Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California
(USC Thesis Other)
Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 1
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES: THE ROLE OF SECONDARY
SITE AND DISTRICT LEADERS IN DEVELOPING COLLECTIVE
EFFICACY IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
by
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 Cari White
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my family. When I was contemplating
starting the doctoral program, I asked if you could commit to getting together on Sundays so I
would not spend time apart from you during this journey. After two and a half years of early
morning breakfast and church, I am blown away by your commitment and support. Your
unconditional love was evident every time I had to miss a family event or leave early to work on
my courses or dissertation. Instead of trying to talk me into staying, you encouraged me and
made it clear you understood. Nothing I acquire or accomplish in my lifetime comes close to
how blessed I am to have the family that I do.
Thank you to my dissertation chairs, Dr. Castruita and Dr. Cash, for your guidance and
support through this process. I would also like to thank Dr. Roach for serving on our committee
and making yourself so available to us. I am grateful to my professors, Dr. Escalante, Dr. Garcia
and Dr. Franklin, for your sage advice and sharing your experiences in educational leadership.
Thank you, Dr. Hinga - your instruction and guidance through Inquiry I and II made the
dissertation so much more manageable. I am also grateful to Gladys Velazquez, Connie
Quintero, and Anthony Zegarra. The three of you were always so willing to answer questions,
share your experiences in the doctoral program, and guide us. I hope I can pay forward your
patience and support. Thank you to our editor, Marie Painter. I appreciate how thorough and
patient you are. We were lucky to work through the dissertation process with you.
Laura Rivas, Gil Rodriguez, and Ixchel Sanchez, I am especially grateful I had you as
team members. I cannot imagine going through this process without you. I am so proud of each
of you and cannot wait to see what the rest of your educational leadership career has in store for
you. Although we are all going separate ways, I hope there is a day in the near future when we
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 3
can work as a team again. I am forever grateful for your friendship, support, and sense of
humor…it is what got me through the program. Additionally, Jeff, Darryl, and Ebony, you are
the best co-workers anyone could ever ask for. I am forever indebted to you for the countless
times you stepped in when the four of us had to leave every Thursday for class. Never once did
you complain, but instead made sure the imposition appeared seamless. As friends, you
encouraged me and showed unconditional support. I am so blessed to have you in my life!
A special thank you to the administrators who took time out of your extremely busy
schedules to participate in this study and share your wisdom and insight with me. I learned from
every single one of you and my time with the middle school principals has opened my eyes to
how critical the work is that you are doing to prepare students for high school. My sincerest
gratitude for your help and for the important work you are doing every day to help students and
families. Finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank God for this opportunity. I pray
that I can use what I have learned for Your purpose.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 4
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .................................................................................10
Background of the Problem .........................................................................................13
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................15
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................16
Research Questions ......................................................................................................16
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................17
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................18
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................18
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................19
Chapter Two: Literature Review .......................................................................................21
Introduction to the Topic .............................................................................................21
Professional Learning Communities ............................................................................21
Historical Context ..................................................................................................21
Framework for PLCs..............................................................................................28
DuFour model. ...............................................................................................29
Guiding principles ............................................................................................29
Model PLCs .....................................................................................................34
Collective Teacher Efficacy .........................................................................................35
History of Efficacy .................................................................................................36
Collective Efficacy and Student Achievement ......................................................40
Collective Efficacy and PLCs ................................................................................41
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 5
The Role of Leadership: Creating Conditions .............................................................44
Historical Perspective: The Evolution of Educational Leadership ........................44
Managerial Leadership.....................................................................................45
Instructional Leadership...................................................................................45
Distributive Leadership ....................................................................................47
Transformational Leadership ...........................................................................47
Framework on Educational Leadership .................................................................49
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 ...............................................................54
Building Knowledge and Capacity ..................................................................55
Distributing Leadership ...................................................................................56
Aligning Resources for Coherence ..................................................................58
The Role of District Leaders ..................................................................................60
Fostering Collective Efficacy ................................................................................61
Summary ......................................................................................................................64
Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................65
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study .....................................................................65
Restatement of the Research Questions .......................................................................66
Research Design...........................................................................................................66
Participants and Setting................................................................................................67
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................68
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 6
Data Collection ............................................................................................................70
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................71
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................72
Summary ......................................................................................................................72
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...................................................................................74
Participating Stakeholders ...........................................................................................75
Demographic Data .......................................................................................................75
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question One............................................77
Vicarious Experience .............................................................................................78
Distributive Leadership ..........................................................................................79
Efficacy Beliefs ......................................................................................................82
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Two ...........................................85
Collective Actions ..................................................................................................85
Ownership in all Student Learning ........................................................................90
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Three .........................................93
Fostering a Culture of Collaboration .....................................................................94
Alignment of Resources .........................................................................................98
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Four .........................................101
Focus on Learning................................................................................................102
A Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility.......................................105
Results Orientation...............................................................................................107
Conclusion .................................................................................................................109
Chapter Five: Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusion ........................................111
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 7
Summary ....................................................................................................................111
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................113
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................114
Methodology ..............................................................................................................114
Sample Population .....................................................................................................115
Data Collection ..........................................................................................................115
Key Findings ..............................................................................................................116
Limitations .................................................................................................................119
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................................119
Conclusion .................................................................................................................120
References ........................................................................................................................121
Table 1: Professional Learning Communities to Other Models ......................................137
Table 2: Demographics of Interview Participants ...........................................................138
Table 3: PLC Implementation ..........................................................................................139
Table 4: PLC Staff Development .....................................................................................140
Figure A: Responses to Collaboration Survey Statements ..............................................141
Figure B: Responses to Vicarious Experience Survey Statements ..................................142
Figure C: Responses to Distributive Leadership Survey Statements ..............................143
Figure D: Responses to Efficacy Beliefs Survey Statements ..........................................144
Figure E: Responses to Focus on Learning Survey Statements .......................................145
Figure F: Responses to Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility
Survey Statements ...........................................................................................146
Figure G: Responses to Results Orientation Survey Statements .....................................147
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 8
Appendix A: Survey and Interview Questions Pertaining to the Research
Questions....................................................................................................................148
Appendix B: Letter of Invitation......................................................................................151
Appendix C: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Interview Protocol ........................152
Appendix D: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Surveys .........................................155
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 9
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to understand the role of site and district leaders in developing
collective efficacy in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). This study drew on
Bandura’s (1998) extension of social cognitive theory from individual to collective agency. In
addition, Fullan’s (2014a) five components of leadership provided insight to examine the
implementation of leadership strategies in developing PLCs. These frameworks provided a lens
from which to answer the following questions: (1) what are secondary school principals, district
directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy,
(2) how do the leaders’ perceptions about collective efficacy support or hinder the work of their
PLCs, (3) how do leaders foster or hinder collaboration in professional learning communities
(PLCs), and (4) does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in
PLCs? A mixed-methods approach was used in this study. Six secondary school principals and
one assistant superintendent to quantify perceptions about collective efficacy and to examine the
relationship between collaboration and collective efficacy completed a Likert scale survey. In
addition, a semi-structured interview protocol was used to obtain qualitative data. This study
adds to the body of literature to better understand how site and district leaders use PLCs as a tool
to develop a systemic structure to promote a culture of collective efficacy with their teacher
teams. It also adds to the literature surrounding leadership as a means to develop collective
efficacy to meet the needs of all students in being college and career ready.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 10
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 11
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 12
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 13
(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 14
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 15
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 16
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 17
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 18
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 19
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 20
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 21
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 22
(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 23
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. . . ” (as cited in
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 24
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” (as cited in Hord, 2004, The Learning Community Evolves,
para. 2). “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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 25
(History of PLC, para. 7). In 1995, Sharon Kruse, Karen Seashore 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).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 26
The literature indicated that innovative schools where PLCs are implemented showed greater
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 27
start, the constituents of SHS were determined to create one of the best high schools in the
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 28
shift, and as a result, was eventually in high demand as a consultant for school reform via
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 29
organizational planning of the professional learning practice; in comparison, the other three
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.
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:
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 30
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
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.).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 31
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.,
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 32
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
benefit of the primary focus, student learning. This is not done by individuals, but by a group of
teachers working collaboratively.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 33
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
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,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 34
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 35
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).
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 36
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 37
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 38
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,
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 39
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 40
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,
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 41
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.
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 42
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,
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)
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 43
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 44
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.
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 45
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 46
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).
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 47
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 48
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:
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 49
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 50
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.
Fullan’s Framework: Leading in a Culture of Change
Fullan’s (2001) framework emphasized moral purpose, understanding the process of
change, relationship 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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 51
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 52
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
(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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 53
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 54
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
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 55
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,
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 56
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 57
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 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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 58
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.
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 59
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).
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 60
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 61
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
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)
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 62
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
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 63
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’
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 64
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.
