informal, optional,
flexible meetings
Source: Excerpted and adapted from Waters and Cameron (2007), The balanced leadership framework: Connecting
vision with action. Denver, CO.: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.

DuFour model. Richard DuFour is one of the leading authors on professional learning
communities; in 1998 Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker developed a professional learning
community framework which has a focus on results. DuFour and Eaker (1998) took the concept
of learning organizations as a model of professional development one step further. DuFour and
Eaker argued that, rather than treating professional development as a separate area of focus,
teacher improvement should be approached as a natural part of teacher work. DuFour and
Eaker’s model addressed teacher improvement by encouraging teacher collaboration; through
collective inquiry, teachers are engaged in authentic learning opportunities that help them
examine evidence of student learning and collaboratively develop solutions. The DuFour and
Eaker professional learning community model is recognized as one of the leading frameworks to
help implement learning communities into schools and districts (Bullough, 2007).
Understanding the philosophical tenets on which DuFour and Eaker’s frameworks are based
helps to explain why this model offers such powerful potential for improving student learning.
Guiding principles. DuFour et al.’s (2016) guiding principles of a professional learning
community list three big ideas that drive the work of the PLC. The three big ideas include focus
on learning, building a collaborative culture, and a focus on results. Big idea number one:
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 29

ensuring that students learn — by focus on learning, comes from the core assumption that the
mission of educators is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn
(DuFour, 2003). Within this first big idea that focuses on student learning, according to DuFour
et al. (2016), there are four critical questions that help educators place an emphasis on learning
for all students,
1. What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?
2. How will we know if each student has learned it?
3. How will we respond when some students do not learn it?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are already proficient?
(p. 119)
As educators engage in discussions around and find the answers to these key questions,
the exchange of ideas becomes tailored to improving the quality of instruction. In addressing
these four critical questions, educators engage in collaborating and learning together, they study
curriculum frameworks, make decisions regarding recommended pacing for units, and make
decisions about instructional strategies (DuFour & Fullan, 2013). Through these discussions,
educators continue to examine ways of assessing students and analyze the evidence of student
learning and will continue to explore strategies to enrich student learning. By utilizing the four
critical questions in collaborative discussions, educators quickly identify students who need
additional support and ensure that each student receives whatever additional support he or she
needs. For instance, Stevenson High School is truly committed to the concept of learning for
each student and will stop subjecting struggling students to education lottery (Adlai E. Stevenson
High School, n.d.). Stevenson High School functions as a PLC and the teachers are aware of the
absurdity between their commitment to ensure learning for all students and a lack of coordinated
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 30

strategy to respond when students do not learn. Stevenson’s staff addresses this discrepancy by
designing strategies to ensure struggling students receive additional time and support, no matter
who their teacher is (Adlai E. Stevenson High School, n.d.).
In big idea number two: building a culture of collaboration — educators who are building
a professional learning community recognize that they must work together to achieve their
collective purpose of learning for all students (DuFour, 2003). According to DuFour et al.
(2016), it is the powerful work of collaboration that characterizes professional learning
communities; the systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve
their classroom practices will impact student achievement. In other words, teachers who work in
teams and who are engaging in the ongoing cycle of discussing the four critical questions that
promote team learning, this is the process that will lead to higher levels of student achievement.
For teachers to participate in a powerful process of collaboration, the school must ensure that
everyone belongs to a team that focuses on student learning and each team must have time to
meet during the workday (DuFour, 2003). Building a collaborative culture of a professional
learning community is an ongoing process built on continuous work of all educators.
DuFour et al.’s (2016) third big idea: a focus on results — details how a professional
learning community judges their effectiveness on the basis of results. Working together to
improve student achievement becomes the routine work of everyone in the school. Every
teacher team participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of student
achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current level, working together to achieve that
goal, and providing periodic evidence of that progress (DuFour, 2003). When teacher teams
develop common formative assessments throughout the school year, each teacher can identify
how his or her students performed on each skill compare with other students (DuFour et al.,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 31

2016). Freeport Intermediate School, located 50 miles south of Houston, Texas, attributed its
success to an unrelenting focus on results (DuFour, 2003). Teachers from Freeport Intermediate
School work in collaborative teams for 90 minutes daily to clarify the essential outcomes of their
grade levels and courses and to align those outcomes with standards (DuFour, 2003). They
develop consistent instructional calendars and administer the same brief assessment to all
students, roughly at the end of each week. In addition, each quarter the teams at Freeport
administer common assessments and they pore over the results to identify effective teaching
practices of essential skills (DuFour, 2003). Freeport Intermediate has been transformed from
one of the lowest performing schools in the state to a national model for academic achievement
(DuFour, 2003).
According to DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) Professional Learning Communities at Work,
when a school functions as a professional learning community, the members demonstrate six
essential characteristics, “1) shared mission, vision, and values, 2) collective inquiry,
3) collaborative teams, 4) action orientation and experimentation, 5) continuous improvement
and 6) results orientation” (p. 25). According to DuFour and Eaker, creating a shared mission,
vision, and values is an integral part of a learning community. In order to create effective
mission, vision, and values, it is vital that these three guiding principles of focus on learning,
collaborative culture, and results orientation are developed and shared by stakeholders
throughout the school and not simply handed down by those in leadership positions.
Secondly, professional learning communities were required to use collective inquiry to
drive the improvement and growth of the PLC. Every member of the PLC must be in a constant
state of inquiry, looking for new methods to improve student learning. Within a learning
community, the status quo is constantly questioned and examined for improvements for the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 32

benefit of the primary focus, student learning. This is not done by individuals, but by a group of
teachers working collaboratively.
Professional learning communities are based on the idea of a group of individuals
working together as a collaborative team which then works with other teams in the school for the
common purpose identified in the mission, vision, and values (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). As
simplistic as this concept appears, it is easily misunderstood. “Collaborative” refers to focus on
enhancement of communication and action as a team, not by individuals within the team
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Collaborative groups that learn together and from each other carry the
desire for continuous improvement. Another characteristic of PLCs is action orientation and
experimentation which point out a common shortfall in many schools. Experimentation exists in
the professional learning community, allowing for improvements and accepting unexpected
results as a possibility (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
The fifth characteristic of a professional learning community is the need for continuous
improvement. The ongoing cycle of constant challenges leads to continuous improvement,
which becomes embedded in the day-to-day work of the professional learning community. The
key to the success of this characteristic is that members embrace the never-ending cycle rather
than viewing it as something to check off the completion list (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Lastly, professional learning communities focus on results (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Organizations often assess the success of new ideas and strategies based on data, otherwise the
organization will not know when they have hit their target. “Peter Senge (1996) note[d] that ‘the
rationale for any strategy for building a learning organization revolves around the premise that
such organizations will produce dramatically improved results’ (p. 44)” (as cited in DuFour and
Eaker, 1998, p. 29). By implementing DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) professional learning
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 33

community framework, the basis of the model is to focus on results. It is essential to act,
collaborate, reflect, and improve. According to DuFour et al. (2016), we learn best by doing,
individually and collectively, our deepest insights and understanding come from action, followed
by reflection and the search for improvement.
Model PLCs. According to the DuFour and Eaker (1998) PLC framework, in order to be
a model PLC, your school site needs to demonstrate a commitment to DuFour et al.’s (2016)
guiding principles and implementation of the guiding principles for at least three years. A school
must present clear evidence of improved student learning, by explaining the practices, structures,
and the culture of the school and/or district. A model PLC school site must ensure that there is
three years of data that shows successful implementation and sustained improvement, with a
basis of comparison between your school and that of your state (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). There
needs to be evidence of focus on learning for all students, teachers working in collaborative
teams to build a shared knowledge regarding state standards, curriculum guides, and format of
assessments (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). The school has a process for monitoring every students’
learning on an ongoing basis and a process for responding when students are struggling in
learning an essential skill (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). Furthermore, to become a model PLC a school
has a practice for elevating the learning for students who demonstrate they are proficient in the
essential skill being taught (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). There needs to be evidence of a collaborative
culture, where teachers are provided with time to collaborate during their contractual day and are
organized in collaborative teams by course or subject area to engage in collective inquiry
regarding topics related to student learning (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). Lastly, a model PLC must
provide evidence of results, where each team has identified SMART (specific, measurable,
achievable, results-focused, and time-bound) goals that are aligned with school goals. The
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 34

SMART goals focus on student learning and require evidence of improved student learning
(AllThingsPLC, n.d.). Teachers gather evidence from a variety of sources to improve teaching
practices and student achievement is clearly improving across the curriculum (AllThingsPLC,
n.d.).
Sanger Unified School District is an example of a model PLC; the development and
refinement of PLC implementation has been a journey over a period of 12 years at Sanger
Unified (AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog). PLCs are the foundation for the collaborative culture in
Sanger Unified, which created an atmosphere of trust and transparency; it was Sanger’s
willingness and determination to build their capacity to function as a sustainable PLC
(AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog). Sanger Unified required their PLC to dig deeper into answering the
four critical questions of student learning; to ensure that every student knows that there is an
adult that cares about them and believes in them (AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog). Sanger’s PLCs are
working together to identify critical standards where proficiency has not yet been achieved,
designing focused instructional support, identifying successful instructional strategies, working
to develop effective instruction that reaches all students during that best, first instruction, as
collaborative teams (AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog). The efforts of the PLC are assessed and
monitored regularly and adjustments are made as needed with immediate support being provided
to those who are not showing mastery (AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog).
Collective Teacher Efficacy
The federal government’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) strived to decrease
achievement gaps for low income and minority students by providing each child with equal
opportunities to achieve a high-quality education (California Department of Education, 2018).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 35

From a moral accountability standpoint, educators have an ethical responsibility for
ensuring disadvantaged students have equity and access (Firestone & Shipps, 2005). In
addressing school and teacher accountability, Jerald (2007) identified varying levels of
responsibility schools assume for student learning, with the highest level involving schools
taking collective responsibility for the student outcomes. Performing at the highest level requires
collective teacher efficacy (CTE) which is the shared belief that through collective action, a staff
can positively impact learning outcomes for all students, including students who are disengaged
and/or disadvantaged (Donohoo, 2017). Collective efficacy is not a new concept; however, the
research surrounding the important connection to student achievement and how collective
teacher efficacy is developed has only begun emerging over the last decade.
History of Efficacy
The concept of collective efficacy is rooted in Bandura’s definition of self-efficacy which
in 1977 he described as, “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required
to produce outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). It is a person’s belief that he or she can
successfully accomplish or perform a task/skill within a specific context that will result in an
intended outcome. Bandura (1997) found that teachers with high efficacy tended to have high
expectations for their students which resulted in higher student achievement. Conversely,
educators with low self-efficacy have lower expectations for their students and can weaken
students’ self-efficacy, resulting in lower student performance outcomes (Tschannen-
Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1993),
there are four causes that impact self-efficacy: mastery (enactive) experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasion, and affective states. These four sources build both self-efficacy
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 36

as well as collective efficacy, and a closer examination of each source will add to the
understanding of how individual or group efficacy is developed (Goddard & Goddard, 2001).
According to Bandura (1977), mastery experiences, also referred to as performance
accomplishments, are the most influential of the four sources of efficacy. Mastery experiences
involve successes in task mastery that an individual directly experiences. Bandura asserted that
efficacy is strengthened through personal repeated successes, just as repeated failures result in
decreased efficacy. The adverse impact of failures is reduced as long as they are infrequent and
occur after several successes have occurred; furthermore, efficacy can be strengthened and
motivation can be increased when failures are overcome through perseverance (Bandura, 1977).
Similarly, when a staff experiences success with student outcomes or overcomes obstacles, their
trust in their capability as a collective unit increases and they become more inclined to believe
that successful performances can be repeated (Donohoo, 2017).
The second most powerful belief shaping source of self-efficacy is vicarious experiences
in which Bandura (1977) explained as “seeing others perform threatening activities without
adverse consequences can generate expectations in observers that they too will improve if they
intensify and persist in their efforts” (p. 197). The vicarious experiences are more powerful
when the behaviors are modeled by an individual who the observer believes has similar abilities
or whom they view to be a role model; similarly, the less the observer identifies with the
individual modeling the behavior, the lower the efficacy impact will be (Bandura, 1977).
Similarly, Donohoo (2017) shared that collective efficacy is increased when a group of educators
observes a similar group performing well or overcoming obstacles.
Social persuasion is a third efficacy shaping source that involves individuals being
encouraged or given positive performance feedback by other credible and trustworthy
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 37

individuals who verbally influence them (Bandura, 1977). An example that applies to teacher
efficacy involves co-workers or supervisors coaching teachers to take on new tasks, try new
teaching strategies, or simply to persevere. When those experiences result in a positive
performance experience, teacher efficacy can increase; however, the verbal persuasion alone
might be limited in influence and is dependent on the credibility and expertise of the messenger
(Bandura, 1986).
The fourth and least influential efficacy shaping source involves an individual’s
emotional state which can play a significant role in affecting an individual’s perception of his or
her competence (Bandura, 1977). When individuals or groups perceive themselves as unable or
unprepared to accomplish a task, reactions of stress and anxiety are emotional responses that can
result in failure of a task (Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004). Conversely, Goddard, LoGerfo, &
Hoy (2004) found groups that respond emotionally with excitement and belief in their collective
ability can overcome obstacles, withstand pressure, and rise to the challenge.
An extension of self-efficacy is teacher efficacy which evolved from a survey constructed
by the RAND Corporation in the mid-1970s (Henson, 2001). According to Protheroe (2008),
two questions which teachers responded with agreement or disagreement garnered powerful
results that caught the eye of other researchers, (1) “When it comes right down to it, a teacher
really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or
her home environment” (p. 1) and (2) “If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most
difficult or unmotivated students” (p. 1). From these two responses, the concept of teacher
efficacy emerged and as Henson (2001) reported, “this early work suggested powerful effects
from the simple idea that a teacher’s belief in his or her ability to positively impact student
learning is critical to actual success or failure in a teacher’s behavior” (p. 32). In 1998,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 38

Tschannen-Moran et al. conducted thorough research surrounding teacher efficacy and
introduced a teacher efficacy model that resolved two rivaling conceptualizations of the concept.
The first conceptual strand built on Rotter’s (1954) social learning theory that focused on
teachers’ locus of control and their belief that factors under their control, such as student
motivation, had a greater influence on student learning than factors outside of their control, such
as home environment. The second strand was based on Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory
and the concept of self-efficacy in which educators have beliefs about their ability to impact
student performance and outcomes. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) reconciled the two
conceptual strands and concluded,
Teacher efficacy is the teacher's belief in his or her capability to organize and execute
courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a
particular context. It is in making explicit the judgment of personal competence in light
of an analysis of the task and situation that our model improves upon previous models.
(p. 233).
Just as Bandura (1977) found mastery experiences to be the most influential factor in
developing self-efficacy, he also found mastery experiences to have the greatest impact on
teacher-efficacy. In 2000, A. W. Hoy further explored Bandura’s findings and found that
mastery experiences during the early years of teaching have the most powerful impact on the
development of teacher efficacy. A. W. Hoy (2000) asserted that just as Bandura found efficacy
to be most easily shaped in the early years of learning, the beginning years of teaching could
critically impact teacher efficacy development. Additionally, A. W. Hoy found that teachers’
efficacy can also improve from vicarious experiences, such as observing other teachers using
effective practices, as well as social persuasion in the form of a “pep talk” or constructive
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 39

feedback regarding performance. However, based on a study that Hoy and Woolfolk conducted
in 1993, the researchers cautioned against confusing a congenial working environment or high
teacher morale with high teacher efficacy. In fact, Hoy and Woolfolk (1993) found that,
“environments that are warm and supportive interpersonally may make teachers more satisfied
with their jobs or less stressed, but they appear to have little effect on a teacher’s confidence
about reaching difficult students” (p. 367).
After reviewing efficacy literature, Protheroe (2008) asserted that teachers with a strong
sense of efficacy,
tend to exhibit greater levels of planning and organization, are more open to new ideas
and are more willing to experiment with new methods to better meet the needs of their
students, are more persistent and resilient when things do not go smoothly, are less
critical of students when they make errors, and are less inclined to refer a difficult student
to special education. (p. 43)
Collective Efficacy and Student Achievement
Through the years, researchers have applied the construct of self-efficacy to teacher
efficacy and more recently to collective teacher efficacy (Bandura, 1993; Goddard, LoGerfo, &
Hoy, 2004). Teacher efficacy involves the belief of the individual teacher, whereas collective
efficacy has to do with the belief of a group of educators. In a study by Bandura in 1993,
findings revealed that perceived collective efficacy had a greater influence on student
achievement than did socioeconomic status. Consistent with Bandura’s findings, Goddard,
LoGerfo, and Hoy (2004) conducted a study at 96 high schools and found that there was a
significant positive correlation between collective teacher efficacy and student performance
across all content areas, not only math and reading as found in earlier studies. Moolenaar,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 40