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: Results and Findings
This chapter includes an analysis of data collected from a mixed-methods case study of
JSA Unified School District (JSA USD) for the purpose of examining the role of leadership in
developing collective efficacy in professional learning communities (PLCs). An online survey
using a Likert scale to rank statements was administered to collect quantitative data. The
quantitative portion of the study examined the relationship between collaboration at the
secondary level and its impact on collective teacher efficacy in PLCs. It also measured the
incidence of various perceptions of collective efficacy among site and district administrators.
Interviews were conducted to collect qualitative data which focused on processes and meaning
about the role these leaders play in supporting/hindering the work of their PLCs, how collective
efficacy beliefs impact collaboration, and how collaboration is fostered or hindered. The
findings in this chapter are a result of the online surveys, district demographic data, and the in-
person interviews. 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?
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?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 75
Participating Stakeholders
For this case study, a unified district in southern California was chosen where PLCs are
being implemented in all of their secondary schools. The district met the selection criteria which
included the following: (a) traditional secondary schools, including grades 6-8 and 4-8 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) ideally the principal has 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 administrators identified for this study play a role in supporting
site principals in the implementation of PLCs at their schools. Of the nine administrators who
met the criteria, four middle school principals, two high school principals, and one assistant
superintendent responded to the survey and participated in the interview. In an effort to protect
the identities of the administrators involved and to ensure anonymity, the name of the school
district was changed to JSA USD and administrators were assigned a letter of the alphabet in
place of their name – JSA Administrators A-G.
Demographic Data
JSA Unified School District is an urban district in southern California. The district
serves over 15,000 students in 20 schools – two high schools, a continuation high school, a
magnet high school, four middle schools, 11 elementary schools, and one adult school. JSA
USD graduates approximately 87% of its students of which approximately 89% are Hispanic and
89% socioeconomically disadvantaged (California Department of Education, 2018).
Demographic data for interview participants was collected through online Google
surveys, as well as clarifying questions in the in-person interviews. Nine administrators were
contacted via email of which seven completed the survey by first responding to 10 demographic
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 76
questions addressing administrative assignment and experience, participation in PLCs, and
formal staff development in the implementation of PLCs. Tables 2-4 represent respondents’
answers. Six of the seven participants were principals of which four were middle school
administrators. Years of administrative experience ranged from three years to over 10 years.
With the exception of two participants who are in their second year of their current position, five
administrators have been in their current position between three to 10 years.
District years of implementation of PLCs ranged from six years to over 10. Through the
interview process, it was clarified that five of the seven administrators received all of their PLC
training through professional development within JSA USD as well as attending Solution Tree
conferences. The two newer administrators to the district also attended Solution Tree
conferences. Additionally, four of the seven administrators participated in PLCs as teachers. All
seven administrators currently oversee PLCs.
The frequency of formal staff development regarding PLCs has occurred once or twice at
three of the sites, occasionally as needed at three of the sites, and the assistant superintendent
reported that the professional development is regular and on-going. Clarification during the
interview process revealed that all principals reported the frequency at their site, whereas the
assistant superintendent reported the frequency of training at the district level for this
respondent’s administrators (A, B, D, and F). Four of the principals reported that 25 to 50% of
their staff has been formally trained. JSA Administrator E reported that less than 25% of her
teachers are trained. In the interview, JSA Administrator E shared that there has been high
turnover in the past two years and her new teachers have not been formally trained. Both the
assistant superintendent and one of the middle school principals reported that 51 to 75% of their
staff have been formally trained. Again, the assistant superintendent was reporting on the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 77
number of administrators who have been formally trained and was not sure of the percentage of
teachers trained since majority of the training is done at the sites.
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question One
What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents,
and superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
Building on the idea of collective responsibility for student learning, collective teacher
efficacy is the shared belief that through collective action, a staff can positively impact student
outcomes for all students, including students who are disadvantaged and/or disengaged
(Donohoo, 2017). Overarching principles in the literature surrounding 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 et al., 2010; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wallace Foundation, 2013).
These principles align with Fullan’s (2002) framework for educational leadership that include
moral purpose, relationship building, knowledge, coherence making, and understanding change.
The site and district administrators who were surveyed responded to 15 statements regarding
their perceptions about collective efficacy. The survey questions fell under four main topic
areas: collaboration, vicarious experiences, distributive leadership, and efficacy beliefs
(Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004; Bandura, 1977). Administrators rated their level of agreement
about the survey statements with six various responses including “strongly disagree, agree,
somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, disagree, and strongly agree.” Statements related to
collaboration included:
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 78
● When teachers work together, they are more effective in supporting all students in
learning.
● The success of students is increased when teachers collaborate on common practices.
● Teachers in this school/district are eager to help each other improve their practice.
Of the seven administrators surveyed, 85.7% strongly agreed and 14.3% agreed that
when teachers work together, they are more effective in supporting all students in learning and
that the success of students is increased when teachers collaborate on common practices. When
asked if teachers in their school/district are eager to help each other improve their practice,
14.3% strongly agreed, 71.4% agreed, and 14.3% somewhat agreed. (see Figure A)
Vicarious Experience
The second most powerful belief shaping source of self-efficacy is vicarious experiences
in which Bandura (1977) explained, “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). Survey statements related to vicarious experiences
included:
● Teachers can improve their practice through shared experiences with colleagues.
● Teachers’ 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.
Goddard, Hoy, and Hoy (2004) found 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. During the interview process, all four
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 79
middle school principals identified Learning Walks and Lesson Studies as two of the most
effective strategies for building teacher capacity. JSA Administrator A described Learning
Walks as opportunities for teachers to observe their peers while focusing on a targeted strategy,
such as student engagement or higher-level questioning.” The respondent went on to explain
that “Lesson Studies involve teachers planning a lesson together, observing each other teaching
that lesson, and then debriefing in order to refine the lesson” (JSA Administrator A). In a
follow-up interview question, when JSA Administrator B was asked what specific actions have
been taken to develop the collective capacity of teachers in PLCs, the respondent shared,
We make sure that there’s about nine lessons we ask of them to create as a team. And
then we go in. Coaches and our administrative team go in to observe and provide
feedback. But even more powerful is when they go in to observe each other. They have
created a very safe environment for giving feedback and genuinely learning from each
other (JSA Administrator B).
Figure B shows the statement responses.
Distributive Leadership
A model of shared leadership distributed among district, site, and classroom leaders is at
the heart of the PLC process. The principal has a unique role in developing teacher leaders while
at the same time fostering a sense of collective efficacy schoolwide (Goddard et al., 2015).
However, it is unclear how principals develop and support the teacher leaders who are
responsible for moving PLCs forward. Several survey questions were used to explore the
perceptions of the secondary school principal in supporting shared leadership within professional
learning communities. PLCs in JSA USD are at various levels of the implementation process
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 80
and administrators’ responses will be examined to identify their perceptions about collective
efficacy. Statements related to distributive leadership include:
● 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.
● Successful schools leverage the expertise of all teachers to achieve a common goal.
● There is enough capacity and knowledge among the teachers in my school/district to
address barriers to learning for all our students.
Figure C shows the statement responses. Seventy-one percent of administrators strongly
agreed and 29% agreed that 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. In addressing the second statement, 100% of
respondents strongly agreed that successful schools leverage the expertise of all teachers to
achieve a common goal.
The third question had more mixed responses with 28.6% strongly agreeing, 42.9%
agreeing, and 28.6% somewhat agreeing that there is enough capacity and knowledge among the
teachers in their school/district to address barriers to learning for all our students. When this
statement was asked as a question in the interview, JSA Administrator G responded “somewhat
believed” there was enough capacity and shared, “Sometimes people have lost their faith in kids.
And obviously that’s not everyone, but sometimes there’s a lack of belief that our students can
do it or can achieve and the excuses kind of come out.” JSA Administrator G went on to further
say about the adult mindset,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 81
One of the notorious parts of high school cultures is that more than any other level,
you’ve got this tremendous gate keeping propensity. The higher up you get in math, the
less kids, the less people, kids that teachers think are qualified for those levels.
JSA Administrator F shared that the reason for answering “somewhat agree” when
addressing whether there is enough capacity and knowledge among the teachers to address
barriers to learning for all our students was due to trust and past practice. As a second-year
principal at the high school level, the respondent believed,
I think it’s a matter of trust. I think they trust me, but they also know that I work for the
district, so that’s the hard piece. I think they all believe that students learn at a different
pace, but they struggle with previous concepts that they have, past practice. I always call
it hashtag #JSAWay. But it’s past practice. A lot of past practice is embedded and it’s
hard to break that habit. No matter what you do when you come in, change is really
difficult. (JSA Administrator F)
The importance of trust in the principal is supported by the literature. 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 for the effect size showed that leadership is significantly related to PLCs
(.69), teacher trust (.28), and collective teacher efficacy (.10). Additionally, 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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 82
Efficacy Beliefs
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. 5). Survey statements related to efficacy include:
● Teachers in this school/district believe it is their collective responsibility to help every
student master grade-level curriculum.