Sleegers, and Daly (2012) conducted further research that examined the relationship between
collaborative networks, collective efficacy, and student achievement with the findings showing
that the closeness with which educators worked had a statistically significant effect on collective
teacher efficacy which ultimately resulted in increased student achievement.
Ramos, Costa, Pontes, Fernandez, and Nina (2014) conducted a systematic review of
articles related to collective teacher efficacy between the years of 2000 and 2013. Thirty-nine
percent of all the articles examined the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and
student achievement with 100% of the research resulting in a positive correlation between the
two constructs. Additionally, Ramos et al. (2014) found that when collective teacher efficacy
was increased, the negative effects of low socioeconomics were reduced. However, the
researchers acknowledged that deeper research needed to be conducted, especially in low
socioeconomic districts and in high schools since many of the studies were conducted in
elementary and middle schools. Goddard et al. (2015) reported that the, “more robust the sense
of collective efficacy characterizing the schools in our sample, the greater their levels of student
achievement, even after controlling for school and student background characteristics and prior
levels of student achievement” (p. 525).
After synthesizing approximately 1200 meta-analyses of factors that influence
achievement, Hattie (2016) found that with an effect size of 1.57, collective teacher efficacy is
the number one factor influencing student outcomes. Hattie also found that CTE has three times
the effect of socio-economic status; two times the effect of prior achievement; approximately
three times the effect of home environment; parental involvement; and student motivation,
concentration, persistence, and engagement.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 41

Collective Efficacy and PLCs
A key tenet of effective professional learning communities involves educators working
collaboratively in cycles of collective inquiry, a practice that increases collective efficacy
because “participants attributions of improved student performance often shift from external
causes to teaching as the process requires teachers to examine student outcomes resulting from
changes in teaching practices” (Donohoo, 2017, p. 63). In addition, Voelkel and Chrispeels
(2017) identified professional learning communities and collective teacher efficacy as
companion constructs and asserted that if PLCs lack a shared belief in their collective ability to
make change and achieve desired outcomes, they are, “unlikely to set challenging goals, look at
student work in ways that delve into teacher practices, or invest in new ways of teaching”
(p. 506) – all of which are critical tenets of the PLC process. Several studies have examined the
relationship between these companion constructs.
Findings from two studies support the claim that teacher efficacy is predictive of
increased teacher collaboration (Goddard & Skrla, 2006; Gray & Summers, 2015). In 2006,
Goddard and Skrla conducted a study to examine the impact of a school’s social composition on
teachers’ collective efficacy and found that the greater the school or district’s collective efficacy
beliefs, the greater the persistence and sustained effort the staff put forth to reach the
organization’s goals, as well as greater teacher collaboration. Two other notable findings from
the researchers’ study included a positive and significant relationship between enactive
experience and teachers’ collective-efficacy perceptions, as well as the finding that, “neither the
rate of student poverty nor the proportion of minority students in a school was related to
differences among schools in collective efficacy perceptions” (Goddard & Skrla, 2006, p. 231).
Goddard and Skrla (2006) also found,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 42

that there is something more to perceived collective efficacy than the social
demographics and contextual conditions that characterize organizations. Thus, it is
important for researchers to continue the study of efficacy beliefs in search of their
unique contributions to organizational performance. (p. 229)
In 2015, Gray and Summers conducted a quantitative study involving the perceptions of
193 teachers in international schools with respect to PLCs, school structures, trust, and teacher
collective efficacy. Their analysis of the survey data resulted in the findings that the more stable
the school enabling structures, trust in principal, and collective efficacy the higher the likelihood
the PLCs would be effectively developed. Goddard et al. (2015) conducted a quantitative study
involving 1,606 teacher participants from 93 rural low-income elementary schools and found
that, “teacher collaboration was a significant predictor of collective efficacy, which in turn
positively predicted gains in achievement (β = .27 for math; β = .28 for reading)” (p. 521). The
findings suggested that a culture of collaboration within a professional learning community is
predicted to increase collective teacher efficacy.
In 2017, Voelkel and Chrispeels conducted a study that examined the relationship
between PLCs and teachers’ collective efficacy, focusing on three key PLC tenets – collective
goals, collective actions, and focus on results. Additionally, they also examined teaching
competence and task analysis, two factors described earlier in the literature in which Goddard
(2002) identified as integral elements of collective efficacy. Based on the results of 310 surveys
from 16 schools in a district that had systematically implemented PLCs, Voelkel and Chrispeels
(2017) found that “(a) there is a positive and high correlation between PLC implementation and
teacher collective efficacy; and (b) higher levels of perceived implementation of PLC variables
are predictive of high levels of teacher collective efficacy” (p. 520). Voelkel and Chrispeels
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 43

concluded that districts who support their teachers in the PLC can enhance collective teacher
efficacy which ultimately leads to increased student achievement. Voelkel and Chrispeels noted
that future research should explore the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and PLCs
at varying stages of implementation. A deeper understanding of the relationship between
leadership and the development of collective efficacy within professional learning communities
can add to the needed guidance for administrators trying to understand how to foster an
efficacious staff.
The Role of Leadership: Creating Conditions
Research has consistently confirmed the significance of leadership in improving student
achievement, in particular that of the school principal (Fullan, 2014b; Leithwood, Patten, &
Jantzi, 2010; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wallace Foundation, 2013). According to
Leithwood, Seashore Louis, Anderson, and Wahlstrom (2004), leadership is second only to
classroom instruction when it comes to factors contributing to student learning. The effects of
leadership, however, on student learning are indirect (Leithwood et al., 2010). Leithwood et al.
(2010) conducted a study to determine how school leadership influences student learning. In this
study, four paths with distinct variables and mediators of influence on student learning were
examined. The findings showed that leadership is significantly related to PLCs (.69), teacher
trust (.28), and CTE (.10). Given the research findings that confirm the positive impact of
collective efficacy and PLCs to student learning and the significant positive impact of leadership
to PLCs and CTE, it is important to examine how leadership facilitates the development of
collective efficacy through PLCs. To do so, research on educational leadership was examined.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 44

Historical Perspective: The Evolution of Educational Leadership
Educational leadership models have evolved over several decades, and a variety of
approaches have been implemented in an effort to improve the K12 educational system
(Nedelcu, 2013). Styles of leadership that have existed in education include the old model of
one-person leadership (managerial), instructional, distributive, and transformational. Each of
these models have served a specific purpose given the demands and expectations of that time.
These models contributed and advanced the field to meet the ever-changing demands on the
educational system. The four major models will be described in the evolution timeline of
educational leadership. The purpose of looking at the history of educational leadership is to
highlight how leadership models have embraced change. The old model of one person leading to
the latest model of transformational leadership show how the change in duties were necessary to
support PLCs and align to the key elements of collective efficacy (Hallinger & Heck, 2010;
Lambert, 1998; Leithwood, Steinbach, & Jantzi, 2002; Murphy, 1988).
Managerial leadership. Managerial leadership consisted of one person leading the
school and was applied predominantly during the 1960s to the late 1970s when the primary focus
of the leader was associated with managerial tasks (Nedelcu, 2013). Responsibilities of
administrators were centered around the duties of keeping students safe, organizing the day-to-
day operations related to facilities and transportation, ordering supplies, and managing the
budget. Under this style of leadership, the duties of instruction were left to be handled by
teachers who would be working in isolation within their classrooms (Murphy, 1988). However,
federal and state policy, like the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 (U. S. Congress,
n.d.), began to pressure managerial leaders to shift into being instructional leaders to create equal
educational opportunities for all students (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). Although the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 45

responsibilities associated with a managerial administrator are still needed, more impetus was
placed on the issues of teaching and learning (Neumerski, 2012; Rigby, 2014).
Instructional leadership. Instructional leadership focused more on the duties of
curriculum guidance and directing instruction (Murphy, 1988). This model gained popularity in
the late 1980s (Murphy, 1988) when President Ronald Reagan addressed America with A Nation
at Risk (U. S. Department of Education, 1983). In this report, the President challenged the
educational system because the US had fallen behind as compared to other nations in educating
its youth (U. S. Department of Education, 1983). The responsibility to establish a mission and
vision statement that promoted academic improvement for students became primary duties of an
academic leader (Coldren & Spillane, 2007). Such duties were curriculum planning, program
coordination, and monitoring of student learning. Promoting a productive-student and teacher-
learning environment through the promotion of professional learning among staff, and the
enforcement of academic standards were also duties the instructional leader was responsible for
managing and coordinating (Coldren & Spillane, 2007). Hallinger and Heck (2010) defined
those duties as the administrator being the “headmaster” in orchestrating and synchronizing all
instructional movements in a school. In the 1980s, research on effective schools identified the
duties of an instructional leader as being the difference between schools who had success and
those that did not (Murphy, 1988). Researchers further described an instructional leader as a
“combination of expertise and charisma;” being able to lead teachers with curriculum,
instructional practices, and identified best-learning practices for students, while at the same time
collaborating with teachers to enhance the quality of teaching (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Marks &
Printy, 2003).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 46

The duties of an instructional leader soon began to take the form of a check list for
administrators to complete and the authenticity of the duties began to lose their purpose, similar
to those of a managerial leader completing a list of duties. Schools were back to being operated
by a checklist needed to be completed by administration, primarily the principal. The focus on
training others on specific leadership skills and characteristics to meet the needs for student
learning continued to be a gap (Hallinger, 2005; Onorato, 2013). From this model, other similar
models emerged such as teacher leader, shared leadership, and distributive leadership. All three
of these models were similar in nature and emerged at similar times by different theorists. These
models were a response to the identified gaps that existed in the instructional leadership model.
Distributive leadership. Distributive leadership was defined as a conceptual approach
of leadership that reinforces multiple sources of influence within an organization and has focused
particular attention on the ‘leader plus-’ aspect of leadership work (Harris, 2013). This concept
of leadership gained momentum in the late 1990s. The 90s brought on new demands on the
educational system through new policy changes with the Improving American Schools Act
(IASA; U. S. Department of Education, 1994). Glickman (1989) stated that the principal is not
the only one responsible for instruction, but he/she should be the leader of an instructional group
of leaders. The responsibilities of instruction and curriculum now belonged to a team of leaders
to sustain long-term improvement (Elmore, 2000; Lambert, 1998; Lambert et al., 1995; Lambert,
Collay, Dietz, Kent, & Richert, 1997; Olson, 2000; Poplin, 1994; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2001). Accountability for student performance increased since the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) was adopted, thus becoming an impetus for administration to address
the needs of all students through a distributive leadership approach (Thompson, Gregg, & Niska,
2004). By distributing leadership, it gave leaders the opportunity to focus on a single problem
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 47

instead of juggling many issues simultaneously. With this model, all stakeholders were
considered to share the responsibility of instruction and learning to ensure all students achieved
academically (Thompson et al., 2004). However, the challenge of unifying the efforts of a larger
leadership team towards a common vision surfaced (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Transformational leadership. Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, and Hopkins (2006)
looked at successful leadership styles by doing qualitative studies in schools that were
considered exceptional and found that a transformation leadership approach provides the best
student-learning outcome. Transformational leadership is anchored on two key concepts,
increased teacher and student awareness about the importance of organizational goals and
inspired staff who can “transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organization” (Marks
& Printy, 2003, p. 375). Thompson et al. (2004) stated that it is imperative for a transformational
leader to be able to motivate teachers to be life-long learners to be able to sustain continuous
student learning. Even though the concept of a transformational leader first emerged in the
1970s, it did not gain much momentum until the early 21st century when accountability for
school performance became more understandable to society through the increased awareness of
NCLB and the use of school rankings (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). The increased awareness on
school performance also increased the expectations for schools to meet the needs of all students.
Hallinger and Heck (2010) noted that the greatest difference between a transformational
leadership and other models of leadership was the focus in generating innovation and change
within an organization and its leaders. This differed from previous leadership models that
focused on completing duties and maintaining control (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). Nedelcu
(2013) stated that a transformational leader must possess at least one of these characteristics:
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 48

idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration.
Challenges for a transformational leader lie with time management, as they are required
to continue fulfilling the duties as both a managerial and instructional leader. This hinders their
ability to focus on developing effective learning structures as well as motivating teachers to
foster a student-learning environment (Shaked & Schechter, 2017). The responsibilities of an
instructional leader and a managerial leader continue to be embedded in the duties of a
transformational leader; however, those duties are expected to be carried out by a support team
that is led by other administrators or support team, not the principal (Hallinger & Heck, 2010).
The transformational leader is expected to lead by creating a sense of purpose, developing a
climate of high expectations, recognizing accomplishments, creating situations that stimulate
learning, modeling school values, promoting confidence, and constantly promoting innovation
and change (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). The 21st century continues to demand the need for
transformational leaders who cultivate a culture of change to meet student needs in preparing
students for post-secondary challenges (Key, 2010).
Framework on Educational Leadership
There are many frameworks on educational leadership proposed by various educational
theorists including Fullan (2008), Hallinger and Heck (1998), Hess and Kelly (2007), Leithwood
et al. (2002), Marzano et al. (2005), Wilhelm (2010), and Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003).
Theorists concurred that leadership is important for the improvement of performance in
education, although it is not through direct influence on student achievement outcomes (Onorato,
2013). Several frameworks are briefly mentioned in this section that support the role of a
transformational leader. These frameworks connect the duties that were outlined with the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 49

previous leadership styles but also add a connection to building relationships. Fullan’s (2008)
model will be examined more closely as the primary framework due to its alignment with
transformational leadership and collective efficacy.
Hess and Kelly’s (2007) framework consisted of seven areas in management: managing
for results; managing personnel; technical knowledge; external leadership, norms, and values of
the organization; managing instruction; and school culture and leadership. Wilhelm (2010)
proposed a framework that supports teachers in building confidence and acquiring the skills to
become an effective teacher leader. According to Wilhelm, any educational leadership
framework depends on the administrator, primarily the principal, to cultivate a culture that
promotes teacher confidences and continuous professional growth. Leithwood et al. (2002)
offered an educational leadership framework that consists of the following practices: buffering
and delegating the responsibilities concerning the reform efforts, modeling reform effort
behavior, providing contingent rewards which are dependent upon results, providing
individualized support, and inspiring a sense of shared purpose. While these frameworks
provide various lenses from which to examine the role of leadership in developing CTE through
the implementation of PLCs, they are loosely connected with transformational leadership and
collective efficacy. Onorato (2013) stated that Fullan’s (2008) framework for change is
grounded on the cultivation of a culture that can sustain the demands of constant changes that
exist in education. The two foundational concepts in Fullan’s framework, transformational
leadership and change management, are fundamental in building collective efficacy, which
according to Hattie’s (2016) research has the highest correlation to student achievement.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 50

Fullan’s Framework: Leading in a Culture of Change
Fullan’s (2001) framework emphasized moral purpose, understanding the process of
change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing, and coherence making as core
components of leadership for change (Barber & Fullan, 2005). Fullan defined moral purpose as
the act of making a positive difference in an environment or organization. For transformational
leaders, this means that the responsibility of improving the educational system goes beyond
having one successful school. Barber and Fullan (2005) stated that to achieve improvement in an
educational system, leaders must focus on closing existing gaps in the system. Transformational
leaders have the responsibility to bring awareness to teachers about their moral responsibility to
support the learning of all students. At the site level, transformational leaders must be able to
help teachers understand the importance of collective teacher efficacy to support all students and
not just the students in their class.
The second core component is understanding the process of change. Fullan (2002)
provided guidelines for understanding change, which include selective innovation, process for
developing commitment to new ideas, honor the try, leverage resistance, and reculturing. Fullan
extended the concept of innovation and creativity to teachers taking ownership of the problem
that needs to be solved. He pointed out that the process of change is more sustainable when
leaders are part of the struggle to find a possible solution. By doing so, Fullan explained that
contradictions are ironed out and everyone feels they are being heard. Implementing a process of
change depends on the third component, relationship building.
Fullan (2005) stated that relationship building is a task that every educational leader must
work on and be good at. Fullan stated that if a relationship remains the same or gets worse, this
can lead to “productive progress digressing.” Productive progress digressing refers to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 51

relationships not becoming stronger, therefore, with time a gap begins to grow. This element is
the most difficult for education leaders to master because they must be able to build relationships
with people from whom they differ. Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) stated it is
especially important for leaders to be able to self-manage their own emotions and be able to have
empathy towards others. Fullan followed this component with the notion of creating and sharing
knowledge through a social process.
Knowledge, creation, and sharing are the foundation to effective leadership. The years of
expertise gathered by veteran leaders coupled with sharing the latest research are fundamental to
the growth of a professional learning community (Fullan, 2005). Furthermore, the sharing of
knowledge by all leaders establishes a community of continuous growth. However, it is
important to first establish relationships and moral purpose (Fullan, 2005).
Interweaving these four components in a way that supports change is the concept of
coherence making (Fullan, 2001). The challenge to make fluid transitions during change
requires transformational leaders to have a deep understanding of their leader’s moral purpose
and understanding of their challenges. Transformational leaders need to use social interactions
to gain the understanding of their leaders’ challenges. Coherence making requires
transformational leaders to be able to have an internal system of checks and balances that allows
them to manage problem solving without losing positive momentum. Coherence making is the
component that fuses Fullan’s (2001) framework.
Educational leadership, when practiced through these five components, is what separates
transformational leaders from other leaders (Fullan, 2005). Fullan’s (2001) framework was
supported by Wilhelm’s (2010) concept of shared leadership between teachers and
administrative leaders to drastically improve student achievement. In addition, Huggins et al.’s
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 52