● Teachers in my school/district are confident they are able to motivate and prepare their
students to achieve.
● The success of my school/district in meeting academic and behavioral goals for all
students depends on the capacity and collaboration of all teachers in my school/district.
● The most effective teachers in my school/district share a similar set of values, beliefs, and
attitudes related to teaching and learning.
● The success of students is impacted by the teachers’ belief in their own capacity to teach
them.
● For my teachers/staff, student failure results in increased teacher effort/persistence.
● Teachers in my school/district believe in their ability to reach disadvantaged students has
a bigger impact on student achievement than their home environment, parental
involvement, or prior student achievement.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 83
Figure D shows the statement responses. When administrators were asked if teachers in
their school/district believe it is their collective responsibility to help every student master grade-
level curriculum, 42.9% agreed and 57.1% somewhat agreed. When asked the same question in
the interview, all administrators shared that there are pockets of teachers who believe it is their
collective responsibility, but not all teachers believe. When asked if teachers in their
school/district are confident they are able to motivate and prepare their students to achieve, only
one JSA Administrator agreed while the other six only somewhat agreed. When asked in the
interview what were some characteristics that teachers display that caused the respondent to
agree with the statement, JSA Administrator A shared that the staff has done a lot of work
around restorative practices, has implemented Safe and Civil Schools, and are in their second
year of Capturing Kids Hearts training. Majority of their work has been around culture and
climate which JSA Administrator A believed has transformed the staff. The respondent shared,
“we have built strong relationships with each other and with the students. It is embedded in our
culture that we do not give up on kids.” The respondent went on to say, “my teachers have really
developed a growth mindset and are focused on all students making progress. They might not all
be proficient, but you will hear my teachers say that the student just isn’t proficient yet” (JSA
Administrator A).
Administrators were mostly in agreement, with 85.7% strongly agreeing and 14.3%
agreeing, that the success of their school/district in meeting academic and behavioral goals for all
students depends on the capacity and collaboration of all teachers in my school/district.
Similarly, administrators were in agreement, with 71.4% strongly agreeing and 28.6% agreeing,
that the most effective teachers in my school/district share a similar set of values, beliefs, and
attitudes related to teaching and learning. When asked if the success of students is impacted by
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 84
the teachers’ belief in their own capacity to teach them, 57.1% strongly agreed, 28.6%agreed,
and 14.3% somewhat agreed.
The remaining two questions speak to teachers’ beliefs in their ability to impact student
achievement. Administrators were not in such close agreement when responding to whether for
their teachers/staff, student failure results in increased teacher effort/persistence, with 28.6%
strongly agreeing, 28.6% agreeing, and 42.9% somewhat agreeing. Additionally, 42.9% agreed,
42.9% somewhat agreed, and 14.3% somewhat disagreed that teachers in their school/district
believe in their ability to reach disadvantaged students has a bigger impact on student
achievement than their home environment, parental involvement, or prior student achievement.
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; student motivation,
concentration, persistence, and engagement. JSA Administrator C acknowledged,
I could tell you that for sure quite a few teachers would say, “Yes, I believe that I make a
bigger impact on the outcome than home environment, parental environment, or prior
achievements. I can give you example. I have my teachers who share successes of their
students who are experiencing extreme hardship at home or provide them with extra
mentoring because they’re going through problems at home. Because of their
background of low achievement, they take them under their wings and tutor them on their
own time.”
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 85
Research 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?
As Donohoo (2017) pointed out, leaders should be encouraged to know that educators’
beliefs about their ability to improve student achievement is malleable and can be developed;
moreover, it is critical that leaders foster collective efficacy since teachers with higher efficacy
beliefs are more willing to explore new ideas, more likely to persevere, and more willing to
address the needs of struggling students.
The second research question examined the role of leaders’ perceptions in developing
collective teacher efficacy to leverage the positive impact of PLCs on student achievement. In
reviewing interview transcripts, two dominant themes emerged that were consistent with the
literature: (a) collective actions and (b) ownership of all student learning.
Collective Actions
All seven administrators discussed the importance of collective actions, such as
developing common lessons, sharing instructional practices, administering common assessments,
analyzing data together, and based on the results create intervention or enrichment. PLC time
throughout JSA USD is protected and highly valued. However, PLCs are at various
implementation levels throughout the district. Majority of all PLCs have implemented a
curriculum map with agreed upon common pacing and administered common assessments. All
of the middle school principals shared that their PLCs engage in the cycle of inquiry to some
degree by teaching common lessons, using common assessments, analyzing/interpreting the data
together, planning for intervention, and acting. JSA Administrator A shared,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 86
by creating a culture of collaborative inquiry, teachers are able to analyze student work
and get meaningful feedback as to whether the students have a strong enough
understanding of the material. Once teachers have a clearer understanding of how
students learn, they can begin to better implement appropriate strategies to meet the needs
of struggling learners.
JSA Administrator F was not as optimistic when describing common practices at the high
school level. The respondent shared,
They have collaboration time built in, they have PLC time, but they don’t use it
effectively. Honestly, some departments are better. They do common planning, but they
really don’t look at results, and they don’t really study the results and say, “Okay, so
what do we need to do to change?” In this district, they’re so stuck on pacing and I’m
stuck on, you can pace as much as you want, but if they don’t learn it, here’s the pace
say, “Oh yeah, I got to my mark, but here are your kids.”
JSA Administrator C shared that all core departments have at least quarterly common
assessments and was most proud of the progress the staff has made in regards to common
grading. The respondent shared,
There is the calibration on grading, which is huge. We grade together. We grade
language arts together, we require writing in everyone’s curriculum including P.E., so
they grade together and look at what kind of rubric they want to use or create. I’ve used
grading practices to really bring our staff together to ensure equity for our students as
much as possible. It’s a work in progress, but each grade level has spent extensive time
coming up with department grading plans that they will all follow.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 87
JSA Administrator C was the only JSA Administrator who discussed common grading practices.
When asked how the staff was moved through the process, the respondent shared,
When I got here everybody was doing their own thing with grading and some teachers
were assigning one grade at the end of the quarter and they had no data points before that.
So, I worked with my supervisor . . . strategized, got more policies on grading, did some
research on grading, we did some reading on grading, and we just focused on student
equity. We don’t want our students to be lucky or unlucky depending on whose class
they get placed into. I’ve worked on that since I got here, so we keep pushing for that
and our teachers agree. It is what they would want for their own children.
JSA Administrator C’s approach in addressing common grading practices aligns with
Fullan’s (2014b) claim that the process of change is more sustainable when leaders are part of
the struggle to find a possible solution. Fullan (2014b) suggested that leaders increase their
effectiveness if they pursue moral purpose, understand the change process, develop relationships,
foster knowledge building, and strive for coherence.
JSA Administrator A spoke highly of the progress the teachers have made in sharing the
responsibility for lesson planning,
They do share many common lessons, so I can do a pretty good horizontal walk and
you’ll see a very similar lesson within all of the classes. I’ll go out one day and just walk
English classes for a whole day to help me have that lens of this is English at our school.
We have to come to a common agreement about what is an awesome English class and
then make that in every single class. I am proud of the teachers because they kind of
share the responsibility of lesson planning and so they teach common lessons.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 88
JSA Administrator A also shared that success comes back to reflecting on the data of how
their students did and then making instructional changes. The respondent shared that it is evident
that over the years it has become easier for them to be more vulnerable with each other because
they will say, “Hey, your scores on this were a little bit better than mine on this. Did you do
something differently there?”
When asked what role the principal plays in developing a shared belief that through
collective action teachers and professional learning communities can positively influence student
outcomes, JSA Administrator C responded,
It’s hard to be a leader and you have to develop a shared vision, and that’s an easy thing
to say, hard to do. I think it’s a huge role. I’d say it’s all on the principal to have a
school develop that.
When asked what are some specific actions that the respondent had taken to develop this
shared belief in collective action within PLC, it was explained that the current school focus is on
helping kids take responsibility for their own learning. The respondent shared,
We’ve developed a belief that our kids are malleable and that they can all be successful
with some shared work. We’ve celebrated successes, we’ve seen our successes here with
regard to social emotional outcomes or lack of behavioral problems school wide. We’ve
seen academics go up. We plan for fun activities, we really respect teachers joint
planning time and individual planning time, we invest in that.
JSA Administrator C went on to express that the most frustrating thing is when, “people
get together, make some agreements on shared actions, and then they go back to their rooms,
close the door, and they do whatever they want, which is not aligned to those agreements they
made together.”
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 89
Principals can enact leadership strategies to build on teachers’ collective efficacy by
relentlessly communicating the school’s vision and goals, participation in PLCs, and
participation in professional development can serve as social persuasion (Jerald, 2007).
Donohoo (2017) wrote that supportive leadership can be enacted by providing opportunities for
professional development, modeling expected behaviors, and providing feedback. Additionally,
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).