(2016) framework aligns with the importance of teacher voices heard by educational leaders to
build social relationships and understand their moral purpose.
Leading Professional Learning Communities: Principals
Leading change is a vital component of the principalship (Fullan, 2002). Literature has
more recently focused on the principal enacting instructional leadership skills as a vehicle for
school improvement (Fullan, 2002). Fullan (2002) posited that this view is very limiting and that
the principalship requires much more sophisticated conceptual thinking and the transformation of
schools through people and teams. More specifically, research on professional learning
communities has found that principals play a vital role in the implementation of the PLC process
at their school sites (Fullan, 2014b; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wallace Foundation, 2013).
Given the focus of PLCs on learning and collaboration, the principal’s role is to create the
conditions to foster a culture where PLCs thrive. A cornerstone attribute of a PLC undoubtedly
is teacher collaboration (DuFour et al., 2016). In creating the conditions for PLCs to thrive,
hence, the principal is required to foster a culture of collaboration, where teams of teachers
engage in job-embedded professional development focused on fulfilling the shared vision for
student learning (Schmoker, 2006).
According to DuFour et al. (2016), specific actions that a principal should take to support
PLCs at their school include initiating structures and systems to foster a learning-centered
school, reallocating resources to support the initiative, and modeling what is valued. Emerging
from the literature as overarching principles in leadership to support and sustain the collaborative
efforts of PLCs and the development of collective efficacy are articulating a clear vision,
fostering a culture of collaboration, building knowledge and capacity, distributing and sharing
leadership, and aligning resources for coherence (DuFour et al., 2016; Fullan, 2002; Leithwood
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 53

et al., 2010; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wallace Foundation, 2013). These principles align
with Fullan’s (2001) framework for educational leadership that include moral purpose,
relationship building, knowledge, coherence making, and understanding change.
Communicating a clear vision. Changing the culture of an organization is both a
difficult and time-consuming process that must be driven by a shared, relevant, and working
vision of what the organization is attempting to accomplish (Huffman, 2003). The vision must
lead to norms of behavior, guide decision-making, and be aligned to the systems of beliefs and
values of the staff to impact the organization’s work. Declaring and imposing a vision will not
solicit the commitment necessary to change behaviors. The leader must share and combine the
individual vision and values of the staff into a collective vision that can be embraced by the staff
and that can inspire commitment (DuFour et al., 2016). According to DuFour et al. (2016), the
commitment to guiding principles that clearly communicate what the people in the organization
believe and seek to create is what separates a true learning community from an ordinary school.
Fullan (2002) took this notion of vision and values to a deeper level, focusing on moral purpose
as the most crucial driver in school reform. Fullan contended that moral purpose is the nexus
between the actions of school personnel and making a positive difference for students across the
system. Said in different ways, researchers agreed that effective principals establish a
commitment at their schools of high expectations and learning for all students, often captured,
communicated, and lived through the shared vision and values within the learning community
(Wallace Foundation, 2013).
Fostering a culture of collaboration. Research has shown that collaboration stimulates
the brain to a greater degree than working alone (Chapman, Ramondt, & Smiley, 2005; Reason,
2010). Merrill and Gilbert (2008) noted that collaborative learning has a symbiotic relationship
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 54

with individual learning; our brain relies on context clues from those around us to categorize and
assemble new learning. Processing new information, then, is shaped by the collaborative
experiences shared with others. Reason (2010) outlined the impact on collaboration in the
educational setting; it stimulates individual and group learning, challenges, inconsistencies, and
enhances perspective; tests values and beliefs; establishes accountability; builds memory and
stimulates emotional ties; reduces fear and feelings of isolation; reveals problems; and calls on
educators to shape and reshape goals. Furthermore, Fullan (2002) asserted that forging
relationships between teachers can have a multiplying effect on the climate of the organization.
Site leaders are in a unique position to influence collaboration between teachers (Balyer,
Karatas, & Alci 2015). Creating a collaborative environment requires principals to be
knowledgeable about PLCs and build relationships across the organization by providing
opportunities for teachers to work together, encouraging participation in decision making, and
providing opportunities for teachers to take on leadership roles. Research suggested that when
principals provide teachers support and intellectual stimulation, they help create a culture of
collaboration at the school (Leithwood et al., 2004). In addition, when principals enact
instructional leadership by engaging in teacher coaching, they communicate what is important to
the organization, reducing uncertainty and increasing the likelihood of teachers collaborating
with their peers on their practice. Furthermore, by developing shared vision and values,
principals signal to teachers that improving instruction is a collective enterprise, setting the
expectation that staff will work together to address barriers in achieving the desired outcomes
(Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011). Cherkowski (2016) found that without a
clearly articulated vision, collaborative teams worked on what they felt was most important,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 55

which is not necessarily of service to the school and learning community in achieving the desired
outcomes.
Building knowledge and capacity. Building capacity is a key driver in ensuring lasting
system change (Fullan, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005). According to Fullan et al. (2005), building
capacity involves “policies, strategies, resources, and actions designed to increase people’s
collective power to move the system forward” (p. 55). Buttram and Farley-Ripple (2016)
suggested that enhancing collaboration through PLCs, by itself, is not sufficient to produce the
changes in teacher practices that are necessary to support continuous growth in schools;
principals must focus teachers’ collaboration on acquiring new knowledge, skills, and
dispositions. Central to the work of effective PLCs is knowledge sharing and knowledge
creation (DuFour et al., 2016; Fullan, 2002). Learning is a fundamental concept in PLCs;
requiring teachers to hone and refine their teaching practice and skills as part of the process.
Fullan (2002) affirmed that information becomes knowledge through a social process of
give and take, making collaboration in PLCs essential for the development of new of knowledge.
He suggested that discovery and refinement of the knowledge base in teaching through PLC
collaboration fuels the moral purpose of teaching and that technical knowledge is superficial
unless it is coupled with the social construct. Furthermore, research suggested that learning in
context produces the greatest payoff (Fullan, 2002). Learning, therefore, is best when teachers
collaborate to solve real problems in the context of their daily work. DuFour et al. (2016)
referred to this as job-embedded professional development, anchored on teachers’ collective
inquiry and action orientation. For PLCs, this means, building shared knowledge of their current
realities and best practices and turning the learning into actionable steps that can be tested and
refined. For leaders, it means providing opportunities and structures for teachers to participate in
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 56

meaningful, job-embedded professional development and modeling learning. Principals must
embrace that their primary role is not to hold all the knowledge and skills, rather to ensure that
people in the organization acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out the intended
work collectively. Leaders must create an environment for collective inquiry to thrive, including
space for teachers to innovate, experiment, fail, and practice without judgement or negative
repercussions (DuFour et al., 2016).
Distributing leadership. To meet the complexity of the demands and challenges in
education, extensive participation in leadership from teachers is necessary (Fullan, 2002;
Lambert, 2002; Printy & Marks, 2006). The model of the principal as the sole leader of the
school “leaves substantial talents of teachers largely untapped” (Lambert, 2002, p. 37) and
principals stretched too thin between managerial and instructional demands that make it too
difficult to make and sustain significant change to impact teacher behavior and student learning.
Printy and Marks (2006) revealed that “principals alone cannot provide sufficient leadership
influence to systematically improve the quality of instruction or the level of student achievement.
Nor can teachers, even collectively, supply the required leadership to improve teaching and
learning” (p. 130). The study found that the best results are obtained when principals and
teachers share leadership. Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008) conducted an extensive
review of literature on leadership from which seven strong claims emerged about successful
school leadership. One such claim is that the influence of leadership on schools and students is
greatest when it is widely distributed. The study revealed that when combined, leadership from
the principal, teachers, teams, and district has a significant impact on student learning,
accounting for 27% of the variation in student achievement across schools.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 57

Professional development that supports teacher learning in communities of practice have
great potential for teacher talent to be honed and leadership capacity to be built (Lai, 2014;
Murphy, 2005). Opportunities for teachers to share in leadership, including planning activities,
sharing knowledge, problem-solving, and decision-making contributes to the development of
shared ownership and collective responsibility in change efforts and school improvement
(Murphy, 2005). Principals have a pivotal role in formalizing how leadership is distributed; to a
great degree, a principal’s influence or control who sits on committees, provide common
planning time in the master schedule, and implement and use processes that facilitate democratic
or shared decisions (Printy & Marks, 2006). Terry Wilhelm (2010) asserted that to share
leadership, principals must become a trainer of trainers, developing teacher leaders. Teachers
rarely have opportunities to develop their leadership skills in teacher education programs and as
classroom teachers. The principal, then, must develop the requisite leadership skills for teachers
to fully participate in a distributed or shared model. According to Wilhelm, these skills include
facilitating discussions among peers and putting structures in place to hold them accountable. In
fostering leadership capacity, principals must identify potential leaders, create opportunities for
teachers to lead, facilitate the transition to this new role, and provide ongoing support (Klar,
Huggins, Hammonds, & Buskey, 2016). The study revealed a large degree of interdependence
and high levels of interaction and trust between principals and their teachers. According to Klar
et al. (2016), principals apply their knowledge of staff and understanding of school leadership to
enact the strategies within the context of their schools. While the study revealed the potential for
conflict and the complex nature in fostering leadership across the school, successful principals
demonstrated a keen focus and intentionality toward the development of teacher leaders.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 58

Aligning resources for coherence. “When innovation runs amok, even if driven by
moral purpose, the result is overload and fragmentation” (Fullan et al., 2005, p. 57). Overload
and fragmentation impede growth and change over time, as teachers and leaders experience
initiative fatigue. Reeves (2006) affirmed that educators experience initiative fatigue when they
attempt to use the same amount of resources (time, money, energy) to achieve more objectives.
Schools attempting to improve student outcomes often implement a wide array of initiatives to
support their improvement efforts. The strategy of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at it
might work to bring about some improvement in the short term; but eventually, the addition of
new initiatives to the plate creates a significant decline in the effectiveness of each initiative and
the organization as a whole (Reeves, 2006). Leadership attention, teacher energy, and limited
resources, according to DuFour and Fullan (2013), have spread many schools and districts too
thin over too many activities. The constant piling of new, disconnected, and uncoordinated
activities leads to teacher confusion, exhaustion, and cynicism rather than program improvement.
Leadership research pointed to the alignment of resources, including energy and
attention, to the organization’s vision and goals as a key component to the success of the
organization in achieving its goals (DuFour & Fullan, 2013; Fullan, 2005; Fullan et al., 2005;
Reeves, 2006). Coherence making is a never-ending proposition (Fullan, 2005); it requires
alignment of goals and resources across the organization, ensuring that initiatives are connected
to and support the focus or goals of the organization, and communicating the big picture of how
things fit together and to what end. According to Fullan (2005), improvement is “not about
developing the greatest number of innovations, but rather about achieving new patterns of
coherence that enable people to focus more deeply on how strategies for effective learning
interconnect” (p. 57).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 59

Furthermore, the alignment must be adequately and intentionally supported through the
allocation of resources including time, energy, and personnel (Buttram & Farley-Ripple, 2016;
DuFour et al., 2016; Leithwood, 2013). Principals exert leadership and communicate what
matters through the decisions they make in the allocation and management of resources (Buttram
& Farley-Ripple, 2016). To support PLCs, principals must allocate resources and manage
structures to provide structured time for collaboration, access to ongoing professional
development; tools that support learning and action research; instructional materials to support
implementation of strategies; and leverage teacher expertise in curriculum, assessment,
instruction, and leadership (Buttram & Farley-Ripple, 2016; DuFour et al., 2016). Principals
must continuously consider how each decision made with regard to the use of resources impacts
or is connected to what the school and PLCs are attempting to accomplish.
The Role of District Leaders
Waters and Marzano (2006) determined in a meta-analysis of 27 studies that district
leadership matters in influencing student achievement. Moreover, the findings revealed that
effective superintendents focused on creating goal-oriented districts driven by teaching and
learning. In addition, the study identified specific leadership actions that positively contributed
to student achievement – collaborative goal setting; non-negotiable goals for achievement and
instruction; board alignment with the goals, monitoring of the goals, and use of resources to
support the goals.
Broadly stated, superintendents must focus on instructional matters that influence the
behaviors of their principals and teachers to impact student achievement (Harvey, Cambron-
McCabe, Cunningham, & Koff, 2013). Harvey et al. (2013) posited that superintendents’
greatest leverage point in improving teaching and learning is the development of the district
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 60

principals. Superintendents guide challenging and dynamic educational organizations and
cannot single-handedly oversee all aspects of the instructional program. They, too, are called to
serve as instructional leaders by building on the human capital and resources of the school
district to enhance teaching and learning instead of focusing on the managerial aspects of
running the district (Harvey et al., 2013). Their leadership must be anchored on the development
of structures and processes that support whole-system learning, working with school
administrators to improve instruction, and providing the resources for teams to collaborate
(Schmoker, 2006).
Furthermore, Leithwood (2013) examined the role of central office leadership in
supporting learning for the organization to impact students and staff. The study highlighted the
importance of re-culturing the central office from a one-location service model to one in which
district leaders, instead, spend their time at school sites helping site principals and teachers
achieve system and site goals. The benefit of spending frequent, high quality, purposeful time on
site is that it brings greater understanding of the school context, school needs, and the district’s
impact on student learning, which in turn allows district leaders to allocate resources, prioritize
initiatives, and work with site administrators more effectively to support district and school site
goals.
More specifically to supporting the successful implementation of PLCs, DuFour et al.
(2010) maintained that district leadership has three key responsibilities – limit initiatives, build
capacity, and monitor progress. Limiting initiatives requires great restraint and focus on behalf
of the district leaders (Dumas & Kautz, 2014). Any innovation that the district pursues must fall
within the scope of the focus, defined by the work of the PLCs. Dumas and Kautz (2014) stated
that building capacity and monitoring progress go hand-in-hand; teachers cannot be expected to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 61

perform without the knowledge or skills necessary to implement an initiative or perform a
function. Together, they refer to these three key responsibilities as focus, build, and check.
Fullan (2001) pointed out that leaders must understand that they can lead change, not manage it.
Instead of trying to control change, district leaders must create the necessary conditions for
change to happen by focusing district-wide efforts, building the capacity of personnel throughout
the district, and monitoring the implementation of collaboration and learning across the district.
Fostering Collective Efficacy
Goddard and Skrla (2006) found that organizations with strong transformational leaders
and high levels of collective efficacy within the staff would be able to sustain positive change.
Porter’s (2011) research supported his prediction that transformational leaders have a strong
influence on PLCs and promote collective efficacy in an organization. Ross and Gray’s (2006)
study also supported Goddard and Skrla’s findings related to transformational leadership
correlating to increasing a collective efficacy culture. Fullan (2005), Hallinger and Heck (1998),
Leithwood et al. (2002), and Porter (2011) all concluded with their research that transformational
leaders help teachers increase their confidence, and the understanding of organizational goals
versus personal goals lead to higher student success, which are key characteristics of a
transformational leader.
Research also suggested that teacher ownership of student outcomes has an impact on
student achievement (Goddard et al. 2015; Jerald, 2007; LoGerfo, 2006; Takahashi, 2011).
LoGerfo (2006) found, from a nationally representative sample of first graders and their teachers,
that students learned more in reading when their teachers demonstrated a greater sense of
responsibility for student outcomes. Research also suggested that leaders can influence teachers’
sense of responsibility for student outcomes (Jerald, 2007; Ross & Gray, 2006). LoGerfo found
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 62

that teachers who expressed having supportive school leaders had a greater sense of
responsibility for the learning outcomes of their students. In another study, Goddard et al. (2015)
confirmed that “principal’s instructional leadership is a significant positive predictor of
collective efficacy beliefs through its influence on teachers’ collaborative work” (p. 525).
Additionally, the study demonstrated that together with the principal’s instructional leadership,
teachers’ collaboration on the improvement of instruction is an indirect predictor of the
differences in academic achievement across schools.
Furthermore, research suggested that individual and collective efficacy can be developed
(Donohoo, 2017; Jerald, 2007; LoGerfo, 2006). Principals can foster collective efficacy by
providing experiences that contribute to teacher’s beliefs, including mastery and vicarious
experiences. Goddard et al. (2015) observed that while direct mastery experiences are difficult
to provide, there are various strategies that a principal can use to help, including providing access
to meaningful and relevant professional development and giving teachers the freedom to conduct
action research projects for professional learning and growth. Additionally, research indicated
that role playing or micro-teaching experiences involving the planning, delivery, and observation
of lessons supported with timely and specific feedback can have a significant impact on teachers’
self-perception of their teaching competence (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). Goddard, Hoy, and
Hoy (2004) also noted that vicarious experiences, observing successful models with which one
relates, contribute to efficacy beliefs. Principals can provide these vicarious experiences by
providing teachers the opportunity to observe other teachers, visiting other schools, and/or
watching instructional videos.
In addition, research suggested that social persuasion, supportive leadership,
collaboration and shared decision-making, and a positive school culture can impact teachers’
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 63

perceived efficacy (Jerald, 2007). Principals can enact leadership strategies in these areas to
build on teachers’ collective efficacy. For example, relentlessly communicating the school’s
vision and goals, participation in PLCs, and participation in professional development can serve
as social persuasion. Supportive leadership can be enacted by providing opportunities for
professional development, modeling expected behaviors, and providing feedback. Donohoo’s
(2017) Theory of Action for Fostering Collective Teacher Efficacy requires principals to create
opportunities for meaningful collaboration, empower teachers, set goals and high expectations,
and help educators interpret results and provide timely and appropriate feedback. This theory of
action focuses on leadership practices that foster CTE, aligning directly with the PLC process
and the conditions necessary to support the PLC teams. Jerald (2007) concluded that “if we want
teachers to believe in the ability of all students to learn and to take responsibility for educational
outcomes, we [leaders] must take positive steps to help teachers believe in their own abilities as
well” (p. 6).
Summary
Recent reform efforts have dramatically increased the emphasis on student achievement.
To meet these demands, a teacher working in isolation no longer seems to be an option. In order
for the educational system to compete globally, educators will need to focus on student learning,
create collaborative cultures that allow teachers to share the work load and best instructional
practices, and analyze data to determine specific student learning needs. This literature review
examined DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) professional learning community model, the role of
district and site leaders in establishing and implementing professional learning communities, and
the importance of collective efficacy.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 64

While research about the role of leaders in developing teachers’ efficacy beliefs is
emerging, literature in this area is scant. There is extensive research around each of the three
constructs examined, leadership, professional learning communities, and collective efficacy. The
manner in which leadership is enacted to develop collective efficacy in professional learning
communities, however, has not been widely researched. While scholars and practitioners draw
on these bodies of knowledge to make inferences about the relationship and intersection of these
constructs, a gap in the literature remains. Given the wide implementation of PLCs across the
educational sector, it is important to examine how leaders can foster and develop collective
efficacy to unleash the full power and benefit of PLCs. . .

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 65

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Authors: Laura Rivas, Gilbert Rodriguez, Ixchel Sanchez, and Cari White
3

This chapter describes the methodology used to conduct this study. First, the purpose of
the study and the research questions guiding the study will be restated, followed by a description
of the research design applied to the study. Next, a description and summary of the methodology
including sampling, instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. Chapter Three concludes
with a summary and a preview of Chapters Four and Five.
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study
Research supported the claim that professional learning communities have a positive
impact on student learning and school improvement (Chapman et al., 2005; DuFour & Fullan,
2013; DuFour et al., 2016). In addition, research suggested that not all PLCs are created equal;
variances in the implementation of PLCs across schools and districts lead to variances in the
effectiveness of PLCs in positively impacting student learning (Servage, 2008). The
effectiveness of PLCs is harnessed through the collaborative learning approach assumed by
teachers as they hold themselves accountable for student outcomes. When teachers collaborate
in PLCs, they believe that together they can solve the learning issues and improve achievement
for all the students they serve (DuFour et al., 2016). Scholars and researchers agreed that school
leaders play a fundamental role in ensuring the success of the PLCs in accomplishing the desired
outcomes (DuFour et al., 2016; Fullan, 2014a; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wallace
Foundation, 2013). What is not clear in the literature is the role of leaders in fostering and
developing the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers that make PLCs effective in improving
student achievement. This study examines this problem of practice to augment existing research
on the impact of leadership on the development of collective efficacy in PLCs.

3
Chapters One, Two, and Three were jointly written by the authors listed, reflecting a team approach to this project.
The authors are listed alphabetically, reflecting the equal amount of work by those listed.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 66

Restatement of the Research Questions
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
2. How do secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder the work of their
PLCs?
3. How are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents fostering or hindering collaboration in professional learning communities
(PLCs)?
4. Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
Research Design
To examine the role of leaders in developing CTE to leverage the positive impact of
PLCs on student achievement, this study employed a mixed-methods approach, which included
both qualitative and quantitative methods. The advantage in using a mixed-methods approach is
that it draws on the strengths of both the qualitative and quantitative approaches, while
minimizing the limitations (Creswell, 2014). A mixed-methods approach is appropriate, since
one portion of the study examines the relationship between collaboration at the secondary level
and its impact on collective teacher efficacy in PLCs and it measures the incidence of various
perceptions of collective efficacy among school principals and district directors, assistant
superintendents, and superintendents. The second portion of the study will provide open ended
data that will focus on processes and meaning about the role these leaders play in
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 67

supporting/hindering the work of their PLCs, explaining how collective efficacy beliefs impact
collaboration and how collaboration is fostered or hindered (Creswell, 2014).
A survey including both closed and open-ended questions was distributed to school
principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in public secondary
schools in southern California to obtain quantitative data to answer questions one and four. The
survey applied a Likert scale to quantify perceptions about collective efficacy and generate
numeric trends to examine the relationship between collaboration and collective efficacy. A
semi-structured interview protocol was used to interview the school principals, district directors,
assistant superintendents, and superintendents to obtain qualitative data to answer questions two
and three. The semi-structured interviews generated open-ended data to understand processes
and meaning about the role of leadership in supporting or hindering collaboration in the PLC
process to explain what is happening, what it means, and how it works (Creswell, 2014). The
use of both quantitative and qualitative methods further allowed for the triangulation of data to
validate consistency of the findings (Creswell, 2014).
Participants and Setting
The sampling strategy used to select the participants in the study was purposive and
convenient. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), purposive sampling requires the selection
of a sample that will generate the greatest opportunity for the researcher to gain insight about the
topic – a sample that meets the researcher’s criteria and goals of the study. Convenience
sampling involves the selection of the participants based on time, money, location, and
availability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, the school principals, district directors,
assistant superintendents, and superintendents surveyed and interviewed must work with or
oversee the implementation of PLCs at the secondary level. The researchers work and reside in
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 68

southern California. Therefore, the districts that were identified for the study are unified districts
in southern California where PLCs are being implemented in a number of their secondary
schools. The selection criteria included the following: (a) traditional secondary schools in
Southern California, including 6-8 and 4 to 8 middle schools, and 9-12 high schools; (b) public,
non-charter, schools; (c) schools have been implementing PLCs a minimum of three years;
(d) the principal must have been at the site for a minimum of three years, and (e) the student
population is at least 50% low socio-economic status and students of color. District directors,
assistant superintendents, and superintendents identified for this study played a role in supporting
site principals in the implementation of PLCS at their schools.
Instrumentation
Surveys allow for researchers to gather information about people’s beliefs and behaviors
(Driscoll, 2011). While the information is self-reported, it provides a window to people’s
opinions and experiences, giving the researchers an opportunity to identify trends about beliefs
and behaviors in a population (Driscoll, 2011). In the interest of identifying trends in site
principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents’ perceptions about
collective efficacy, the survey is both useful and appropriate. In addition, to establish a
relationship between collaboration and collective efficacy, a survey further allowed the
researchers to quantify collaboration and collective efficacy beliefs to examine how the two
concepts are correlated. The target length of the survey was approximately 15 minutes to
generate greater participation and ease for the participant. The majority of the survey included
closed questions, where the participant had to select a response using a Likert-scale. It also
included a few questions that were short, open-ended responses to allow participants to elaborate
on a few ideas (Driscoll, 2011).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 69

Patton (2002) explained the benefit of interviewing as the ability of the researcher to
enter into the interviewee’s world, ask questions about how they make meaning of their world,
and take on their perspective. In the interest of learning how perceptions about collective
efficacy support or hinder the work of PLCs, site principals, district directors, assistant
superintendents, and superintendents were interviewed to obtain greater detail to understand how
they foster or hinder collaboration for their PLCs given their perspective about collective
efficacy. A semi-structured interview approach was used that allowed the researchers to create
an interview guide that consisted of open-ended questions that elicited particular information
from all respondents; yet, gave the researchers the flexibility to explore emerging topics as the
respondents answered. The format also allowed the researchers to ask the questions out of order
which created a more natural flow to the conversation that ensued through the interview. The
interview protocol included questions in various formats that would provide rich information –
questions that were descriptive, interpretive, ideal, devil’s advocate, and hypothetical.
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), an interviewer should ask “several types of questions
to stimulate responses” (p. 118) because different types of questions generate different
information – allowing the researchers to examine the topic from various angles. Several
questions had probes to clarify or solicit deeper responses to the research questions. The
protocol, which served as an interview guide, included a preamble, interview instructions, tape
recorder instructions, the research questions, and a closing, in addition to the interview questions.
Using the protocol for all interviews ensured the same line of inquiry was followed with all
participants and that the limited time with each participant is maximized (Patton, 2002). The
target length of the interviews was approximately 45 minutes. Confidentiality agreements were
obtained prior to the interviews and interviews were recorded with the participants’ permission.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 70

Data Collection
Permission was obtained from the districts’ superintendent via a formal written request
(email), followed by a phone conversation, to gain access to site principals, district directors and
assistant superintendents who work with or oversee the implementation of PLCs. For each case
study, the number of participants was dictated by the number of secondary schools within the
district that met the requirements, ranging from 5 to 7 total participants, including secondary
school principals, directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents. Once permission was
granted, identified site principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents were contacted for participation in the study via email with a Request to
Participate Letter and a link for the survey. In addition, the identified participants were
contacted by phone to encourage responses and to request interviews. Several follow up emails
and phone calls followed to ensure participation.
The surveys were conducted via an online format to give participants an opportunity to
complete it at their own time and discretion. According to Weiss (1994), the interviewer should
establish a partnership with the respondents. Considering ways in which to build this
partnership, the interviews were conducted at the location designated by the participants to make
it convenient for and to maintain a natural and comfortable environment for the interviewee.
Notes were not taken during the interview to allow each researcher to listen to the participant and
be fully present during the interview. As a result, the researcher could enhance their connection
with the participant during the interview. The recordings from the interviews were transcribed
by a professional transcriber.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 71

Data Analysis
After the data was collected, it was analyzed to make meaning. According to Merriam
and Tisdell (2016), data analysis is the process to make sense out of data, which includes
consolidating and interpreting what’s been said, reported, and read. The quantitative and
qualitative data were analyzed separately. To conduct the quantitative analysis, data was
collected and organized in Excel sheets. Each participant’s responses were separated and
organized in a row, using the Likert-scale values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The average score from each
category was calculated for each participant and included one overall average score across all
categories for each participant. Responses were evaluated to determine the percent of
respondents who identified with positive attitudes within each of the categories. In addition, the
percent of participants with positive dispositions about collective efficacy were calculated from
the averages. To examine the relationship between collaboration and collective efficacy, data
points were paired across collaboration and collective efficacy categories and graphed to
determine correlation or relationship between both concepts.
To conduct the qualitative analysis, the interview data was organized. The researchers
sifted through the data and made notations – using both open and a priori coding. As described
by Corbin and Strauss (2008), coding involves interacting with the data using different
techniques, like questioning, making comparisons, drawing on personal experience, and looking
at language. In analyzing this data, the researchers drew from several of these techniques while
reading through the interview transcripts and observation notes. After open coding, the
researchers constructed categories or themes to capture patterns in the data. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) liken this process to sorting items in a grocery store, grouping and organizing the open
codes in a way that makes sense. This process is called axial coding, which goes beyond
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 72

descriptions to interpretation and reflection. The researchers sorted the open codes into themes
axial codes or themes and created a codebook to document and track these patterns and codes.
Participants in the study were selected because of their work with or oversight in the
implementation of PLCs. Therefore, common themes, patterns, processes, and characteristics
were identified to gain a deeper understanding of how leadership influences CTE in a PLC.
Ethical Considerations
This research proposal was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University
of Southern California and was conducted within the parameters of the institution’s ethical
standards. In research studies, ethical concerns are likely to arise in the collection and
presentation of the findings, which are directly impacted by the participant and researcher
relationship (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ethical considerations included how much the
researchers revealed about the purpose of the study to the participants, how informed the consent
from the participants was, the privacy and protection from harm to the participants, and the
standard data collection techniques. To ensure that the study was conducted in an ethical
manner, the researchers took careful steps during the entry to acquire permission from the district
to approach their site and district administrators and to inform both the district and participants
of the purpose of the study, as well as ensuring they understood participation was voluntary.
During the interviews, explicit permission was requested to record the sessions. Furthermore,
the participants were made aware of how the findings would be distributed, as a dissertation in
the doctoral program at USC.
Summary
This chapter summarized the purpose of the study and the research design, which
included details of the study methods including participants, instrumentation, data collection, and
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 73

analysis. The mixed-methods study combined both quantitative and qualitative approaches to
ensure a more robust collection of data to meet the goals of the study, to understand how
leadership of principals, directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents at the site and
district level influence or impact collective teacher efficacy. The researchers used appropriate
tools and ethical standards to ensure a study that would add to existing knowledge in this area.
The findings of the study are presented in Chapter Four.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 74

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
Introduction
This chapter includes a discussion of the data collected from a mixed-method study
intended to examine the role of leadership in developing collective efficacy in PLC’s, a leader’s
approach in changing educational structures from having individual teachers working in isolation
into PLC’s that embrace collective efficacy and collaboration. The study examined the
perceptions of school leaders about collective efficacy and the ways in which they enact
leadership to advance or impede the PLC’s ability to produce the intended results. Quantitative
data was obtained through an online survey that consisted of a Likert scale to quantify
perceptions about collective efficacy and generate numeric trends to examine the relationship
between collaboration and collective efficacy. Qualitative data was collected through semi-
structured interviews. Quantitative and qualitative data was collected from secondary school site
principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents. This chapter
includes the responses from the online survey, demographic data, research findings from the data
collected, and the researcher’s discussion regarding the meaning of the research findings. These
findings are a direct result of nine in-person interviews conducted with the superintendent, two
assistant superintendents, two directors, two high school principals and two middle school
principals. Each of the nine participants also completed an online, 30-question survey.
The study was guided by the following research questions:
1. What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 75

2. How do secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder the work of their
PLCs?
3. How are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ fostering or hindering collaboration in professional learning
communities (PLCs)?
4. Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
Methodology
The purpose of this chapter is to present and analyze the qualitative and quantitative data
and to report the findings as they relate to each research question. To gain a deeper
understanding on the impact of leadership on the development of collective efficacy in PLCs at
ABC High School, interviews were conducted with district and site leaders. The interviews were
used to examine the role of leaders in developing collective teacher efficacy to leverage the
positive impact of PLCs on student achievement. A survey was used to capture quantitative data
to bolster the data collected in the interviews. The semi-structured interviews generated open-
ended data to understand processes and meaning about the role of leadership in supporting or
hindering collaboration in the PLC process to explain what is happening, what it means, and how
it works (Creswell, 2014). An interview guide was prepared with appropriate questions for
consistency in interviews. The protocol for the interviews is included in the appendices.
Demographic Data
Demographic data for interview and survey participants were selected through a
purposive and convenient sampling strategy. The researcher works and resides in southern
California, therefore, the districts that were identified for the study are unified districts in
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 76

southern California where PLCs are being implemented in their secondary schools. The
selection criterion included the following: (a) traditional secondary schools in southern
California, including grades 6-8 in middle schools, and 9-12 high schools; (b) public, non-
charter, schools; (c) schools have been implementing PLCs a minimum of three years; (d) the
principal must have been at the site for a minimum of three years; and (e) the student population
is at least 50% low socio-economic status and students of color. Furthermore, district directors,
assistant superintendents, and superintendents identified for this study play a role in supporting
site principals in the implementation of PLCs at their schools. This criterion was necessary
because the study focused on the implementation of PLCs at the secondary level having a
positive impact on student learning and school improvement.
District demographic data was only collected for the district where the interview
participants were employed. The district that was identified and participated in the study met all
the criterion listed, it has traditional secondary schools with two comprehensive high schools and
four middle schools grades 6-8. It is a public unified school district located in southern
California, and has been implementing PLCs for more than six years.

Table 2
Demographics of Interview Participants
Administrator Level Position
Years in
Administration
Years in Current
Assignment
A Middle School Principal 6-10 years 3-5 years
B Middle School Principal 10+ years 6-10 years
C High School Principal 10+ years 10+ years
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 77

Each secondary site principal and district leader that participated in the study held their
position for a minimum of three years. The enrollment in the district is 22,303 students with
70.6% of the students socioeconomically disadvantaged. All nine participants have been
administrators for more than six years and have been part of the implementation process of
PLCs. All nine participants have been administrators for more than six years and have been part
of the implementation process of PLCs in the district.
All nine administrators are currently overseeing and supporting the implementation of
PLCs directly at the secondary school site or from the district level. Five of the nine participants
stated that the district has been implementing PLCs for 10+ years and the other four participants
stated that they have been implementing PLCs for 6-10 years

Table 2 (Cont’d.)
Administrator Level Position
Years in
Administration
Years in Current
Assignment
D High School Principal 10+ years 6-10 years
E District Director 10+ years 3-5 years
F District Director 10+ years 3-5 years
G District Assistant
Superintendent 10+ years 3-5 years
H District Assistant
Superintendent 10+ years 3-5 years
I District Superintendent 10+ years 6-10 years
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 78

Table 3
PLC Implementation
Administrator
District Years of
Implementation
Teacher Member
of PLCs
Oversee/Support
Implementation of PLCs
A 10+ years Yes Yes
B 10+ years No Yes
C 10+ years No Yes
D 6-10 years Yes Yes
E 10+ years Yes Yes
F 6-10 years Yes Yes
G 6-10 years No Yes
H 6-10 years No Yes
I 10+ years Yes Yes

All nine participants oversee and support the implementation of PLCs in their district and
have been implementing PLCs for over six years. Five of the nine participants were at one time
teachers who participated in the PLC process before becoming an administrator. All nine
participants are heavily involved with the PLC process in the district.