Two major tenets of the PLC process revolve around the questions of how teachers know
students are learning and what they do when students do not learn (DuFour et al., 2016). JSA
Administrator F shared, “when students fail the common assessments, the current practice at the
high school is to continue following the pacing guide which does not have built-in time for
reteaching.” Additionally, “When students fail to master concepts, they are moved along to the
next lesson and expected to remediate on their own time” (JSA Administrator F).
Formative assessment is meant to inform the teacher of a student’s progress so that
appropriate steps can be taken for the student to improve his or her learning (DuFour et al.,
2016). There is also value in summative assessments, but as Fisher and Frey (2013) pointed out,
summative assessment should occur after numerous rounds of formative assessment where
teachers collect student performance data, analyze errors, and reteach based on identified
patterns.
JSA Administrator G recognized that the elementary and middle school teachers are “way
better at doing small group instruction and breaking things down for groups of students that have
specific needs.” The respondent went on to say that “high school teachers are terrible at it. Even
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 90
though they can and even though they should, they just don’t do it.” The respondent believed
“the high school teachers are looking at that data and they are walking away with some
conclusions about it, but that they are weak in actually taking those conclusions and changing
practice for the better.” JSA Administrator G further shared,
The original intent of the PLC was to identify an issue in performance, figure out what
you’re going to do about it, go do it, talk about the data associated with it, and then
celebrate. And that’s really the ideal sequence. Unfortunately, most PLCs don’t function
as they should. I would add to that is I also think it’s crucial that there has [to] be a
component that whatever our data says, we will change our behaviors in an authentic way
to get a different result. And even more importantly, a lot of times the data will be telling
us things, but we don’t really take action for individual kids which is really crucial.
JSA Administrator G went on to say about time spent in PLCs,
We might be looking at results but a lot of times you don’t push into the area of actual
instructional strategy and instructional norms, practices, and things like that. So, I think
your better teams do this, but I wouldn’t say that this part is something that is widespread
here in our district for a few different reasons. One reason is that I don’t think we have
enough time. The other part of it is teachers are always a little hesitant to critique other
teachers and to share, you know this is a strategy that works really great for me. It’s not
something that’s really super comfortable for a lot of them. But if you’re asking me to
what extent, I’d say to a limited extent or some extent at this point.
Ownership in all Student Learning
Eighty-six percent of administrators surveyed strongly agreed and 14% agreed that the
success in ensuring all students meet their goals is dependent upon the capacity and collaboration
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 91
of all teachers. However, only 57% somewhat agreed and 43% agreed with the statement that
teachers in this school/district believe it is their collective responsibility to help every student
master grade-level curriculum. 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 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). Administrators shared
various accounts to support their beliefs in the importance of developing collective efficacy
among their staff.
JSA Administrator A advocated that teachers make it easier for the students to do their
work and participate in class than it is to fail. The respondent went on to say, “if teachers make
interventions difficult, hold parent conferences if students aren’t doing their work, if they make
failing hard or unfriendly, more kids are going to choose the easy way out, which would be to
just do their work.”
JSA Administrator A wanted students to believe it’s easier for them to do their work than
to have their teachers harass them every single day. The respondent shared that “typically,
teachers that have the highest pass rates in their classes are the teachers that really celebrate
students doing their work, but then are a real pain for students who don’t do their work.” He
explained,
rather than just letting the failing students move to the back and put their heads down
for 55 minutes, my teachers love them enough to be a big enough pain so that students
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 92
will work. It is more work in the moment but saves time in the long run because fewer
students are repeating courses.
JSA Administrator F had a different perspective on addressing disengaged students. The
respondent shared an experience during a formal observation,
I’ve watched the kid in the back who does absolutely nothing and I’ve seen the teacher go
to that kid and offer them support and put some support systems in place, but the kid
laughs, and says “Well, I’m not gonna do it, Miss. I’m not gonna do it.” I tell them not
to include the kid in the back because I saw you working with him, but I also saw him
refusing to do work, so let's not talk about him right now. Let’s talk about all the other
students I need to. Then I tell them that I want the kid’s name, so I pull up the kid’s
name and I bring him into my office. Kid’s got straight Fs. He’s got all Fs since
freshman year and he’s got all Fs right now at the quarter. That’s not the kid that I say
we can support. No matter what supports you put in place, that kid’s gonna get an F.
From a district standpoint, JSA Administrator G said,
It goes back to the beliefs, the root issue here is that you’ve got educators in our system
that either don’t believe in the kids, have given up on the kids, have pre-determined after
a period of time in our system that college is not for you, you’re not gonna go. There are
adults that believe some kids should be going straight into a career. You know those
kinds of things, as opposed to students having the choice of college and/or career. So,
you have some of that and I don’t think that quite lines up with some of the work that’s
been done with growth mindset in general and believing anyone can improve their skills.
Those are more systemic organizational beliefs that come into play for a variety of
reasons. Some of them are personal bias. Some of it is institutional. It’s also real
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 93
important that principals and district leaders identify that and set a really high vision and
really high expectations and push and push and push to get at it, to change it.
When asked specifically about his role, JSA Administrator G responded,
You know, being an Assistant Superintendent, I’m removed from it. Still my job to set a
vision and expectation, but the principal has to be strong and be able to cut through those
things and make sure that to the greatest extent within the power they’ve got, they’ve got
the right people on board, they’ve got the right people teaching the right subjects, the
right structures in place, to ensure that that kind of thing happens. And the piece that I
think is really important is that when you sniff out that people don’t believe a kid can do
it or a student can’t perform or it’s impossible, you’ve got to call that out and expose it.
You’ve got teams that are dug into a certain belief, mindset, or philosophy; it can be
really difficult for even the best principal to be able to make a change for the better or
make long-term improvement on a team like that.
Research 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)?
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). 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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 94
collaboration, the principal’s role is to create the conditions to foster a culture where PLCs
thrive. The third research question examined how leaders foster or hinder collaboration in
professional learning communities (PLCs). In reviewing interview transcripts, two dominant
themes emerged that were consistent with the literature: (a) fostering a culture of collaboration
and (b) alignment of resources.
Fostering a Culture of Collaboration
Site leaders are in a unique position to influence collaboration between teachers (Balyer
et al., 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 (Leithwood et al., 2004).
Of the seven administrators interviewed, they all strongly agreed (71.4%) or agreed
(28.6%) that they play an important role in developing collective teacher efficacy and shared
various ways they created opportunities for their staff members to collaborate. 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).
JSA Administrator C shared,
We build leadership. It’s been huge, huge. We didn’t have a leadership team when I
started and we first selected teacher leads to help with our PLCs. We started with teacher
leads and then we started a leadership team with those leads. We’ve become a national
School to Watch school. We look at our school wide referral rates, we look at our school
wide suspension rates, we look at our D and F rates. We don’t just look at them, we work
to analyze why and how are we going to adjust those things. Again, we come up with
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 95
ways we’re going to celebrate our successes. Our office referrals reduction has been
huge. Every year we’ve almost cut it in half.
Wilhelm (2010) shared that research on PLCs demonstrate that shared leadership will
dramatically improve student outcomes because when teachers and administrators take
ownership of poor student achievement together, they also take ownership of the solutions
together. JSA Administrator C shared, “so much of our professional development is teacher
driven. We probably have moved to more than half of our PD is teacher developed and
delivered, whereas when I got here, I don’t think there was any teacher led PD”
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
during the workday (DuFour et al., 2004). 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.
JSA Administrator E identified various steps taken to foster a culture of collaboration on
her campus and shared,
It starts in the summer with my master schedule. I want them to be able to meet, so I
make it a priority to not schedule them with multiple preps. For the most part, I’m able to
do it here where they only have one prep so that they can focus on the work in their PLC.
It is also critical that I provide an alignment of their conference periods so that PLC
members can meet more than just once a week during PLC time. I ensure they get any
needed additional time, which is our resource that is in greatest shortage. By doing this,
they have the time needed to create the weekly lesson plans they are required to turn into
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 96
me. My coaches, assistant principal, and I then make sure we get into every class and
look for evidence of the shared lesson planning.
JSA Administrator A also shared an approach to keep teachers engaged in collaboration,
I think that’s been the real positive thing for them. We’re all very overt about it, that our
PLC teams are all at different levels. It’s okay whatever level you’re at, as long as you’re
actively making steps to move to the next level. If you’re on step two, I’m good. I’m not
going to come in and say you guys are bad teachers or a bad PLC. It’s just, “What’s your
action plan? What’s your next step for your team? What are you going to do the next
time you get together and meet to make progress?” So that’s the real key. I think just
celebrate where you are and celebrate just making the next step, it’s kind of a big deal.
And always stay positive about it, because I think if you turn it into any sort of a negative
thing, like, “Oh you guys are failing at this.” The teachers can just as easily say, “We
don’t want anything to do with this.” Then not do it, or get a coalition together to fight
collaboration time all together, and just walk away.