Table 4
PLC Staff Development
Administrator
Frequency of
Staff Development
Percent of Staff
Formally Trained
A Occasionally, as needed Less than 25%
B Regular and on-going 25 to 50%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 79

Table 4 (Cont’d.)
Administrator
Frequency of
Staff Development
Percent of Staff
Formally Trained
C Occasionally, as needed Less than 25%
D Regular and on-going 25 to 50%
E Regular and on-going 50 to 75%
F Regular and on-going 50 to 75%
G Regular and on-going 25 to 50%
H Regular and on-going 25 to 50 %
I Regular and on-going 25 to 50%

Findings Pertaining to Research Question One
What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents,
and superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
When the nine participants were interviewed and surveyed, they were asked questions
regarding their perceptions of collective efficacy. The survey presented the administrators with
statements regarding their perceptions of collective efficacy and how it relates to the work of the
PLCs. Administrators rated how much they agreed with the given statement on a 1-6 Likert
scale, with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 6 being “strongly agree.” The statements given on
the survey that relate to Research Question One were:
 The success of students is impacted by the teachers’ belief in their own capacity to teach
them.
 An administrator can foster a group’s belief in their ability to reach high-needs students
by creating opportunities for meaningful collaboration and including teachers in school-
wide decision making.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 80

 There is enough capacity and knowledge among the teachers in my school/district to
address barriers to learning for all our students.
 The most effective teachers in my school/district share a similar set of values, beliefs, and
attitudes related to teaching and learning.
Figure A shows the responses to these statements.
Of the nine administrators surveyed 100% strongly agreed that the success of students is
impacted by the teachers’ belief in their own capacity to teach them. When the respondents
answered the second question regarding if an administrator can foster a group’s belief in their
ability to reach high needs students by creating opportunities for meaningful collaboration and
including teachers in schoolwide decision making, of the nine survey responses received, 33%
agreed and 67% strongly agreed with this statement. The third survey question asked if there is
enough capacity and knowledge among the teachers in my school/district to address barriers to
learning for all of our students; 45% somewhat agreed, 22% agreed, and 33% strongly agreed
with this statement. When addressing the fourth statement regarding the most effective teachers
in my school/district share a similar set of values, beliefs, and attitudes related to teaching and
learning of the nine surveyed. 22% somewhat agreed, 45% agreed, and 33% strongly agreed with
this statement.

Figure A: Responses to Research Question One

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
T H E M O S T E F F E C T I V E T E A C H E R S I N M Y
S C H O O L / D I S T R I C T S H A R E A S I M I L A R S E T O F V A L U E S ,
B E L I E F S , A N D A T T I T U D E S R E L A T E D T O T E A C H I N G A N D
L E A R N I N G .
T H E R E I S E N O U G H C A P A C I T Y A N D K N O W L E D G E
A M O N G T H E T E A C H E R S I N M Y S C H O O L / D I S T R I C T T O
A D D R E S S B A R R I E R S T O L E A R N I N G F O R A L L O F O U R
S T U D E N T S .
A N A D M I N I S T R A T O R C A N F O S T E R A G R O U P ' S B E L I E F
I N T H E I R A B I L I T Y T O R E A C H H I G H N E E D S S T U D E N T S B Y
C R E A T I N G O P P U R T U N I T I T E S F O R M E A N I N G F U L
C O L L A B O R A T I O N A N D I N C L U D I N G T E A C H E R S I N …
T H E S U C C E S S O F S T U D E N T S I S I M P A C T E D B Y T H E
T E A C H E R S ' B E L I E F I N T H E I R O W N C A P A C I T Y T O T E A C H
T H E M .
0
0
0
0
2
4
4
2
3
3
3
6
9
RESEARCH QUESTION ONE
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 81
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 82

In addition to the survey questionnaire, the nine administrators were interviewed
individually for approximately 35 minutes and asked open-ended questions about their
perceptions about collective efficacy. The interview questions that pertained to Research
Question One were as follows:
 What role do you believe the principal/director/assistant superintendent/superintendent
play in developing collective efficacy of professional learning communities?
 Do you believe there is enough capacity and knowledge in your school/district to address
barriers to learning for all of your students including your high-needs populations?
 What types of experiences within a PLC do you believe contribute to teachers’
confidence in their capacity to apply new knowledge or information?
When asked what role do you believe administrative leadership plays in developing
collective efficacy of professional learning communities, Administrators A, G, and I stated that
they felt they play a large role in it. Administrator A stated that
you’ve got to set the example for it, I think that PLC leads have a huge responsibility and
job and I think it’s the job of the principal to make sure that they’ve trained them, that
they’ve given them the tools that need to be successful, I think they’re not used to taking
leadership roles so we got to make sure that if we’re going to have collective efficacy I
think the principal has to be the point person on that.
Administrators G and I were very similar in their responses; the respondents felt that it’s
their role to monitor where things are in the PLCs and their role is to empower people and
making decisions that empower people to continue to move a PLC forward. Administrator G
stated,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 83

this whole idea that we can all improve and we can get better, I don’t have all the answers
but within this collective group we do have the answers, and if you share those and it
actually works, we can continue to build collective efficacy.
Goddard and Skrla (2006) found that organizations with strong transformational leaders
and high levels of collective efficacy within the staff would be able to sustain positive change.
The role of Administrators B, C, and D was a bit different; they felt they are in a supportive role
in building collective efficacy among teachers. Administrator D stated “it’s not any one person’s
job, but it’s our collective responsibility of focusing on the purpose and the why and then
allowing our teachers to make decisions to address the needs of our students.” Administrator C
stated “how can we change our practice as leaders to support what our PLCs are trying to
accomplish.” Collective efficacy is not a new concept; however, the how collective efficacy is
developed has only begun emerging over the last decade.
When it comes to the belief if there is enough capacity and knowledge in your
school/district to address barriers to learning for all of your students including your high-needs
populations, Administrators C, D, E, F, G, and H responses were similar. The respondents felt
that the district had enough capacity and knowledge to address the barriers to learning for all
students. Administrator G stated “the primary role for our district is to support administrators,
but then also provide the necessary resources and training for administrators to continue that
work with their teachers.” Administrator F explained,
The way I foster it in my role as a director, in any area of work I’m doing, I bring in a
team and try to have a variety of stakeholders. For example, if we’re planning a
professional development for K-12 principals, then I need to have K-12 voices as we plan
this professional development so that it’s meaningful and relevant. If I’m working on a
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 84

teacher development, professional development, same thing. I want to have teachers’
voices in the room. Depending on the topic or content area, I want to have those voices
in the room to ensure the professional development we are planning is building capacity.
Administrators D stated “there is definitely enough capacity, I would say even
knowledge, I think that the staff that we have can overcome the barriers that our students are
facing if we were to pull together.” Building capacity is a key driver in ensuring lasting system
change (Fullan et al., 2005). Administrators C and D in their interview responses understood
that building capacity is essential to lasting change in their schools. It was evident in the data
collected by this researcher, that the leadership in this school district values and supports the
continued growth of collective efficacy.
When the nine administrators were interviewed and asked to answer what type of
experiences within a PLC you believe contribute to teachers’ confidence in their capacity to
apply new knowledge or information, administrators’ responses varied between site
administrators and district administrators. Administrators E, F, G, H, and I agreed that it was
about providing training and knowledge that will build teacher’s confidence in their capacity to
apply new knowledge. Administrator H stated “as leaders we have to give people the knowledge
and skills in order to do the things that we expect them to do. The other part of it is the
collective responsibility.” Administrator I stated
the more training and prepared the teachers are, that increases efficacy, right? When
people feel more confident about what they’re doing and the work they’re doing, that
increases their level of efficacy, it increases the efficacy of the organization, and that
ultimately leads to supporting teachers.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 85

Both Administrator H and I conveyed in their interviews that it is their responsibility to
provide teachers with the training and knowledge to build teacher’s confidence. Administrators
A, B, C, and D expressed that it was the work done in the PLC that contributed to teacher’s
confidence to apply new knowledge. Administrator C stated “it is still our best bet to improve
and learn from one another during the PLC and if those PLCs have the commitment to do so.” In
addition, Administrator D stated “that PLCs is a way of continuing to reengage and put new
challenges and knowledge in front of teachers as they work collaboratively with their colleagues,
not in isolation.” Fullan (2002) affirmed that information becomes knowledge through a social
process of give and take, making collaboration in PLCs essential for the development and
implementation of new knowledge.
It was a common theme among the participants that collective efficacy is a vital
component of the work done in PLCs. All the interviewees agreed that collective efficacy has a
direct positive influence on the collaborative work done in PLCs. The information collected
from the nine administrators who participated in the interviews corresponds with the literature of
Dumas and Kautz (2014). Dumas and Kautz stated that building capacity and monitoring
progress go hand in hand; teachers cannot be expected to perform without the knowledge or
skills necessary to implement an initiative or perform a function. Further research into how
leaders can build capacity amongst all teachers may result in significant findings. It is
recommended that future research be conducted to determine which supports provided by district
and site administrators are beneficial and which additional supports can be utilized.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 86

Findings Pertaining to Research Question Two
How do secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents,
and superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder the work
of their PLCs?
The statements given to the nine administrators from the survey that relate to this
research question were:
 When teachers work together, they are more effective in supporting all students in
learning.
 Teachers can improve their practice through shared experiences with their colleagues.
 Teacher’s belief in their own competence to improve student achievement is malleable
and can be shaped by watching their colleagues experience success with similar student
populations
 Teachers in this school/district believe it is their collective responsibility to help every
child master grade-level curriculum.
 Teachers in this school/district are eager to help each other improve their practice.
The nine administrators were asked “when teachers work together, they are more
effective in supporting all students in learning” and when asked “if teachers can improve their
practice through shared experiences with their colleagues,” 100% agreed to both questions, with
22% agreed, and 78% strongly agreed. When it came to teacher’s belief in their own
competence to improve student achievement is malleable and can be shaped by watching their
colleagues experience success with similar student populations, 11% somewhat agreed, 22%
agreed, and 67% strongly agreed. As far as teachers belief it is their collective responsibility to

Figure B: Responses to Research Question Two

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
T E A C H E R S I N T H I S S C H O O L / D I S T R I C T A R E E A G E R T O
H E L P E A C H O T H E R I M P R O V E T H E I R P R A C T I C E .
T E A C H E R S I N T H I S S C H O O L / D I S T R I C T B E L I E V E I T I S
T H E I R C O L L E C T I V E R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y T O H E L P E V E R Y
C H I L D M A S T E R G R A D E - L E V E L C U R R I C U L U M .
T E A C H E R ' S B E L I E F I N T H E I R O W N C O M P E T E N C E T O
I M P R O V E S T U D E N T A C H I E V E M E N T I S M A L L E A B L E A N D
C A N B E S H A P E D B Y W A T C H I N G T H E I R C O L L E A G U E S …
T E A C H E R S C A N I M P R O V E T H E I R P R A C T I C E T H R O U G H
S H A R E D E X P E R I E N C E S W I T H T H E I R C O L L E A G U E S .
W H E N T E A C H E R S W O R K T O G E T H E R , T H E Y A R E M O R E
E F F E C T I V E I N S U P P O R T I N G A L L S T U D N E T S I N L E A R N I N G .
1 1
1
6
5
1
1
3
2
2
2
6
7
7
RESEARCH QUESTION TWO
Strongly Disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly Agree
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 87
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 88

help every child master grade-level curriculum 11% of respondents somewhat agreed, 56% of
agreed, and 33% strongly agreed. When surveyed if the respondents believed that the teachers in
the school/district are eager to help each other improve their practice, 11% somewhat agreed,
67% agreed, and 11% strongly agreed.
The interview questions that pertain to Research Question Two were as follows:
 Do teachers at your school/district believe it is their responsibility to ensure every student
masters grade-level curriculum?
 In what ways, would you say the work of the PLCs impact student achievement?
 What are the behaviors that a PLC display that hinder the growth of collective efficacy?
Porter’s (2011) research supported his prediction that transformational leaders have a
strong influence on PLCs and promoting collective efficacy in an organization. Research also
suggested that teacher ownership of student outcomes has an impact on student achievement
(Goddard et al., 2015; Jerald, 2007; LoGerfo, 2006; Takahashi, 2011). When the nine
administrators were asked during the interview “if teachers at your school/district believe it is
their responsibility to ensure every student master grade level curriculum,” Administrators F, G,
H, and I reported that teachers in the district are moving toward a greater awareness that all
students are capable of mastery. Administrator E stated,
I don’t expect teachers to ever really give up on a student. Of course, we have a capacity
to have every single teacher onboard to believe that all students can achieve mastery. It’s
just a matter of finding how we get there.
Administrator I stated “I don’t think we’re at 100%. But I hope that that’s the way the
majority feel.” Administrators B, C, D, and E agreed that the district is not at 100% of all
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 89

teachers believing that it is their responsibility to ensure every student master grade-level
curriculum. Administrator C enforced the statement by saying,
I don’t think we are at 100%, but I would really like to get to a 100% one day, because
we don’t have the luxury of saying, you know, oh well, we didn’t do really well with
these couple of students, it’s unfortunate, but we don’t have the luxury of saying, oh well.
Jerald (2007) concluded that “if we want teachers to believe in the ability of all students
to learn and take responsibility for educational outcomes, we (leaders) must take positive steps to
help teachers believe in their own abilities as well” (p. 6).
All nine administrators interviewed agreed that the work of the PLCs impact student
achievement. Administrator G stated,
When we teach a topic, we’ve collectively agreed on what we’re going to teach. I taught
it, you taught it, results came back, your students did better. When you’re able to
collectively share those strategies or techniques, and then as teachers you are able to
incorporate those strategies and techniques into their teaching, and students improve, to
me that would give me a lot of confidence. It would build the collective efficacy of the
group. The whole idea that we can all improve and we can collectively get better, I don’t
have all the answers but within this group we do have the answers, and if you share those
and it actually works, then I think that would give me a lot of confidence in the group’s
collective efficacy.
A key tenet of effective professional learning communities involves educators working
collaboratively in cycles of collective inquiry, a practice that increases collective efficacy
because “participants attributions of improved student performance often shift from external
causes to teaching as the process requires teachers to examine student outcomes resulting from
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 90

changes in teaching practices” (Donohoo, 2017, p. 63). Administrator A reported that “an ideal
professional learning community is one that works collectively and collaboratively to address
and improve student learning.”
The researcher asserts that teachers will have greater collective efficacy when the PLC
process is done with fidelity and it takes place in a collaborative learning environment.
Information collected from the interviewees revealed that there are certain behaviors that a PLC
displays that hinders the growth of collective efficacy. All nine administrators interviewed
agreed that if PLCs are not being done with fidelity, when teachers are not getting together and
having really meaningful conversations and asking key questions, the PLC process is not being
done with commitment and will hinder the growth of collective efficacy. Administrator I
explained,
when teachers are just showing up because they need to tell their principal that they were
in a PLC meeting, and they sit around, and they read the newspaper, or they do a
crossword puzzle, that kind of thing. Number one is it’s unprofessional and it’s
disrespectful to the process and to the students. But really, more than anything, is that it
just ultimately hurts student achievement.
Voelkel and Chrispeels (2017) identified professional learning communities and
collective teacher efficacy as companion constructs and asserted that if PLCs lack a shared belief
in their collective ability to make change and achieve desired outcomes, they are, “unlikely to set
challenging goals, look at student work in ways that delve into teacher practices, or invest in new
ways of teaching” (p. 506) – all of which are critical tenets of the PLC process. Administrator F
stated,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 91

you need to bring a myriad of perspectives, a myriad of professional experiences, and a
myriad of different interests in a room safely where we can talk things through and
ultimately come to consensus with regards to best practices. Then, we move forward as a
collective group. We have to have common beliefs with regard to what students can and
should be able to do. Student efficacy is every bit as important as adult efficacy. We as
adults have to come into PLCs knowing that they can do it.
Findings from two studies support the claim that teacher efficacy is predictive of
increased teacher collaboration (Goddard & Skrla, 2006; Gray & Summers, 2015). In 2006,
Goddard and Skrla conducted a study to examine the impact of a school’s social composition on
teachers’ collective efficacy and found that the greater the school or district’s collective efficacy
beliefs, the greater the persistence and sustained effort the staff will put forth to reach the
organization’s goals, as well as greater teacher collaboration. Analyzing the survey and
interview responses it was evident that there is a positive relationship between PLC
characteristics, collective teacher efficacy, and site and district leadership.
Findings Pertaining to Research Question Three
How are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ fostering or hindering collaboration in professional learning
communities (PLCs)?
The statements given to the administrators on the survey that related to collaboration
were rated on the extent to which the following statements have taken place on a 1-6 Likert
scale, with a 1 being “not at all” and a 6 being “always.” The questions given on the survey that
relate to Research Question Three were:
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 92

 To what extent do teachers share best practices and apply new learning from their
collaboration in PLCs to their individual classroom.
 To what extent do relationships and work in the PLCs reflect a commitment to school
improvement efforts?
 To what extent do teachers in PLCs collaborate in reviewing student work and data to
share and improve instructional practices?
 To what extent has a culture of trust and respect for taking instructional risks been
developed in the PLCs?
 To what extent do teachers value collaboration in their PLCs?
When the respondents answered to what extent do teachers share best practices and apply
new learning from their collaboration in PLCs to their individual classroom, 67% felt that this
was done to some degree and 33% of respondents stated that it is was done quite a bit (see
Figure C).
Of the nine administrators surveyed, 33% reported that they believed to some degree
relationships and work in the PLCs reflect a commitment to school improvement efforts, 56%
stated that it’s quite a bit, and 11% of respondents reported that it always is a reflection of school
improvement efforts. When asked to what extent do teachers in PLCs collaborate in reviewing
student work and data to share and improve instructional practices, 100% of respondents
surveyed stated that is was done to some degree. In regards to the extent has a culture of trust
and respect for taking instructional risk been developed in PLCs, 89% stated that to some degree
it has been developed and 11% responded that it has developed quite a bit. When asked to what
extent teachers value collaboration in their PLCs, 11% responded very little, 56% responded to
some degree and 44% of respondents stated that teachers value collaboration quite a bit.