When asked how JSA Administrator D moved staff past the buy-in stage and what types
of experiences within a PLC contributed to the teachers’ confidence in their capacity to apply
new knowledge information, the respondent replied,
I inherited a staff that didn’t completely believe in the power of collaboration. So, I think
you just continue the work, honoring what they’ve done because to me when you move to
a school, the top priority is to learn the culture. I think my role and that of my academic
coaches, was to join in the work as coaches rather than managers. You need to be part of
the work while all the time, working to help teachers see their role in supporting all
students. I was very transparent about my goal of supporting all students. It also gave us
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 97
the critical time needed to build relationships. It was difficult the first year, but by the
second the buy-in was evident.
Teacher leaders are tasked with moving their PLC forward and have multiple facilitation
responsibilities they are charged with, such as the creation/implementation of norms, assisting
the team in analyzing student achievement data, creating goals to improve achievement,
identifying essential content standards and aligning them with state standards found on high
stakes assessments (DuFour et al., 2016). As well as, sequencing the standards and creating
pacing guides, developing common formative assessments used to determine student mastery on
essential standards, use assessment results to identify students in need of intervention or
enrichment, and sharing best teaching practices in reaching all students (DuFour et al., 2016).
When asked the interview question as to how the administrators have developed shared
leadership throughout the school to support the work of the PLCs, five of the six principals
expressed the importance of developing strong teacher leaders. Four of those five also shared the
difficulty of developing teacher leaders who do not have natural leadership qualities or ability.
JSA Administrator D shared a recent conversation she had with her PLC leads. When
asked what they believed their responsibilities as leads were, their responses were tied to tasks
from a managerial perspective. They acknowledged their roles as a facilitator of meetings,
communicators between administration and teachers, and guiding the PLC in task completion.
JSA Administrator D recognized that one of the biggest challenges was moving leads from
managers to leaders.
JSA Administrator G also acknowledged the importance of developing the PLC leads by
sharing,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 98
We’re really investing in our PLC leads, the teacher leaders, because we understand
we’re going to be gone, if it’s going to work and change the culture, there has to be
teacher leaders that facilitate the work where it’s peer driven. So really the accountability
comes back to the PLC. We can’t micromanage the PLCs, we can’t check for
compliance, it’s too big. So, unless the teacher leaders are really driving it and bringing
their peers along, there will never be true collaboration. So, we’ve kind of shifted away
from, you know, whole staff training to really empowering our teacher leaders.
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.
Alignment of Resources
Leadership research points 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).
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 and access to ongoing professional
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 99
development (Buttram & Farley-Ripple, 2016; DuFour et al., 2016). All seven administrators
identified aligning resources as one of their primary responsibilities in supporting collaboration.
JSA Administrator A discussed the importance of creating time within the school day for
collaboration, but also using funds for more collaboration time outside of the PLC time. When
discussing collaboration time, the respondent shared,
I don’t let really anything else happen. You can’t have an IEP meeting, you’re here
because this is what we do. We don’t schedule any club meetings, nothing else goes on
at that time. My responsibility is making sure we make the best use of the time that we
have. One of our biggest barriers, and teachers will point this out, is time. So, it is my
job to make sure we carve out time for our teachers. One of the things that I spend
money on is paying my PLCs during the summer time to meet. They typically choose
their central standards and work on their common assessment for first quarter. And two
weeks before school started, if they wanted to meet in that little window and basically set
their PLC goals during the summer, I paid them.
JSA Administrator B shared how to best protect collaboration time but sometimes has
difficulty. The respondent shared,
I have been working on that this year because people from the district try to pull my folks
and it’s very unfair to do to them and to do to me because then I have to provide
additional PD or informational meetings for them when they should be part of the PLC
process from the get-go. So, I’ve been really trying to value their time and making that a
priority because I think it’s important for everybody to hear the same message from the
team that presents it. You won’t get that team presentation if we do make-up days.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 100
JSA Administrator B went on to say PLC time is protected by sending any logistical or
informational items in an email or memo. If it is absolutely necessary to have a staff meeting, it
is held in the morning “so that they’re given from 1:00 to 2:45 to plan and to work on what their
own agenda . . . because that is what will move the site forward.”
JSA Administrator E echoed a similar sentiment by sharing that since the PLC
collaboration time is often not enough, the respondent works hard to align teachers’ conference
periods by subject area and found that many of her teachers continue their collaboration into
their conference periods. Additionally, she will offer additional paid time if needed and works
hard to protect the built-in collaboration time teachers have.
JSA Administrator F shared the importance of protecting the time teachers are given to
collaborate by saying,
At my school, our PLC time is 40 minutes, and we have like 28 days, they’re all
Mondays. True collaboration is teachers helping each other. So, I’ve let them kind of
plan and do their own PLCs with the instructional coaches, and they like it that way. You
know, if I could give them short-term leadership team PD on PLCs, I would love to do
that. I’ve seen it work in a positive way, and so I’m trying to implement it. So, I have to
just protect the time and support them in improving collaboration through the coaches.
The importance of protecting PLC time cannot be overstated; however, 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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 101
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.
JSA Administrator G, the assistant superintendent, explained that “all district initiatives
are tied to the board goals and core values. Collaboration is one of the district’s core values and
therefore, PLC time is fully supported.” The respondent additionally shared, “my role is to align
resources to, make sure the principals have the time, support, resources that they need to be able
to make these things happen at the sites.”
JSA Administrator G’s purpose aligns with the literature. To support 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.
Research Findings Pertaining to Research Question Four
Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy
in PLCs?
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). DuFour et al. (2016) outlined guiding principles of a professional
learning community that include three big ideas that drive the work of the PLC – a focus on
learning, building a collaborative culture and collective responsibility, and a focus on results.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 102
The critical tenets of the PLC process were outlined in the survey statements and fall under one
of the three big ideas. The site and district administrators who were surveyed responded to 15
statements regarding their perceptions about collaboration impacting collective teacher efficacy.
Administrators rated their level of agreement about the survey statements with six various
responses ranging from “not at all” to “always.”
Focus on Learning
Questions related to Focus on Learning included:
To what extent do relationships and work in the PLCs reflect a commitment to school
improvement efforts?
To what extent do teachers in PLCs share common practices in the delivery of curriculum
and instruction?
To what extent do teachers in PLCs share common practices in assessments and
interventions?
To what extent do PLCs require rather than invite students to receive additional academic
support until they are successful?
To what extent have teachers’ attitudes about teaching and learning improved as a result
of their collaboration in PLCs?
Figure E shows the Focus on Learning statement responses. When asked to what extent
relationships and work in the PLCs reflect a commitment to school improvement efforts, 28.6%
responded always, 42.9% a great deal, and 28.6% quite a bit. Additionally, 57.1% said a great
deal, 28.6% quite a bit, and 14.3% to some degree when asked to what extent teachers in PLCs
share common practices in the delivery of curriculum and instruction.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 103
Administrators were asked to what extent teachers in PLCs share common practices in
assessments and interventions and 14.3% responded to some degree, 57.1% said quite a bit, and
28.6% replied a great deal. During the interviews when this question was further explored, all
six administrators said that their teachers gave common assessments and all but one
acknowledged their teachers as a whole invited rather than required students to receive
intervention. When asked to what extent PLCs require rather than invite students to receive
additional academic support until they are successful, 14.3% of administrators replied very little,
71.4% said to some degree, and 14.3% responded a great deal.
Currently at JSA USD, most academic intervention is offered before or after school and
differs from teacher to teacher. In order to reach all students, strong administrative leadership is
needed to facilitate the professional collaboration needed to create a proactive and progressive
intervention model for students who do not acquire information through first best instructional
strategies (DuFour et al., 2016). To create an effective systematic school wide approach to
intervention, support must be offered within the school day and not interfere with students’ direct
classroom instruction and the support must be available to all students regardless of their
assigned teacher (DuFour et al., 2016). One of the middle school principals was able to share an
example of imbedded intervention. XYZ Academy was started by JSA Administrator C and
described the academy as an elective that is a mentoring class. The respondent shared,
I identify kids at risk for various qualities from behavior to academics to self-confidence
to organization and beyond. They have an elective where they have a teacher mentor.
They have a smaller class size every day and they do work on some literacy units a little
bit and more about self-esteem, self-confidence, organization, and conflict resolution.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 104
They provide extensive academic support for all the classes and contact all the other
teacher classes.
When asked if JSA Administrator C had seen an impact on student achievement, the
respondent replied,
We’ve been mentoring our kids to make sure they’re going to walk through promotion.
From there we just found it so beneficial for our kids. I had some available funds and
knew a gifted teacher and she built the intervention program. When she started, we had
her half of the time with the kids pulling out of a double block of language arts and half
the time pushing into their classes. By the second year it was time to have that be a
stand-alone class. It’s been a feather in our cap for how our kids who were our most at
risk are now some of our honor roll students at the end of the year. We help them find
their voice.
JSA Administrator F further acknowledged that there needs to be staff development on
how to create effective response to intervention (RTI) in order to correctly align school practices,
expectations, goals, and resources with the demands of an effective RTI model. The respondent
shared that, “in elementary school they have built-in RTI systems. High schools do not. We
stick to basic, and if you don’t get it, you fall behind.” The respondent went on to share,
I took it a different approach and we opened up this RTI team where we have an
academic counselor, a social worker, three deans, and then we have an assistant principal
that oversees the whole operation. We took the toughest kids, the sophomore kids, and
there were about 375 of them at multiple levels. The academic counselor met with every
kid over the summer, and he’s meeting with every kid throughout the first quarter, and
there has been a change/a difference. We’re talking about kids that didn’t pass any
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 105
classes. Now we have about 20 kids that have all types of grades and another 50 kids
who have had passing grades but with one F. So there has been growth and we’re pretty
happy about that.
JSA Administrator F stated information was needed regarding intervention programs that
have been successfully implemented at other large high schools with similar demographics. He
shared, “it would be beneficial to study an effective model to help understand what makes
interventions successful.” Finally, when asked to what extent have teachers’ attitudes about
teaching and learning improved as a result of their collaboration in PLCs, 28.6% of responses
included a great deal, 42.9% responded quite a bit, and 28.6% of administrators said to some
degree.
A Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility
Educational leaders today are challenged with ensuring high levels of learning for all
students; an effort that requires educators to “work collectively and take collective responsibility
for the success of each student” (DuFour et al., 2016, p. 11). Professional learning communities
have been identified as an effective structure for teachers to work collectively to improve student
achievement.
Questions related to Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility included:
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 do teachers share responsibility for decision making in their PLC?
To what extent do teachers share and celebrate their success within their PLC?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 106
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?
Figure F shows the Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility statement
responses. There were varied responses when administrators were asked to what extent has
teacher confidence in their own practice improved as a result of their collaboration in PLCs.
Always was responded by 14.3%, 28.6% a great deal, 14.3% quite a bit, and 42.9% said to some
degree. When asked to what extent collaboration in PLCs has resulted in an increased sense of
collective responsibility for the success of every student, 42.9% believed a great deal, 42.9%
quite a bit, and 14.3% said to some degree. Fourteen.three percent of administrators believed
that teachers always share responsibility for decision making in their PLC, while 28.6% said a
great deal, 42.9% quite a bit, and 14.3% believed it was occurring to some degree. When asked
to what extent teachers share and celebrate their success within their PLCs, 14.3% said always,
28.6% of responses included a great deal, 28.6% responded quite a bit, and 28.6% of
administrators said to some degree.
Social persuasion is an efficacy shaping source that involves individuals being
encouraged or given positive performance feedback by other credible and trustworthy
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. Trust must be established in order for
teachers to feel safe taking risks. During the interviews, all administrators emphasized the
importance of building trust; however, when asked to what extent a culture of trust and respect
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 107
for taking instructional risks had been developed in the PLCs, 42.9% said a great deal, while
28.6% responded quite a bit, and another 28.6% said only to some degree. JSA Administrator C
shared that,
people get together, put in good work, make agreements on shared actions in their
department, and then they go back to their rooms, they close the door, and they do
whatever they want, which is not necessarily aligned to those agreements they made
together.
Finally, when asked to what extent value collaboration in their PLCs, 14.3% replied
always, 42.9% of responses included a great deal, and 42.9% responded quite a bit.
Results Orientation
DuFour et al.’s (2016) third big idea–focus on results–details how a professional learning
community judges their effectiveness on the basis of results. It is expected that 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 et al., 2004). 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., 2016).
Questions related to Results Orientation included:
To what extent do teachers share best practices and apply new learning from their
collaboration in PLCs to their own individual classroom?
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?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 108
To what extent do teachers in PLCs collaborate in reviewing student work and data to
share and improve instructional practices?
To what extent has teacher collaboration in PLCs resulted in improved student outcomes?
Figure G shows the Results Orientation statement responses. When site and district
administrators were asked to what extent do teachers share best practices and apply new learning
from their collaboration in PLCs to their own individual classroom, 14.3% reported that it
occurred a great deal, 71.4% reported quite a bit, and 14.3% said it happened to some degree.
When responding to what extent teachers work together in their PLCs to seek knowledge, skills,
and strategies that lead to continued inquiry and improved student outcomes, 57.1% responded a
great deal and 42.9% said it occurred quite a bit.
All of the principals shared that their PLCs have protected collaboration time, common
pacing guides, and common assessments. Six out of 7 of the administrators identified data
analysis as an area of concern or weakness. When asked to what extent teachers in PLCs
collaborate in reviewing student work and data to share and improve instructional practices,
28.6% reported a great deal, 57.1% quite a bit, and 14.3% to some degree. The respondent said
that teachers look at data, but most do not know how to use it to effectively inform their
instruction.
JSA Administrator G shared,
They use results to identify perhaps strengths and weaknesses in our students and that’s a
key part of data analysis. But the difficulty is always them taking that and doing
something different about it. So, the stronger departments will go back and redo certain
parts, reteach things. The weaker departments shrug shoulders and just push on.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 109
Additionally, when asked to what extent has teacher collaboration in PLCs resulted in
improved student outcomes, 14.3% said always, 14.3% a great deal, 57.1% quite a bit, and
14.3% to some degree. In the interviews, a majority of the administrators did not quantify the
improvement in student achievement, but rather shared anecdotally.
Conclusion
This chapter was a presentation of the analyzed data and findings from surveys and
interviews designed to answer four research questions. Several themes emerged that were
supported by the literature and the findings add to the body of existing literature surrounding the
role of leadership in developing collective efficacy in professional learning communities.
Research question one examined secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about
collective efficacy. The findings indicated that administrators value collaboration, work to create
vicarious experiences for their teachers, and believe in their ability to foster collective teacher
efficacy through distributive leadership. However, administrators were not as confident that
their teachers believed in their ability to impact student achievement, especially disadvantaged
students facing outside factors such as home environment and parental involvement. Research
question two addressed how secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about collective
efficacy support/hinder the work of their PLCs. The findings revealed that administrators
identified collective actions and ownership of all student learning as areas of importance;
however, perceptions of teacher performance and beliefs varied between the high schools and
middle schools. Teachers’ mindset about what students are capable of was an area of concern.
Research question three looked at how secondary site and district leaders fostered or
hindered collaboration in professional learning communities. The findings gathered showed
administrators identified fostering a culture of collaboration and alignment of resources as
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 110
important themes. Specifically, administrators identified the importance of developing strong
teacher leads who could drive the collaborative process and protecting PLC time in order for
teachers to collaborate. The final research question examined whether collaboration at the
secondary level impacts teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs. Findings indicate that overall,
administrators believe collaboration in PLCs has resulted in an increased sense of collective
responsibility for the success of every student; however, it was acknowledged that intervention
and building an effective RTI model at the secondary level are challenging.
Chapter five will further discuss the implications of these findings, limitations of the
research, and recommendations for further research around the topic of the role of leadership in
developing collective efficacy in professional learning communities.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 111
Chapter Five: Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusion
Summary
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
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 112
Goddard et al. (2016) 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., 2016, p. 5). 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 (2014a) 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 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 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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 113
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.
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. Site and district leadership used 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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 114
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.
1. What are secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
2. How do secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about collective efficacy
support/hinder the work of their PLCs?
3. How are secondary site and district leaders fostering or hindering collaboration in
professional learning communities (PLCs)?
4. Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
Methodology
A mixed-methods approach which included both qualitative and quantitative methods
was used in this study. A survey including both closed and open-ended questions was distributed
to school principals and an assistant superintendent 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 administrators to obtain qualitative data to answer questions two and three. The
semi-structured interviews generated open-ended data to understand processes and meaning
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 115
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. For this study, the school principals and assistant superintendent who were
interviewed worked with or oversaw the implementation of PLCs at the secondary level. The
district that was identified for the study is 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
4-8 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) ideally the principal has 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. The assistant superintendent identified for this study plays a role in
supporting site principals in the implementation of PLCs at their schools.
Data Collection
Permission was obtained from the districts’ superintendent via a formal written request
(email) 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 seven total participants, including secondary school principals and an assistant
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 116
superintendent. Once permission was granted, administrators were contacted for participation in
the study via email with a Request to Participate Letter and a link for the survey.
The surveys were conducted via an online format to give participants an opportunity to
complete it at their own time and discretion. 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 connection with the participant during the interview. The
recordings from the interviews were transcribed.
Key Findings
Key findings based on data analysis from Chapter Four are presented below in order by
research question. The research questions looked at impact of leadership on the development of
collective efficacy in professional learning communities.
Research Question One addressed secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about
collective efficacy. It was evident from the survey and interview questions that the
administrators believed the following:
1. The success of students is increased when teachers collaborate on common practices.
2. There is value in creating opportunities for teachers to learn vicariously from each other
through lesson studies and peer observations during learning walks.