Figure C: Responses to Research Question Three

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
T O W H A T E X T E N T D O T E A C H E R S V A L U E
C O L L A B O R A T I O N I N T H E I R P L C S ?
T O W H A T E X T E N T H A S A C U L T U R E O F T R U S T A N D
R E S P E C T F O R T A K I N G I N S T R U T I O N A L R I S K S B E E N
D E V E L O P E D I N P L C S ?
T O W H A T E X T E N T D O T E A C H E R S I N P L C S C O L L A B O R A T E
I N R E V I E W I N G S T U D E N T W O R K A N D D A T A T O S H A R E
A N D I M P R O V E I N S T R U C T I O N A L P R E A C T I C E S ?
T O W H A T E X T E N T D O R E L A T I O N S H I P S A N D W O R K I N
T H E P L C S R E F L E C T A C O M M I T M E N T T O S C H O O L
I M P R O V E M E N T E F F O R T S ?
T O W H A T E X T E N T D O T E A C H E R S S H A R E B E S T
P R A C T I C E S A N D A P P L Y N E W L E A R N I N G F R O M T H E I R
C O L L A B O R A T I O N I N P L C S T O T H E I R I N D I V I D U A L …
1 5
8
9
3
6
4
1
5
3
1
RESEARCH QUESTION THREE
Not at All Very Little Some Degree Quite a Bit A Great Deal Always
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 93
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 94

The interview questions asked pertaining to Research Question Three were:
 How would you describe the culture of collaboration at your school/district?
 In what ways have you fostered a culture of collaboration?
 How have you developed shared leadership throughout the school to support the work of
the PLCs?
 What barriers or challenges do you face moving your PLC forward?
All nine administrators interviewed described the culture at their school/district as a work
in progress; Administrator F stated
culture is not a check off item. It’s just ongoing. The barrier is that you have to be
relentless and persistent, because you’re going to have your highs and lows. The hard
part as an administrator is, you really have to be that leader in building a culture of
collaboration.
Administrators G, H, and I acknowledged that building a culture of collaboration is
important and they are incorporating more culture building strategies at leadership meetings.
All nine administrators interviewed reported the importance of building a culture of trust
is imperative to support collaboration. Administrator G stated “that if you don’t have a strong
culture of trust, then PLCs or every other initiative you are trying to move forward will struggle.”
As teachers learn and plan together, their relationships with each other influence the level of trust
and collective efficacy they have with their colleagues. Administrator E stated “I don’t think you
can even get past the first step of the PLC unless you develop some kind of professional
relationship between colleagues that are in the professional learning community that’s
characterized by trust.” Administrator D expressed, “To get a true collaboration, it takes a lot of
trust, a lot of openness, allowing to be vulnerable and saying I don’t have all the answers.” The
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 95

researcher contends that trust is an important link to the success of building a PLC collaborative
environment, as teachers work together, collegial trust increases, and vice versa. Forsyth,
Adams, and Hoy (2011) surmised that trust is the “keystone of successful interpersonal
relationships, leadership, teamwork, and effective organizations” (p. 3).
Each of the nine administrators also had similar responses regarding how they foster a
culture of collaboration. Information collected from their interviews revealed that all nine
administrators foster a culture of collaboration either at their school sites or at the district level.
Administrator C responded,
I’ve really tried to nurture the culture of collaboration and I’ve not been too heavy
handed with that and I think the teachers, they’re the professionals. They know what’s
taking place on a daily basis in their classrooms and I think if I come in and I am too
heavy handed with them, it’s going to hurt the culture of collaboration. I’ve really tried
to do it as a grassroots process, because I don’t think you can force or teach culture.
All nine administrators acknowledged that fostering a culture of collaboration is probably
the hardest work in any organization, but you have to continue to build that foundation of a
collaborative culture. Administrator I stated,
that we are really working hard to foster a culture of collaboration in the district by
developing not only our own administrative leadership, administrative capacity, but also
bringing in teacher leadership capacity, you have to build a culture of collaboration on
several different levels.
Through the research gathered from the survey results and in-person interviews, it was a
common theme that site and district leaders believe in the importance and benefits of fostering a
supportive collaborative environment for their PLCs. The researcher’s findings indicate that
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 96

fostering collaboration in PLCs will continue to increase if there is continuous access to training
and a sustained district focus on PLCs. To support PLCs, principals must allocate resources and
manage structures to provide structured time for collaboration, access to ongoing professional
development, tools that support learning and action research, instructional materials to support
implementation of strategies, and leverage teacher expertise in curriculum, assessment,
instruction, and leadership (Buttram & Farley-Ripple, 2016; DuFour et al., 2016). Administrator
D stated,
I’ve taken groups of teachers to PLC conferences to really go back and do a full circle
back on why the PLCs are important, why we need to work on that, what is essential,
what matters, focus back on the why.
Principals must continuously consider how each decision made with regard to the use of
resources impacts or connected to what the school and PLCs are attempting to accomplish.
Structural support is also an important link to the success of a PLC collaborative environment.
System structural support mechanisms such as early or late starts, changes in the bell
schedules, room accommodation, provide time for teacher collaboration, peer observations,
vertical grade-level articulation, and time to develop appropriate documentation templates to
collect data to be analyzed by PLC teams (All Things PLC, n.d.). Enabling school structures
need to be established for PLCs to be developed and sustained over time (Gray, 2011). All nine
administrators interviewed explained that their district has structured PLC time. This PLC time
consists of either a late start or early release day to give teachers the time to collaborate in their
PLCs. The structures of the school must enable or help teachers to do their jobs more
effectively; teachers should have trust in each other and belief in the ability of their colleagues
(Gray & Summers, 2012). In other words, the researchers’ finding stated that PLCs are an
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 97

effective model for school improvement if built upon a foundation of enabling structures, trust,
and collective efficacy.
The interview question asked the participating administrators how have you developed
shared leadership throughout the school to support the work of the PLCs. Administrators A, B,
C, and D reported that they have been working to build shared leadership throughout their school
site. Administrator D stated,
through shared leadership you create a sense of ownership across the school. It’s not any
one person’s job but it’s our collective responsibility focusing on the purpose and the
why and then allowing them to make decisions to address our students’ needs, it’s a
shared ownership for learning.
Administrator A supported the development of shared leadership when the respondent
stated, “we are working really hard with our PLC leads, I think they are a really important piece
of shared leadership, so we are trying to support them in taking a stronger leadership role, they
help make the decisions.” The respondents’ responses supported the need for shared leadership
in education. To meet the complexity of the demands and challenges in education, extensive
participation in leadership from teachers is necessary (Fullan, 2002; Lambert, 2002; Printy &
Marks, 2006).
Administrators E, F, G, H, and I reported that district leaders must create the necessary
conditions for building capacity of personnel throughout the district. Administrator I stated,
it is my role to make sure that our collective vision is being supported, it takes time,
we’re a big district, a lot of teachers, a lot of personnel, it takes time to the move the ship.
More teachers and more administrators we bring into the shared leadership process we’re
going to move the ship.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 98

All nine administrators interviewed agreed that they must develop leadership skills for
teachers to fully participate in a distributed leadership model. The sharing of knowledge by all
leaders establishes a community of continuous growth; it is through shared leadership that we
can continually have a significant impact on student learning. The discussion in the nine
interviews implied that a leader must empower and support others to lead in order for a school to
be successful.
The information collected in the interviews with regard to “what barriers or challenges do
you face moving your PLC forward,” the nine administrators’ responses were similar.
Administrators A, B, C, D, E, G, and H reported that most barriers can be characterized by belief
systems, teacher mindset, and what teachers fundamentally believe their students are capable of
achieving. Administrator D reported that it was the mindset of teachers, “some teachers on my
staff don’t think some students can do it, and they end up blaming the students.” Administrator
H shared that as administrators and teachers we need to have a common belief with regard to
what students could and should be able to achieve. Administrators A, B, and C shared that
teachers don’t feel it is their responsibility to help students overcome the academic deficits when
they enter their class. In addition, Administrators A, B, and C expressed that there is no reason
why every student can’t be successful, they all agreed that they need to continue to work on
supporting the development of growth mindset with teachers. LoGerfo (2006) found that
teachers who expressed having supportive school leaders had a greater sense of responsibility for
the learning outcomes of their students. Administrator E asked a compelling question regarding
the learning outcomes of students,
what do we fundamentally believe about our students and their ability to achieve
academic success? I think bringing that up over and over again, what do we
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 99

fundamentally believe about our students and do we have positive intentions, and positive
beliefs about our students’ capabilities.
Findings Pertaining to Research Question Four
Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
For the purpose of this research, a deeper understanding of the relationship between
collaboration and teachers’ collective efficacy within professional learning communities can add
to the needed guidance of administrators trying to understand how to foster this relationship. For
that reason, the following questions were used in the survey to determine the effectiveness of
collaboration and its impact on teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs.
 To what extent do teachers work together in their PLCs to seek knowledge, skills, and
strategies that lead to continued inquiry and improved student outcome?
 To what extent do teachers in PLCs share common practice in the delivery of curriculum
and instruction?
 To what extent do teachers in PLCs share common practices in assessments and
interventions?
 To what extent has teacher confidence in their own practice improved as a result of their
collaboration in PLCs?
 To what extent has collaboration in PLCs resulted in an increased sense of collective
responsibility for the success of every student?
 To what extent has teachers’ attitudes about teaching and learning improved as a result of
their collaboration in PLCs?
 To what extent has teacher collaboration in PLCs resulted in improved student outcomes?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 100

When asked “to what extent teachers work together in their PLCs to seek knowledge,
skills, and strategies that lead to continued inquiry and improved student outcome” 56% of the
administrators surveyed stated that they do this to some degree; 44% responded that it is done
quite a bit. When it came to what extent teachers in PLCs share common practice in the delivery
of curriculum and instruction, 56% responded that it takes place to some degree, 44% felt that it
is done quite a bit. When asked “to what extent teachers in PLCs share common practices in
assessments and interventions,” 11% responded that it occurs very little, 56% responded it
occurs to some degree, and 33% it takes place quite a bit.
In regard “to the extent teachers’ confidence in their own practice improved as a result of
their collaboration in PLCs,” 78% of administrators surveyed responded to some degree, and
22% responded quite a bit. Of the nine administrators surveyed “to what extent has collaboration
in PLCs resulted in an increased sense of collective responsibility for the success of every
student,” 56% responded to some degree and 44% responded quite a bit. When it came “to the
extent teachers’ attitudes about teaching and learning improved as a result of their collaboration
in PLCs,” 56% responded to some degree, 33% responded quite a bit, and 11% responded a great
deal. When asked “to what extent teacher collaboration in PLCs has resulted in improved
student outcomes,” 22% responded very little, 33% responded to some degree, and 45%
responded quite a bit.
In regard “to the extent teachers’ confidence in their own practice improved as a result of
their collaboration in PLCs,” 78% of administrators surveyed responded to some degree, and
22% responded quite a bit. Of the nine administrators surveyed “to what extent has collaboration
in PLCs resulted in an increased sense of collective responsibility for the success of every

Figure D: Responses to Research Question Four

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
T O W H A T E X T E N T H A S T E A C H E R C O L L A B O R A T I O N I N
P L C S R E S U L T E D I N I M P R O V E D S T U D E N T O U T C O M E S ?
T O W H A T E X T E N T H A S T E A C H E R S A T T I T U D E S A B O U T
T E A C H I N G A N D L E A R N I N G I M P R O V E D A S A R E S U L T …
T O W H A T E X T E N T H A S C O L L A B O R A T I O N I N P L C S
R E S U L T E D I N A N I N C R E A S E D S E N S E O F C O L L E C T I V E …
T O W H A T E X T E N T H A S T E A C H E R C O N F I D E N C E I N
T H E I R O W N P R A C T I C E I M P R O V E D A S A R E S U L T O F …
T O W H A T E X T E N T D O T E A C H E R S I N P L C S S H A R E
C O M M O N P R A C T I C E S I N A S S E S M E N T S A N D …
T O W H A T E X T E N T D O T E A C H E R S I N P L C S S H A R E
C O M M O N P R A C T I C E I N T H E D E L I V E R Y O F …
T O W H A T E X T E N T D O T E A C H E R S W O R K T O G E T H E R I N
T H E I R P L C S T O S E E K K N O W L E D G E , S K I L L S , A N D …
2
1
3
5
5
7
5
5
5
4
3
4
2
3
4
4
1
RESEARCH QUESTION FOUR
Not at All Very Little Some Degree Quite a Bit A Great Deal Always
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 101
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES

102
student,” 56% responded to some degree and 44% responded quite a bit. When it came “to the
extent teachers’ attitudes about teaching and learning improved as a result of their collaboration
in PLCs,” 56% responded to some degree, 33% responded quite a bit, and 11% responded a great
deal. When asked “to what extent teacher collaboration in PLCs has resulted in improved
student outcomes,” 22% responded very little, 33% responded to some degree, and 45%
responded quite a bit.
The interview questions asked pertaining to Research Question Four were:
 What do you believe are the benefits of collaboration?
 To what extent do teachers work together in their PLCs to seek knowledge, skills, and
strategies that lead to continued inquiry and improved student outcomes?
 Some teachers would argue that it is more efficient to have a small group of teachers or
the district create the curriculum and assessments for your PLCs. How would you
address this argument from a leadership standpoint?
Administrators interviewed all stated that they believed there were benefits in
collaboration; all nine administrators agreed that we are all stronger if we work together and
working together builds collective efficacy. Administrator D shared,
individually we are flawed, we all have faults and we’re not perfect, when you pull a
collaborative group together, we can compensate for each other’s flaws but also highlight
our strengths to be more productive and contribute more to the group.
Each of the nine administrators shared that the benefits of collaboration always outweigh
a teacher working in isolation. Administrator F outlined in detail that teaching in isolation is
completely outdated, if you are just walking into a classroom and doing your own thing, it is not
connected, it is not meaningful, and it is not relevant. Administrator F continued to describe
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 103
“that there is no way a teacher should be working in a silo, there is no way to do the work as
educators without collaborating.” Research has shown that collaboration stimulates the brain to
a greater degree than working alone (Chapman et al., 2005; Reason, 2010). Building a
collaborative culture of a professional learning community is an ongoing process built on
continuous work of all educators. As simplistic as this concept appears, it is easily
misunderstood. “Collaborative” refers to focus on enhancement of communication and action as
a team, not by individuals within the team (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Collaborative groups that
learn together and from each other carry the desire for continuous improvement and build
collective efficacy.
Merrill and Gilbert (2008) noted that collaborative learning has a symbiotic relationship
with individual learning; our brain relies on context clues from those around us to categorize and
assemble new learning. Processing new information, then, is shaped by the collaborative
experiences shared with others. Reason (2010) outlined the impact on collaboration in the
educational setting; it stimulates individual and group learning, challenges inconsistencies and
enhances perspective, tests values and beliefs, establishes accountability, builds memory and
stimulates emotional ties, reduces fear and feelings of isolation, reveals problems, and calls on
educators to shape and reshape goals. Administrator I stated,
The benefits in collaboration are myriad. Number one is it’s the collective, it’s doing the
work together. When we put our efforts together, collaboratively, collectively, when we
bounce ideas off of colleagues, the product, and the way in which we can do our jobs, is
so much better, and so much stronger.
The information collected in the interviews provided the extent teachers work together in
their PLCs to seek knowledge, skills, and strategies that lead to continued inquiry and improved
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 104
student outcomes. Seven of the nine administrators interviewed answered that it varies from
PLC to PLC, it depends on the collaborative nature of the PLC. Administrator D responded “that
the PLCs are at different levels, they are not necessarily all seeking knowledge to improve their
own practice and to support student learning.” The seven administrators shared that in a district
where each of the high schools and middle school where each of the PLCs are equally diverse,
there are several PLCs with a wide variant in actual PLC function. DuFour and Eaker’s (1998)
model addressed teacher improvement by encouraging teacher collaboration, through collective
inquiry, teachers are engaged in authentic learning opportunities that help them examine
evidence of student learning and collaboratively develop solutions. The other two administrators
explained that most PLCs are just doing a checklist, there is no buy in from the members of the
PLC. The two administrators explained that there are PLCs that are not engaged in seeking new
knowledge or skills, the members of the PLC are not engaged which has an impact on the
function of the PLC. Administrator G stated “I don’t think we are seeing those conversations
yet, several of our PLCs are not seeking new strategies or skills, and we have a lot of gaps.”
Administrator G continued to explain,
I do think I’m seeing some progress in our PLCS, looking at data, strategies, working
collaboratively and so that would lead us back to believe that it just was really a lack of
training on our part as a district.
Future research regarding how PLCS work together to seek knowledge, skills, data. and
strategies that lead to improved student outcomes will be beneficial to various secondary schools.
It may increase the validity, reliability, and consistency of data with regards to collaborative
process and collective efficacy of PLCs.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 105
Respondents were asked as part of the interview “that some teachers would argue that it
is more efficient to have a small group of teachers or the district create the curriculum and
assessments for your PLCs.” The respondents were asked to address this from a leadership
standpoint. Administrator E stated
there is a big difference between efficiency and effectiveness, it has to do with the
collective process where teachers are involved directly in the work rather than someone
else developing something and then handing it to the teacher, the teacher has no
connection to it.
Administrators B, C, D, and E agreed that in order for teachers to have ownership of the
assessments and/or curriculum, teachers need to go through the process where they participated
and were involved in the design and development of the assessment and/or curriculum. It gives
the teachers ownership and collectively they are invested in improving the assessment and/or
curriculum they jointly developed in a collaborative environment. Administrators A, G, and H
agreed that when the teachers at the secondary level work in a collaborative environment it has a
positive impact on teachers’ collective efficacy. When the teachers are given the opportunity to
create assessment they have the ability to see their fingerprints all over the assessment, teachers
will continue to make sure that work is sustained because the teachers have a connection to it.
Collectively the teachers have each taken a role in the process of writing the assessment together,
it supports the collective efficacy of the PLCs. The research findings supported that a culture of
collaboration within a professional learning community increases collective teacher efficacy.
Administrator F stated,
we need to practice what we preach, especially in the 21st century, where we are focusing
on creativity, collaboration, communication, and critical thinking, if we expect our
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 106
students to do it, and our teachers are not willing to work collaboratively, as educators we
need to practice what we preach.
Summary and Discussion of Findings
This chapter included a presentation of the analysis of the survey instrument as well as
interviews with nine administrators who oversaw the implementation of professional learning
communities. This chapter analyzed the data and summarized the findings related to the four
research questions. The first section analyzed the perception of secondary school sites and
district leaders regarding collective efficacy; the second section analyzed how secondary school
principals and district leaders’ perceptions about collective efficacy support the work of their
PLCs; the third section analyzed how district leaders and secondary principals foster
collaboration in professional learning communities; the fourth and last section analyzed how
collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs. Each of the
research questions were broken down into pertaining statements that allowed for further analysis
and were presented through a survey in a Likert scale. In addition to the survey responses from
the nine administrators, this chapter also included information gathered from interviews from the
same nine administrators.
The data clearly indicated that secondary site principals and district leaders have a
positive perception of collective efficacy and its correlation with a collaborative PLC. In
addition, the data collected supported that the leadership in this school district values and
supports the continued growth of collective efficacy. It was a common theme among the
participants that collective efficacy is a vital component of the work done in PLCs.
Analyzing the survey and interview data it was evident that there is a positive relationship
between PLC characteristics, collective teacher efficacy, and the support of site and district
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 107
leadership. The data showed that collective teacher efficacy in a collaborative PLC has an
impact on student achievement. An ideal professional learning community is one that works
collectively and collaboratively to address student learning. The data showed that with support
and commitment of secondary principals and district leaders that collective efficacy can continue
to develop.
The data also indicated that sharing of knowledge by all leaders establishes a community
of continuous growth; it is through shared leadership that we can continually have a significant
impact on student learning. The data showed that a leader must empower and support others to
lead in order for collaboration in professional learning communities to be successful. The data
also indicated that secondary principals and district leaders need to continue work on growth
mindset of teachers to continue to foster collaboration in PLCs. The data supported that
collaboration is effective in improving student achievement, the PLCs allow for collaboration,
and the growth of collective efficacy to be done with fidelity.
The data supported that collaboration at the secondary level impacts teachers’ collective
efficacy. Collaboration is effective in improving student achievement, the PLCs allow for
collaboration, and the growth of collective efficacy to be done with fidelity. Working
collectively in a PLC gives teachers ownership of the work they have completed in a
collaborative setting. The data showed that collaborative groups that learn together and from
each other carry the desire for continuous improvement and build collective efficacy. Building a
collaborative culture of a professional learning community is an ongoing process built on the
belief that collectively we are stronger working together than we are working in isolation.
Building collective efficacy in the PLCs is the continuous work of all educators.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 108
These findings were presented in both narrative and table/graphic form. In Chapter Five,
there will be a discussion of research, further conclusions, and implications of the research.
Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 109
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONCLUSION
Summary
Site and district leadership must work in tandem to develop capacity building strategies,
structures, and accountability measures in the area of organizational development in order to
promote effective professional learning community implementation. During the PLC design,
implementation, and monitoring phase, leadership must simultaneously monitor and support
collective teacher efficacy. Professional learning communities is one model which can assist
school district leadership in fostering continuous improvement and purposeful peer interaction
(DuFour et al., 2016). According to DuFour and Fullan (2013), district leaders must maintain a
commitment to and focus on building the individual and collective capacity of educators
throughout the district; the district’s work is to ensure that every school is functioning as a
professional learning community.
DuFour et al. (2016) described how there is rich research surrounding the importance of
the principal’s role in the PLC process; yet, the nature of that role is ambiguous and constantly
increasing. Secondary principals today are tasked with an enormous amount of responsibilities;
one of the chief responsibilities is being an instructional leader who ensures all students receive
high-quality instruction and achieve at a high level. Effective district leaders work with
principals to identify the specific skills and important behaviors that are essential to leading the
professional learning community process in their school (DuFour et al., 2016). In 2010, the U. S.
Department of Education published A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) which outlined the need for developing
effective teachers and leaders and cautioned that school districts “must also put in place policies
to help ensure that principals are able to select and build a strong team of teachers with a shared
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 110
vision” (U. S. Department of Education, 2010, p. 16). While the document highlights the
importance of building strong teams, it provided very little guidance on how to build and sustain
highly effective teams with high collective efficacy beliefs to directly impact student learning.
Goddard et al. (2015) examined how the strengthening of collective efficacy beliefs
through leadership and teacher collaboration can lead to improved student achievement and they
found that collective efficacy beliefs were a direct predictor of achievement differences. The
researchers used social cognitive theory to describe collective efficacy beliefs as arising from “a
meta-cognitive process in which group members assess the relationship between their
competence and the nature of the task they face in light of these sources of efficacy belief
shaping information” (Goddard et al., 2015, p. 506). The importance of collective teacher
efficacy is stressed throughout the literature; however, less is known about how to develop
collective efficacy within PLCs.
To conceptualize the role of leaders in developing collective efficacy, this study drew on
Bandura’s (1998) extension of social cognitive theory from individual to collective agency, or
sense of efficacy. Bandura posited that individual and collective efficacy serve and operate in
similar ways, influencing a group’s goals, effort, and use of resources. In addition, Fullan’s
(2014a) five components of leadership provided insight to examine the enactment of leadership
strategies in developing PLCs. Fullan suggested that leaders increase their effectiveness if they
pursue moral purpose, understand the change process, develop relationships, foster knowledge
building, and strive for coherence. These frameworks provided a lens from which to examine
the intersection of leadership and collective efficacy in a learning organization.
The literature surrounding the positive impact of PLCs in improving student achievement
is plentiful. There is ample research encompassing the needed structures and processes that must
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 111
be implemented in the PLC process as well. It has also been made clear throughout the literature
that teachers are an integral element of successful PLCs and that the principal’s role in building
capacity and district leadership to facilitate the process is critical. However, there is a gap in the
literature addressing the role of leadership at the site and district levels in developing teachers’
collective efficacy in PLCs to impact learning for students.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to understand the role of leadership in developing
collective efficacy in PLCs. The study examined the perceptions of school leaders about
collective efficacy and the ways in which they enact leadership to advance or impede the PLCs’
ability to produce the intended results. Understanding the complex system in which schools
operate and the role of leaders across the system in developing the collective efficacy of the
PLCs that operate within the system was also studied. In addition, this study examined this
problem of practice to augment existing research on the impact of leadership on the development
of collective efficacy in PLCs. Principals and assistant superintendents of educational services
were central agents in the study.
With this stated purpose, the following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
2. How do secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder the work of their
PLCs?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 112
3. How are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents fostering or hindering collaboration in professional learning communities
(PLCs)?
4. Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
Methodology
This study was conducted using a mixed-methods approach which included both
qualitative and quantitative methods. Quantitative data was obtained through a survey that
consisted of both closed and open-ended questions which was distributed to secondary school
principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and the superintendent. The survey
applied a Likert scale to quantify perceptions about collective efficacy and examine the
relationship between collaboration and collective efficacy. Administrators responded to a series
of questions regarding their involvement with professional learning communities, their
perceptions of collective efficacy, and the effect it has on collaboration in PLCs. A semi-
structured interview protocol was used to interview the school principals, district directors,
assistant superintendents, and the superintendent to obtain qualitative data to answer questions
two and three. The semi-structured interviews generated open-ended data to understand
processes and meaning about the role of leadership in supporting or hindering collaboration in
the PLC process to explain what is happening, what it means, and how it works (Creswell, 2014).
The use of both quantitative and qualitative methods further allowed for the triangulation of data
to validate consistency of the findings (Creswell, 2014).
Sample Population
The sampling strategy used to select the participants in the study was purposive and
convenient. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), purposive sampling requires the selection
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 113
of a sample that will generate the greatest opportunity for the researcher to gain insight about the
topic – a sample that meets the researcher’s criteria and goals of the study. Convenience
sampling involves the selection of the participants based on time, money, location, and
availability (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this study, the school principals, district directors,
assistant superintendents, and the superintendent surveyed and interviewed work with or oversaw
the implementation of PLCs at the secondary level. Therefore, the district that was identified for
this study was a unified district in southern California where PLCs are being implemented in a
number of their secondary schools. The selection criteria included the following: (a) traditional
secondary schools in southern California, including grades 6-8 and 9-12 high schools; (b) public,
non-charter, schools; (c) schools have been implementing PLCs a minimum of three years;
(d) the principal must have been at the site for a minimum of three years; and (e) the student
population is at least 50% low socio-economic status and students of color. District directors,
assistant superintendents, and the superintendent identified for this study played a role in
supporting site principals in the implementation of PLCs at their schools
Data Collection
Permission was obtained from the district’s superintendent via a formal written request
(email), followed by a phone conversation, to gain access to site principals, district directors, and
assistant superintendents who work with or oversee the implementation of PLCs. For this case
study, the number of participants was dictated by the number of secondary schools within the
district that met the requirements, resulting in nine total participants, including secondary school
principals, directors, assistant superintendents, and the superintendent. Once permission was
granted, identified site principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and the
superintendent were contacted for participation in the study via email with a Request to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 114
Participate Letter and a link for the survey. In addition, the identified participants were
contacted by phone to encourage responses and to request interviews.
The surveys were conducted via an online format to give participants an opportunity to
complete it at their own time and discretion. Eleven surveys were sent out and nine out of the
eleven surveys were completed and returned. Considering ways in which to build this
partnership, the interviews were conducted at the location designated by the participants to make
it convenient for and to maintain a natural and comfortable environment for the interviewee. A
total of nine one-on-one interviews were conducted. Notes were not taken during the interview
to allow the researcher to listen to the participant and be fully present during the interview. As a
result, the researcher could enhance her connection with the participant during the interview.
The recordings from the interviews were transcribed.
Key Findings
The key findings were based on the analysis of the data in Chapter Four; the research
questions looked at the impact of leadership on the development of collective efficacy in PLCs.
First, in regards to the perceptions of secondary site principals and district leaders about
collective efficacy; it was apparent from the Likert scale survey and the interview questions that
the administrators believed the following:
1. Collective efficacy is a vital component of the work done in the PLCs.
2. Collaborative work done in the PLCs is positively influenced by the PLCs collective
efficacy.
3. Building capacity and monitoring progress go hand in hand; it is the responsibility of site
and district leaders to provide teachers with the training and knowledge to build teachers’
confidence in their capacity to apply new knowledge and increases their level of efficacy.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 115
4. Collective teacher efficacy in a collaborative PLC has an impact on student achievement.
The success of students is impacted by the teachers’ belief in their own capacity to teach
them.
The findings indicated that administrators believe in the importance of collective efficacy
and the direct positive impact it has on the work done in the PLCs. These components are both
practical and necessary to facilitate ongoing implementation of effective PLCs. The success of
students is directly impacted by the teachers’ belief in their own capacity to teach, and it is the
responsibility of site and district leaders to support and build a teachers’ confidence to increase
their level of efficacy.
Secondly, as far as how secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about collective
efficacy support/hinder the work of their PLCs, the data collected showed the following:
1. Teachers work together; they are more effective in supporting all students in learning.
2. Teachers can improve their practice through shared experiences with their colleagues.
3. Administrators believe that the work of the PLCs impact student achievement; when
PLCs work collectively and collaboratively it improves student learning.
4. It was a unanimous belief that when teachers are not collaborating and having meaningful
conversations, asking key questions, and when the PLC process is not being done with
fidelity it will hinder the growth of collective efficacy.
Analyzing the survey and interview responses, it was evident that there is a positive
relationship between PLC characteristics, collective teacher efficacy, and site and district
leadership.
Thirdly, when it came to how secondary site and district leaders foster or hinder
collaboration in professional learning communities, the researcher found the following:
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 116
1. The importance of building a culture of trust is imperative to support collaboration.
2. Building and fostering a culture of collaboration is continual; and is probably the hardest
work in any organization.
3. Administrators support collaboration by allocating resources, providing structure time for
collaboration, and providing access to training and a sustained focus on PLCs.
4. Administrators foster collaboration through shared leadership by investing in the
development of PLC teacher leads. Through shared leadership, they can continually have
a significant impact on student learning.
It was evident from the data collected, that site and district leaders identified fostering a
culture of collaboration is an important theme. In addition, administrators identified the
importance of developing leadership skills for teachers to fully participate in a distributive
leadership model to help drive the collaborative process in PLCs.
Finally, regarding how collaboration at the secondary level impacts teachers’ collective
efficacy in PLCs the researcher found the following:
1. The benefits of collaboration always outweigh a teacher working in isolation. We are all
stronger if we work together and working together builds collective efficacy.
2. There are varying levels of teachers working together in PLCs to seek knowledge, skills,
and strategies that lead to continued inquiry and improved student outcomes.
3. A culture of collaboration within a professional learning community increases collective
teacher efficacy; it is the willingness to collaborate
4. Working collectively in a PLC gives teachers ownership of the work they have completed
in a collaborative setting.
5. Building collective efficacy in the PLCs is the continuous work of all educators.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 117
Site and district administrators believe collaboration in PLCs has increased the sense of
collective responsibility for the success of student achievement. The findings were common
themes. The relationships between leadership, PLCs, and collective efficacy are all necessary
components in meeting the needs of students and promote student achievement.
Limitations
While this study certainly has the potential to be significant, it is not without its
limitations. Each secondary school is unique; consequently, the successes or failures of two
middle schools and two comprehensive high schools may not necessarily generalize to other
secondary schools. Considering the amount of variation among school districts, even those in
neighboring communities, the fact is this case study focused on administrators’ perceptions in a
single unified district in Southern California. Therefore, the study is limited with regard to
generalizability and application across other districts. In addition, the sample size of nine
secondary site and district administrators is small for the quantitative portion of the study. While
convenience, access, and geographic proximity were all taken into consideration, the number of
participants, and the fact that a single district was selected impacts the application and
generalizability of the study. The data gathered from the surveys and interviews were self-
reported and there is no additional form of triangulating the results or data. Although PLCs are
being implemented across the state, all of the data collected was in the southern California region
and may not be applicable to other regions of the state; implementation may vary from school to
school.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 118
Recommendations for Future Research
Although this study was well designed and resulted in significant findings, there is still a
need for future research. Based on the findings of this study, the following areas are
recommended for further research:
1. Further research in other school districts that serve a similar demographic population
using the framework developed as a result of this study may provide researchers with
additional data to support or rebut the results of this study in terms of the relationship
between leadership and developing collective efficacy in PLCs.
2. The area of collective efficacy building processes at multiple intervals during the PLC
process. Additional research that measures the implementation phase of PLC in order to
begin with efficacious teachers. The specific elements of collective teacher efficacy that
either enhance or diminish the PLC process. The different practices and strategies that
can be utilized to increase the strength of teacher collective efficacy in PLCs.
3. The importance and impact of leadership styles of the principal. Using quantitative
instruments to explore the leadership style of a principal would likely provide more
concrete and specific data concerning the impact of leadership on the development and
implementation of PLCs.
Conclusion
This study adds to the body of literature pertinent to the role of site and district leadership
in developing collective efficacy in PLCs. This study examined the role of leaders in fostering
and developing the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers that make professional learning
communities effective in improving student achievement. Educational leaders today are
challenged with ensuring high levels of learning for all students; a feat that requires educators to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 119
“work collectively and take collective responsibility for the success of each student” (DuFour et
al., 2016, p. 11). The research findings of this study strongly support the significance of
leadership in the development of collective efficacy in PLCs. While the implementation of PLCs
was a district-wide initiative, leaders at the site and district managed to successfully develop
PLCs at their respective schools by allowing teachers to participate in decision-making
opportunities, creating a supportive and collaborative environment, and structuring PLC time
during the school day. Site and district leaders recognized the value of collaboration in a
professional learning community on student achievement; these leaders have sought
transformation of instructional practices through the implementation of PLCs. However,
achieving a high degree of effectiveness in the implementation and impact of PLCs on student
learning has proven to be more challenging. Given this challenge, leadership becomes a critical
component to ensure that PLCs can achieve and sustain the intended outcomes. PLCs offer a
viable process for schools to improve student learning outcomes. Leaders need to continue to
encourage the implementation of PLCs and work to strengthen the element of collective teacher
efficacy within the PLC.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 120
References
Adlai E. Stevenson High School. (n.d.). About Adlai E. Stevenson High School District 125.
Retrieved from hhtp://www.d125.org/about/default
AllThingsPLC. (n.d.). History of PLC. Retrieved from http://www.allthingsplc.info/about/
history-of-plc
Balyer, A., Karatas, H., & Alci, B. (2015). School principals’ roles in establishing collaborative
professional learning communities at schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 197, 1340-1347.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In E. Barnouw (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of communication (Vol 4., pp. 92-96). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. Advances
in psychological science, 1, 51-71.
Barber, M., & Fullan, M. (2005). Tri-level development: Putting systems thinking into
action. Education Week, 24(25), 32-35.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 121
Bullough, R. V. (2007). Professional learning communities and the eight-year study. Educational
Horizons, 85(3), 168-180.
Buttram, J. L., & Farley-Ripple, E. N. (2016). The role of principals in professional learning
communities. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 15(2), 192-220.
California Department of Education. (2012). Greatness by design: Supporting outstanding
teaching to sustain a golden state. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov/eo/in/
documents/greatnessfinal.pdf
California Department of Education (CDE). (2018). Data accessed; further details withheld for
confidentiality. Retrieved from http://www.cde.ca.gov
Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: Exploring
the link. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 217-230.
Cherkowski, S. (2016). Exploring the role of the school principal in cultivating a professional
learning climate. Journal of Educational Administration, 26(3), 523-543.
Coldren, A. F., & Spillane, J. P. (2007). Making connections to teaching practice: The role of
boundary practices in instructional leadership. Educational Policy, 21(2), 369-396.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1995). Changing conceptions of teaching and teacher
development. Teacher Education Quarterly, 9-26.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). The flat world and education: How America's commitment to
equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 122
Donohoo, J. (2017). Collective efficacy: How educators’ beliefs impact student learning.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Driscoll, D. L. (2011). Introduction to primary research: Observations, surveys, and
interviews. Writing spaces: Readings on writing, 2, 153-174.
DuFour, R. (2003). Leading edge: ‘Collaboration lite’ puts student achievement on a starvation
diet. Journal of Staff Development, 24(3), 63-64.
DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for
Enhancing Students Achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: Systemic PLCs at work
TM
. Bloomington,
IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom
leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at
work. New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R. E., & Karhanek, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How
professional learning communities respond when kids don't learn. Bloomington, IN:
National Educational Service.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work - A practical guide for PLC teams and
leadership (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing – A
handbook for professional learning communities at work
TM
(3rd ed.) Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 123
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional
learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Dumas, C., & Kautz, C. (2014). WISDOM from the FACTORY FLOOR. The Learning
Professional, 35(5), 26-28.
Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2008). A shift in school culture. The Learning Professional, 29(3), 14-
17.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert
Shanker Institute. Retrieved from www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf
Firestone, W. A., & Shipps, D. (2005). How do leaders interpret conflicting accountabilities to
improve student learning? In W. A. Firestone & C. Riehl (Eds.), A new agenda for
research in educational leadership (pp. 81-91). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Forsyth, P. B., Adams, C. M., & Hoy, W. K. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve
without it. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2002). Principals as leaders in a culture of change. Educational Leadership, 59(8),
16-21.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (with Ballew, A. C.). (2014a). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide
and workbook. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Fullan, M. (2014b). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 124
Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). 8 forces for leaders of change. Journal of Staff
Development, 26(4), 54-64.
Glickman, C. (1989). Has Sam and Samantha’s time come at last? Educational Leadership,
46(8), 4-9.
Goddard, R. (2002). A theoretical and empirical analysis of the measurement of collective
efficacy: The development of a short form. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 62(1), 97-110.
Goddard, R., Goddard, Y., Kim, E. S., & Miller, R. (2015). A theoretical and empirical analysis
of the roles of instructional leadership, teacher collaboration, and collective efficacy
beliefs in support of student learning. American Journal of Education, 121(4), 501-530.
Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of the relationship between
teacher and collective efficacy in urban schools. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17(7),
807-818.
Goddard, R. D., & Skrla, L. (2006). The influence of school social composition on teachers’
collective efficacy beliefs. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(2), 216-235.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning,
measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research
Journal, 37(2), 479-507.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical
developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational Researcher, 33(3),
3-13.
Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of
perceived collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18(3), 403-425.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 125
Goleman, D., Boyatzis, R. E., & McKee, A. (2002). The new leaders: Transforming the art of
leadership into the science of results (p. 14). London: Little, Brown.
Gray, J. A. (2011). Professional learning communities and the role of enabling school structures
and trust. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama). Retrieved from https://ir.ua.
edu/bitstream/handle/123456789/1229/file_1.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Gray, J., & Summers, R. (2012, November). International professional learning communities:
The role of enabling school structures, trust, and collective efficacy. Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration, Denver,
CO.
Gray, J. A., & Summers, R. (2015). International professional learning communities: The role of
enabling school structures, trust, and collective efficacy. International Education
Journal: Comparative Perspectives, 14(3), 61-75.
Hallinger, P. (2005). Instructional leadership and the school principal: A passing fancy that
refuses to fade away. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 4(3), 221-239. https://doi.org/10.
1080/15700760500244793
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (1998). Exploring the principal’s contribution to school
effectiveness: 1980 – 1995. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(2), 157-191.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345980090203
Hallinger, P., & Heck, R. H. (2010). Leadership for learning: Does collaborative leadership make
a difference in school improvement? Educational Management, Administration &
Leadership, 38(6), 654-678. doi:10.1177/1741143210379060
Harris, A. (2013). Distributed leadership: Friend or foe? Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 41(5), 545-554.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 126
Harvey, J., Cambron-McCabe, N., Cunningham, L. L., & Koff, R. H. (2013). The
superintendent's fieldbook: A guide for leaders of learning (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Hattie, J. (2016, July). Third Annual Visible Learning Conference (subtitled Mindframes
and Maximizers). Paper presented at the Annual Conference of Visible Learning
Plus
,
Washington, DC.
Henson, R. K. (2001, January). Teacher self-efficacy: Substantive implications and measurement
dilemmas. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Educational Research Exchange,
College Station, TX. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED452208.pdf
Hess, F. M., & Kelly, A. P. (2007). Learning to lead? What gets taught in principal preparation
programs. Teachers College Record, 109(1), 244-274.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and
improvement. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/plc-cha34.pdf
Hord, S. M. (1998). Creating a professional learning community: Cottonwood Creek
School. Issues About Change, 6(2).
Hord, S. M. (Ed.). (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through
professional learning communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Hoy, A. W. (2000, April). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://www.learningforwardpa.org/uploads/2/0/8/5/
20859956/changes_in_teacher_efficacy.pdf
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 127
Huffman, J. (2003). The role of shared values and vision in creating professional learning
communities. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 21-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636503087
63703
Huggins, K. S., Klar, H. W., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey, F. C. (2016). Supporting leadership
development: An examination of high school principals’ efforts to develop leaders’
personal capacities. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 11(2), 200-221.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1942775116658636
Jerald, C. D. (2007). Believing and achieving (Issue Brief). Washington, DC: Center for
Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.
Key, K. (2010). 21st century skills: Why they matter, what they are, and how we can get there. In
J. Bellanca & R. Brandt (Eds), 21st century skills: rethinking how student learn (pp. xiii-
xxxi). Bloomington, IN: Solutions Tree Press.
Klar, H. W., Huggins, K. S., Hammonds, H. L., & Buskey, F. C. (2016). Fostering the capacity
for distributed leadership: A post-heroic approach to leading school improvement.
International Journal of Leadership in Education, 19(2), 111-137.
Lai, E. (2014). Principal leadership practices in exploiting situated possibilities to build teacher
capacity for change. Asia Pacific Education Review, 15(2), 165-175.
Lambert, L. (1998). Building leadership capacity in schools. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 37-40.
Lambert, L., Collay, M., Dietz, M. E., Kent, K., & Richert, A. E. (1997). Who will save our
schools? Teachers as constructivist leaders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Lambert, L., Walker, D., Zimmerman, D., Cooper, J., Lambert, M., Gardner, M., & Ford-Slack,
P. J. (1995). The constructivist leader. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 128
Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1995). Another look at high school restructuring:
More evidence that it improves student achievement and more insight into why. Issues in
restructuring schools, 9, 1-10. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED3912
32.pdf
Leithwood, K. (2013). Strong districts & their leadership. Commissioned by Ontario’s Institute
for Education Leadership and Council of Ontario Directors of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.ontariodirectors.ca/downloads/Strong%20Districts-2.pdf
Leithwood, K., Day, C., Sammons, P., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2006). Seven strong claims
about successful school leadership. Nottingham, England: National College for School
Leadership. Retrieved from http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/6967/1/download%3Fid%3D17387%
26filename%3Dseven-claims-about-successful-school-leadership.pdf
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2008). Seven strong claims about successful school
leadership. School Leadership and Management, 28(1), 27-42.
Leithwood, K., Patten, S., & Jantzi, D. (2010). Testing a conception of how school leadership
influences student learning. Educational Administration Quarterly, 46(5), 671-706.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Executive summary:
Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. University of
Minnesota, University of Toronto, and The Wallace Foundation.
Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to
implement accountability policies. Education Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 129
Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: Transforming conceptions of
professional learning. In F. Stevens Innovating and evaluating science education: NSF
Evaluation Forums (67-78). Retrieved from https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1995/nsf95162/
nsf_ef.pdf#page=58
LoGerfo, L. (2006). Climb every mountain. Education Next, 6(3). Retrieved from http://libproxy
.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1237809087
?accountid=14749
Lomos, C, Hofman, R. H., & Bosker, R. J. (2011). Professional communities and student
achievement–a meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and Social Improvement: An
International Journal of Research, Policy, and Practice, 22(2), 121-148.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?
Teachers' work and student experiences in restructuring schools. American Journal of
Education, 106(4), 532-575. https://doi.org/10.1086/444197
Marks, H., M., & Printy, S. M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An
integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 39(3), 370-397.
Marzano, R. J., & Waters, T. (2009). District leadership that works: Striking the right balance.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development; and Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 130
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work of high
school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building school-based teacher learning
communities: Professional strategies to improve student achievement. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Merriam, S. & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research – A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merrill, M. D., & Gilbert, C. G. (2008). Effective peer interaction in a problem-centered
instructional strategy. Distance Education, 29(2), 199-207.
Mitchell, C., & Sackney, L. (2011). Profound improvement: Building capacity for a learning
community. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Moolenaar, N. M., Sleegers, P. J. C., & Daly, A. J. (2012). Teaming up: Linking collaboration
networks, collective efficacy and student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education,
28, 251-262. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2011.10.001
Murphy, J. (1988). Methodological, measurement, and conceptual problems in the study of
instructional leadership. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(2), 117-139.
https://doi.org/10.1177/019263650308763703
Murphy, J. (Ed.). (2005). Connecting teacher leadership and school improvement. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Nedelcu, A. (2013). Transformational approach to school leadership: Contribution to continued
improvement of education. Manager, 17(1), 237-244.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 131
Neumerski, C. M. (2012). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about
principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?
Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
Newman, F., & Wehlage, G. (1996). Restructuring for authentic student achievement. Authentic
achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality, 286-301.
Niche. (2018). 2017 Rankings recognize top public schools in every state. Retrieved from
https://about.niche.com/2017-rankings-recognize-top-public-schools-in-every-state/
No Child Left Behind. (2002). Public law 107-110: An act to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Olson, L. (2000, November 1). Principals try new styles as instructional leaders. Education
Week, 20(9). Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2000/11/01/09lead
.h20.html
Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An empirical
study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33-47.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative designs and data collection. Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Poplin, M. (1994, November). The restructuring movement and voices from the inside:
Compatibilities and incompatibilities. Seminar conducted at the meeting of the
Association of California School Administrators, Palm Springs, CA.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 132
Porter, W. A. (2011). The role of leadership in developing and sustaining collective efficacy in a
professional learning community (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, San
Diego, and California State University, San Marcos). Retrieved from https://cloudfront.
escholarship.org/dist/prd/content/qt3qs7r1hc/qt3qs7r1hc.pdf?t=ml5m7l
Printy, S. M., & Marks, H. M. (2006). Shared leadership for teacher and student learning. Theory
into Practice, 45(2), 125-132.
Protheroe, N. (2008). Teacher efficacy: What is it and does it matter? Principal, 87(5), 42-45.
Ramos, M. F. H., Costa, S. S., Pontes, F. A. R., Fernandez, A. P. O., & Nina, K. C. F. (2014).
Collective teacher efficacy beliefs: A critical review of the literature. International
Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 4(7), 179-188.
Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with others.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Reeves, D. (2006). Leading to change/pull the weeds before you plant the flowers. Educational
Leadership, 64(1), 69-90.
Rigby, J. G. (2014). Three logics of instructional leadership. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 50(4), 610-644.
Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2006). School leadership and student achievement: The mediating
effects of teacher beliefs. Canadian Journal of Education 29(3), 798-822/Revue
canadienne de l'éducation.
Rotter, J. B. (1954). The social learning theory of Julian B. Rotter (1916-2014). Retrieved from
http://psych.fullerton.edu/jmearns/rotter.htm
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 133
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now how we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching
and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77.
Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2017). Systems thinking for school leaders: Holistic leadership for
excellence in education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1398339
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A
distributed perspective (Research news and comment). Educational Researcher, 30(3),
23-28.
Stringer, P. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement. Educational Research for Policy
and Practice, 8(3), 153-179.
Takahashi, S. (2011). Co-constructing efficacy: A “communities of practice” perspective on
teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 732-741.
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning communities,
leadership, and student learning. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 28(1), 1-
15, 20, 35.
Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to
improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 134
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
U. S. Congress. (n.d.). Equal Opportunity Act of 1974. Title 20–Education: Subchapter I–Equal
Educational Opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-
2010-title20/pdf/USCODE-2010-title20-chap39-subchapI-part2-sec1703.pdf
U. S. Department of Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Retrieved from https://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A_Nation_At_
Risk_1983.pdf
U. S. Department of Education. (1994). Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. Retrieved
from https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/6/text
U. S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington DC: Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development.
Voelkel, R. H., Jr., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2017). Understanding the link between professional
learning communities and teacher collective efficacy. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 28(4), 505-526.
Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching
and learning. Author.
Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision
with action. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement–a working paper. Denver, CO: Mid-
continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 135
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational
frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-146.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Wilhelm, T. (2010). Fostering shared leadership. Leadership, 40(2), 22-38.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003), Educational leadership and student achievement:
The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 398-
425.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 136
Appendix A: Letter of Invitation

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 137

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 138

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 139

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 140

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 141

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 142

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study examined the role of leaders in fostering and developing the collective efficacy beliefs of teachers that make professional learning communities effective in improving student achievement. The purpose of the study was to examine the perceptions of school leaders about collective efficacy and the ways in which they enact leadership to advance or impede the professional learning communities’ ability to produce the intended results. Understanding the complex system in which schools operate, the role of leaders across the system in developing the collective efficacy of the PLCs that operate within the system was also studied. This was a mixed-method study utilizing data collected from surveys and interviews. Secondary principals and district leaders are central agents in this study. The findings indicated that the relationships between leadership, PLCs, and collective efficacy are all necessary components in meeting the needs of students and promoting student achievement. This study begins to identify the perceptions of secondary site and district administrators’ belief that collaboration in PLCs increases the sense of collective responsibility for the success of student achievement.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...

PDF

Professional learning communities: secondary site and district leaders’ role in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California

PDF

Middle school principals’ impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California

PDF

The secondary school principal's role as instructional leader in teacher professional development

PDF

Elementary school principals' impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California

PDF

Strategies Orange and San Diego county superintendents employ to build capacity in secondary principals as instructional leaders

PDF

The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development

PDF

Cultivating a growth mindset: an exploration of teacher beliefs and learning environments

PDF

Effective transformational and transactional qualities of 7-8 intermediate school principals who create and sustain change in an urban school setting

PDF

Transformative justice in California’s public schools: decreasing the education debt owed to California’s Latino students through collaboratively-developed professional learning for secondary teachers

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day

PDF

Leadership styles conducive to creative tension in decision making among principals, vice principals, and deans at K-12 school sites

PDF

Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…

PDF

Strategies Riverside and San Bernardino county superintendents employ to build capacity in secondary principals as instructional leaders

PDF

Schoolwide structures, systems, and practices that are closing the achievement gap at a Southern California high-performing, high-poverty urban public elementary school: a case study

PDF

The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices

PDF

Perceptions of inclusion: high school students diagnosed with learning disabilities and their level of self-efficacy

PDF

Uncovered leaders in hidden schools: effective leadership practices in California Model Continuation High School principals

Asset Metadata

Creator Sanchez, Ixchel Ericka (author)

Core Title Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/11/2019

Defense Date 02/28/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag collective efficacy,OAI-PMH Harvest,professional learning communities,secondary public schools,site and district leaders

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Roach, John (committee member)

Creator Email ixchelericka@gmail.com,ixchelsa@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-130554

Unique identifier UC11675164

Identifier etd-SanchezIxc-7137.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-130554 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-SanchezIxc-7137.pdf

Dmrecord 130554

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Sanchez, Ixchel Ericka

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