3. Successful schools leverage the expertise of all teachers to achieve a common goal.
4. Adult mindset about what students are able to achieve and their own ability in reaching
all students are challenges.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 117
The findings indicated that administrators value collaboration, work to create vicarious
experiences for their teachers, and believe in their ability to foster collective teacher efficacy
through distributive leadership. However, administrators were not as confident that their
teachers believed in their ability to impact student achievement, especially disadvantaged
students facing outside factors such as home environment and parental involvement.
Research Question Two examined how secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions
about collective efficacy support/hinder the work of their PLCs. The following findings were
revealed by the principals and assistant superintendent:
1. Collective actions, such as developing common lessons, sharing instructional practices,
administering common assessments are occurring throughout the district; however,
effectively analyzing data together and based on the results, creating intervention or
enrichment remains a challenge.
2. There are varying levels of ownership in all student learning among teachers and
administrators, especially as it pertains to disengaged students.
3. There is a difference between middle school and high school teachers’ willingness to
collaborate and change practice.
The role the principal plays in developing a shared belief that through collective action
teachers and professional learning communities can positively influence student outcomes was
valued by the administrators. The respondents identified collective actions and ownership of all
student learning as areas of importance; however, perceptions of teacher performance and beliefs
varied between the high schools and middle schools.
Research Question Three looked at how secondary site and district leaders foster or
hinder collaboration in professional learning communities. Results indicated:
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 118
1. Administrators foster collaboration through shared leadership by investing in the
development of teacher leads and supporting teacher led staff development.
2. Administrators support collaboration by protecting PLC time, offering paid additional
time outside of the school day, and aligning conference periods by subject area.
The findings gathered showed administrators identified fostering a culture of
collaboration and alignment of resources as important themes. Specifically, administrators
identified the importance of developing strong teacher leads who could drive the collaborative
process and protecting PLC time in order for teachers to collaborate.
Research Question Four examined how collaboration at the secondary level impacts
teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs. Administrators perceptions included:
1. Collaboration in PLCs has resulted in an increased sense of collective responsibility for
the success of every student.
2. Teachers share common practices in creating and administering assessments but there is
not common practice around intervention. Teachers invite rather than require students to
receive intervention. There is not a coherent district-wide intervention model.
Interventions are typically outside of the school day and staff development is needed to
create an effective intervention model.
3. Data analysis as a means to inform instruction is an area of concern throughout the
district.
Overall, administrators believed collaboration in PLCs has resulted in an increased sense
of collective responsibility for the success of every student; however, it was acknowledged that
intervention and building an effective intervention model at the secondary level are challenging.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 119
Limitations
Limitations of the study include the generalizability and the sample size. Although PLCs
are being implemented throughout many districts across the nation, this study was a case study
that focused on administrators’ perceptions in a single district in southern California. Therefore,
the study was limited with regard to generalizability and application across other districts.
Additionally, the sample size of only seven secondary site and district administrators is small for
the quantitative portion of the study. A final limitation of the study was that the data gathered
from the surveys and interviews are only self-reported and there is no additional form of
triangulating the results or data. Next steps would include to use a similar process to include a
larger representation from members of the PLCs, including perception data from teachers who
work in the PLCs.
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the findings of this study, the following areas are recommended for further
research:
1. The importance of the principal’s leadership in developing strong PLC leaders cannot be
underestimated; yet, there is not a clear understanding of how teacher leaders perceive a
principal’s leadership in facilitating or hindering the development of strong PLCs. By
better understanding how teacher leaders’ experience how the principal supports teacher
leaders in driving the PLC process, the better understanding we will have about
increasing student achievement through the PLC process.
2. A lack of an effective intervention model at the secondary level was identified as a
hindrance to teacher collaboration and increased student achievement. Further research
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 120
into secondary intervention models embedded in the school day and the impact it has on
teacher collaboration is needed.
3. Using data analysis as a means to inform instruction was identified as an area of concern.
Additional research examining the impact the common practice of data analysis has on
increased collaboration may result in informational findings.
Conclusion
Educational leaders today are tasked with ensuring high levels of learning for all students
which requires teachers to collaborate and take collective responsibility for all student learning
(DuFour et al., 2016). 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 research findings are aligned with the literature on the
topic and examination of this problem of practice augments the existing research on the impact
of leadership on the development of collective efficacy in PLCs. Though these findings from
this case study are only representative of secondary administrators in a particular district, these
findings can be used by administrators in other districts to reflect on the impact their leadership
has on the development of collective efficacy in professional learning communities.
Furthermore, the strategies for supporting collaboration and developing collective teacher
efficacy shared by administrators in this study can be used to improve student achievement in
classrooms and schools throughout other districts. Recognizing the value of collaboration in a
professional learning community on student achievement, leaders are encouraged to seek
transformation of instructional practices through the implementation of PLCs and work to
improve collective teacher efficacy with their staff.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 121
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 122
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 123
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., Eaker, R., & DuFour (Eds.). (2005). On common ground: The power of professional
learning communities. 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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 124
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.
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.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2013). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the
gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
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. (2014a). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide and workbook. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 125
Fullan, M. (2014b). The principal: Three keys to maximizing impact. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
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. 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., 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., 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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 126
Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (2004). High school accountability: The role of
perceived collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18(3), 403-425.
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., & 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.
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 127
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.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. (1993). Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of
schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 355-372.
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 128
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 129
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 130
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 131
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 132
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.
Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1996). Restructuring for authentic student achievement. In F.
Newmann, Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality, 286-
301. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
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 133
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 134
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now how we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching
and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
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.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 135
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).
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 136
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 137
Tables
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
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 138
Table 2
Demographics of Interview Participants
Administrator Level Position Years in
Administration
Years in Current
Assignment
A Middle School Principal 3-5 years 3-5 years
B Middle School Principal 6-10 years 6-10 years
C Middle School Principal 10+ years 3-5 years
D Middle School Principal 6-10 years 3-5 years
E High School Principal 10+ years 3-5 years
F High School Principal 10+ years 1-2 years
G District Assistant
Superintendent
3-5 years 1-2 years
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 139
Table 3
PLC Implementation
Administrator District Years of
Implementation
Teacher Member
of PLCs
Oversee/Support
Implementation of PLCs
A 10+ years Yes Yes
B 6-10 years No Yes
C 10+ years No Yes
D 10+ years Yes Yes
E 10+ years No Yes
F 6-10 years Yes Yes
G 6-10 years Yes Yes
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 140
Table 4
PLC Staff Development
Administrator Frequency of
Staff Development
Percent of Staff
Formally Trained
A Occasionally, as needed 25 to 50%
B Once or twice 25 to 50%
C Occasionally, as needed 51 to 75%
D Occasionally, as needed 25 to 50%
E Once or twice Less than 25%
F Once or twice 25 to 50%
G Regular and on-going 51 to 75%
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 141
Figures
Figure A: Responses to Collaboration Survey Statements
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
71.4%
85.7%
85.7%
14.3%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
When teachers work together, they are
more effective in supporting all students in…
The success of students is increased when
teachers collaborate on common practices.
Teachers in this school/district are eager to
help each other improve their practice.
Percentage
Collaboration
strongly disagree disagree somewhat disagree
somewhat agree agree strongly agree
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 142
Figure B: Responses to Vicarious Experience Survey Statements
14.3%
29%
29.00%
71.4%
57%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Teachers can improve their practice
through shared experiences with
colleagues.
Teachers' belief in their own competence
to improve student achievement is
malleable and can be shaped by…
Percentage
Vicarious Experience
strongly disagree disagree somewhat disagree
somewhat agree agree strongly agree
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 143
Figure C: Responses to Distributive Leadership Survey Statements
14.00%
28.5%
29%
43%
71.0%
86.0%
28.5%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
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…
Successful schools leverage the expertise of
all teachers to achieve a common goal
There is enough capacity and knowledge
among the teachers in my school/district to
address barriers to learning for all our
students.
Percentage
Distributive Leadership
strongly disagree disagree somewhat disagree
somewhat agree agree strongly agree
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 144
Figure D: Responses to Efficacy Beliefs Survey Statements
14.3%
85.7%
42.9%
42.9%
14.3%
57.1%
14.3%
14.3%
28.6%
28.6%
42.9%
28.6%
42.9.%
85.7%
71.4%
28.6%
57.1%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Teachers in this school/district believe it is their
collective responsibility to help every student
master grade-level curriculum
The success of my school/district in meeting
academic and behavioral goals for all students
depends on the capacity and collaboration of
all teachers in my school/district
Teachers in my school/district are confident
they are able to motivate and prepare their
students to achieve
The most effective teachers in my
school/district share a similar set of values,
beliefs, and attitudes related to teaching and
learning
For my teachers/staff, student failure results in
increased teacher effort/persistence
Teachers in my school/district believe in their
ability to reach disadvantaged students has a
bigger impact on student achievement than
their home environment, parental
involvement, or prior student achievement.
The success of students is impacted by the
teachers' belief in their own capacity to teach
them.
Percentage
Efficacy Beliefs
strongly disagree disagree somewhat disagree
somewhat agree agree strongly agree
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 145
Figure E: Responses to Focus on Learning Survey Statements
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
71.4%
28.6%
28.6%
28.6%
57.1%
42.9%
42.9%
57.1%
28.6%
14.3%
28.6%
28.6%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
To what extent do relationships and work in
the PLCs reflect a commitment to school
improvement efforts?
To what extent do teachers in PLCs share
common practices in the delivery of
curriculum and instruction?
To what extent do teachers in PLCs share
common practices in assessments and
interventions?
To what extent do PLCs require rather than
invite students to receive additional academic
support until they are successful?
To what extent have teachers' attitudes about
teaching and learning improved as a result of
their collaboration in PLCs?
Percentage
Focus on Learning
Not at all Very Little Some Degree
Quite a Bit A Great Deal Always
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 146
Figure F: Responses to Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility Survey Statements
42.9%
14.3%
14.3%
28.6%
28.6%
14.3%
42.9%
42.9%
28.6%
28.6%
42.9%
28.6%
42.9%
28.6%
28.6%
42.9%
42.9%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
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 do teachers share
responsibility for decision making in their
PLC?
To what extent do teachers share and
celebrate their success within their PLC?
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?
Percentage
Collaboritve Culture and Collective Responsibility
Not at all Very Little Some Degree
Quite a Bit A Great Deal Always
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 147
Figure G: Responses to Results Orientation Survey Statements
14.3%
14.3%
14.3%
71.4%
42.9%
57.1%
57.1%
14.3%
57.1%
28.6%
14.3% 14.3%
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
To what extent do teachers share best
practices and apply new learning from their
collaboration in PLCs to their own individual
classroom?
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?
To what extent do teachers in PLCs
collaborate in reviewing student work and
data to share and improve instructional
practices?
To what extent has teacher collaboration in
PLCs resulted in improved student
outcomes?
Percentage
Results Orientation
Not at all Very Little Some Degree
Quite a Bit A Great Deal Always
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 148
Appendix A: Survey and Interview Questions
Pertaining to the Research Questions
Research Questions:
1. What is the role of district administrators in developing Career Technical Education
programs to support college- and career-readiness?
2. What Career Technical Education programs have districts supported for implementation?
3. What resources do districts allocate to support Career Technical Education programs?
4. What types of Career Technical Education programs have proven to be effective in
improving college and career readiness?
Research
Question
Pertaining Survey
Statements
Pertaining Interview
Questions
1 1. CTE programs are effective
in preparing students to be
college- and career-ready.
8. What role do you play in the
development of Career
Technical Education programs?
1 2. It is important to be
knowledgeable about CTE
standards.
15. What types of support do you
provide school sites to
facilitate the implementation
and sustainment of CTE
programs?
1 3. It is important to make data
driven decisions regarding
CTE program development.
16. Who is involved in the hiring
process for CTE teachers in
your district?
2 7. Articulation with
postsecondary institutions
encourages students to take
CTE courses.
9. What CTE programs does your
district offer?
2 8. Industry partners are
beneficial in the
development,
implementation, and support
of CTE programs.
10. How were those CTE
programs selected?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 149
2 9. CTE programs in my district
are articulated with
postsecondary institutions.
17. In a district with multiple
schools, how do you decide
which CTE programs to
develop where?
Research
Question
Pertaining Survey
Statements
Pertaining Interview
Questions
2 10. There are internship
opportunities available to
CTE students in my district.
3 4. In order to have an effective
CTE program, financial
resources must be allocated.
14. What types of resources do
you allocate to support the
development, implementation,
and support of CTE
programs?
3 5. In order to have an effective
CTE program, resources
must be invested in human
capital.
18. What funding sources have
you used for CTE programs in
your district?
3 6. Students should learn using
the same equipment and tools
that are being used in the
industry.
3 11. My district uses grant
money to fund CTE
programs.
3 12. My district uses bond
money to fund CTE
programs.
3 13. My district uses
LCFF/LCAP funding to
fund CTE programs.
3 14. My district uses Perkins
funds to fund CTE
programs.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 150
4 7. Articulation with
postsecondary institutions
encourages students to take
CTE courses.
11. How do your CTE programs
prepare students to be college-
and career-ready?
4 8. Industry partners are
beneficial in the
development,
implementation, and support
of CTE programs.
12. What types of CTE programs
have proven to be effective in
improving college- and
career-readiness?
4 9. CTE programs in my district
are articulated with
postsecondary institutions.
13. How do you determine if your
programs are effective in
preparing students for college
and career?
Research
Question
Pertaining Survey
Statements
Pertaining Interview
Questions
4 10. There are internship
opportunities available to
CTE students in my district.
19. Does your district have
articulation agreements for
CTE courses with post-
secondary institutions?
4 20. How do industry partners
support the development,
implementation, and support
of CTE programs in your
district?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 151
Appendix B: Letter of Invitation
Dear Superintendent/Administrator,
I am currently a doctoral student and working on my dissertation. I am pursuing an Ed.D.
degree in K-12 leadership at the University of Southern California, under the guidance of Dr.
Rudy Castruita and Dr. John Cash. The purpose of my study is to identify the role of site and
district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in Southern
California. I humbly request your assistance with my research endeavors. Collecting data from
highly effective leaders such as yourself would be greatly appreciated, and is essential for the
success of my research, and the completion of my degree.
I am very aware of your time constraints as a leader. If it would be possible for you to
assist me with my research, please click on the enclosed link to fill out a short survey. The
survey asks leadership and support questions and is designed to take no more than 15 minutes. If
you are willing to participate in an interview that will take approximately 30 minutes, please
provide me with the best way to contact you to make arrangements.
This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board for Human Subjects Research (IRB). The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. Please be assured that your participation and answers will be kept confidential and
anonymous. In no way will any data be presented in any manner where any individual can be
identified.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at cariwhit@usc.edu.
Please kindly click on the link provided in the email to take the survey at your earliest
convenience. Thank you very much for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
Cari White
Ed.D Candidate USC
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 152
Appendix C: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Interview Protocol
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 153
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 154
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 155
Appendix D: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Surveys
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 156
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 157
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to understand the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). This study draws on Bandura’s (1998) extension of social cognitive theory from individual to collective agency. In addition, Fullan’s (2014) five components of leadership provided insight to examine the implementation of leadership strategies in developing PLCs. These frameworks provided a lens from which to answer the following questions: 1) what are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy, 2) how do the leaders’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder the work of their PLCs, 3) how do leaders foster or hinder collaboration in professional learning communities (PLCs), and 4) does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs? A mixed-methods approach was used in this study. A Likert scale survey was completed by six secondary school principals and one assistant superintendent to quantify perceptions about collective efficacy to examine the relationship between collaboration and collective efficacy. In addition, a semi-structured interview protocol was used to obtain qualitative data. This study adds to the body of literature to better understand how site and district leaders use PLCs as a tool to develop a systemic structure to promote a culture of collective efficacy with their teacher teams. It also adds to the literature surrounding leadership as a means to develop collective efficacy to meet the needs of all students in being college and career ready.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Professional learning communities: the role of school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents in developing collective efficacy in public secondary school...
PDF
Professional learning communities: the role of site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public secondary schools in southern California
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
Elementary 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
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
Analyzing the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic On K-12 southern California public school districts and understanding what district and site administrators…
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
Cultivating a growth mindset: an exploration of teacher beliefs and learning environments
PDF
Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction
PDF
The influence spouses have on superintendents in Los Angeles County school districts
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K-12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
PDF
A study of California public school district superintendents and their implementation of 21st -century skills
PDF
Effective transformational and transactional qualities of 7-8 intermediate school principals who create and sustain change in an urban school setting
PDF
Successful strategies and skills utilized by high school principals as perceived by Southern California superintendents
PDF
Future ready schools: how middle and high school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at a mid-sized urban middle/high school
PDF
The role of superintendents as instructional leaders: facilitating student achievement among ESL/EL learners through school-site professional development
PDF
The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on K–12 public school districts in southern California: responses of superintendents, assistant superintendents, and principals
Asset Metadata
Creator
White, Cari Noel
(author)
Core Title
Professional learning communities: the role of secondary site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy in public schools in southern California
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/29/2019
Defense Date
04/29/2019
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
collaboration,collective teacher efficacy,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,PLCs,professional learning communities
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
cariwhit@usc.edu,cariwhite11@gmail.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-159366
Unique identifier
UC11662505
Identifier
etd-WhiteCariN-7351.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-159366 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-WhiteCariN-7351.pdf
Dmrecord
159366
Document Type
Dissertation
Format
application/pdf (imt)
Rights
White, Cari Noel
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
collaboration
collective teacher efficacy
PLCs
professional learning communities