University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running Head: PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES

1
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES: THE ROLE OF SCHOOL
PRINCIPALS, DISTRICT DIRECTORS, ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENTS,
AND SUPERINTENDENTS IN DEVELOPING COLLECTIVE EFFICACY
IN PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

by

Laura Rivas

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

May, 2019

Copyright 2019 Laura Rivas

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 2
Acknowledgements
It is with great pleasure and humility that I thank the many people who guided and
supported me along the way. I begin by acknowledging my dissertation chair, Dr. Rudy
Castruita. His leadership and advice have been invaluable. He brought tremendous insight from
the profession and knowledge about the process to be highly effective in guiding this work. I
especially want to thank him for taking our group of four, which I know was a lot to ask for. I
also thank Dr. Pedro Garcia, who was an inspiration and mentor through the first year in the
program. I also want to thank Dr. David Cash and Dr. John Roach for serving in the dissertation
committee. I appreciate their willingness to not only serve on the committee, but offer valuable
insight and feedback through the process. I thank the Rossier School of Education and its
professors for offering a rigorous and academically challenging curriculum to nurture and
develop my professional growth.
I want to thank and acknowledge my research team, Gilberto Rodriguez, Ixchel Sanchez,
and Cari White, for putting up with me and for giving me the motivation and encouragement to
persist when things got difficult. I treasure the shared rides and laughter, the bantering, and
support that made this manageable. I could not have done this without you in my corner as
accomplices through the process.
And finally, I thank my colleagues at work who made sacrifices to support our team.
Many thanks to Jeff Giles and Darryl Browning for picking up the extra work when the team was
in class, supervising sporting events, and handling meetings when we could not be there. The
weekly encouragements as we left the building still make me smile. Thank you for the great
sense of humor that you always brought to the table, making things lighter and fun. Know that I
will always be on your team, as you have been on mine.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 3
Dedication
I dedicate this dissertation to my daughters, husband, and parents. My daughters, Daniela
and Isabela, are the driving force behind everything I do. For them, I strive to be the best role
model of what a woman of color can be and can achieve, holding myself relentlessly accountable
to being a mother they can be proud of. Through this dissertation, I honor our commitment to
pushing past barriers set before us, because we are about the “brown angle.” I hope that this
inspires you to reach new heights and to achieve more than I ever could. You are a better
version of me, you are meant to be great, and to make a difference.
This is also dedicated to my husband, Octavio, for his continued and tireless support. He
has stood by me through every phase of my journey and it has been far from easy. He has
always been there to fill in the gaps at home, from driving our daughters to and from, to
scheduling and following up with doctor appointments, sometimes being both mom and dad as I
navigated a full schedule with work and school. Thank you.
And finally, I dedicate this to my parents, Celia and Enrique. Their love and support has
been unconditional and constant. They allowed me to become who I am, giving me the freedom
and support to follow my dreams. Their constant affirmations and support have helped me
through all chapters in my life. They are and continue to be a constant beacon of hope, love, and
confidence in my life. Gracias por todo su apoyo, amor, y confianza. Jamás les podre pagar
todo lo que han hecho por mí, pero espero que mis logros sean una fuente de orgullo para
ustedes y que de alguna manera vean que mis logros son sus logros. Porque sin su apoyo
incondicional, jamás hubiese podido lograr lo que hasta hoy. Dios me los bendiga siempre.
Mom, you have always been my biggest cheerleader and source of strength – I am forever
grateful.
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: Findings and Discussion .............................................................................74
Introduction ..................................................................................................................74
Participants ...................................................................................................................75
Demographic Data .......................................................................................................75
Research Question One ................................................................................................76
Self-Efficacy Beliefs ..............................................................................................77
Collaboration and Efficacy ....................................................................................78
Efficacy Shaping Sources ......................................................................................79
Collective Efficacy.................................................................................................80
Research Question Two ...............................................................................................82
Perceptions about Teacher Capacity ......................................................................84
Developing Collective Efficacy .............................................................................85
Ownership of Learning ..........................................................................................87
Research Question Three .............................................................................................89
PLCs in Practice .....................................................................................................90
PLC Work ..............................................................................................................91
Research Question Four ...............................................................................................96
Culture of Collaboration ........................................................................................97
PLC Practices .........................................................................................................98
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 7
Impact of Collaboration on Collective Efficacy ....................................................99
Shaping Teacher Efficacy ....................................................................................101
Summary and Discussion of Findings .......................................................................102
Chapter Five: Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusion ........................................105
Summary ....................................................................................................................105
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................107
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................108
Methodology ..............................................................................................................108
Sample Population .....................................................................................................109
Data Collection ..........................................................................................................110
Key Findings ..............................................................................................................110
Limitations .................................................................................................................113
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................................114
Conclusions ................................................................................................................114
References ........................................................................................................................116
Table 1: Professional Learning Communities to Other Models ......................................132
Table 2: Demographics of Interview Participants ...........................................................133
Table 3: PLC Implementation ..........................................................................................134
Table 4: PLC Staff Development .....................................................................................135
Table 5: Analysis of Responses to Self-Efficacy Beliefs Survey Statements .................136
Table 6: Analysis of Responses to Collaboration and Efficacy Survey Statements ........137
Table 7: Analysis of Responses to Efficacy Shaping Sources Survey Statements ..........138
Table 8: Analysis of Responses to Collective Efficacy Survey Statements ....................139
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 8
Table 9: Analysis of Responses to Culture of Collaboration Survey Statements ............140
Table 10: Analysis of Responses to PLC Practices Survey Statements ..........................141
Table 11: Analysis of Results to Impact of Collaboration on Collective Efficacy
Survey Statements ......................................................................................................142

Table 12: Analysis of Responses to Shaping Teacher Efficacy Survey Statements ........143
Figure A: Responses to Self-Efficacy Survey Statements ...............................................144
Figure B: Responses to Collaboration and Efficacy Survey Statements .........................145
Figure C: Responses to Efficacy Shaping Sources Survey Statements ...........................146
Figure D: Responses to Collective Efficacy Survey Statements .....................................147
Figure E: Culture of Collaboration Survey Results .........................................................148
Figure F: PLC Practices Survey Results ..........................................................................149
Figure G: Responses to Impact of Collaboration on Collective Efficacy Survey
Statements ..................................................................................................................150
Figure H: Shaping Teacher Efficacy Survey Results ......................................................151
Appendix A: Letter of Invitation .....................................................................................152
Appendix B: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Interview Protocol ........................153
Appendix C: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Survey ...........................................156

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 9
Abstract
This 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 within professional learning communities. The purpose of this study was 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.
This was a qualitative study that used data collected from surveys and interviews. The findings
indicated that both principals and directors believe that self-efficacy has a positive correlation to
student achievement, that capacity and efficacy can be developed, and that their teachers
collaborate and have access to resources and support to carry out their work in the PLCs. The
findings also indicated that principals and directors did not believe that teachers had developed
the level of collective efficacy to leverage its impact on student learning. Instead, the study
revealed a lack of collective ownership for the learning of students and a low impact on teachers’
collective efficacy as a result of teacher collaboration. This study begins to identify challenges
in moving the PLC work forward including time for teachers to collaborate within the school
day, collective ownership for student learning, and, more importantly, the teacher mindset about
students and their own capacity.

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

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
education has seen massive changes and reforms since its inception more than 200 years ago
(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. (as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d.) wrote in 1995 “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,
and 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, Collay, Dietz, Kent,
& Richert, 1997; Lambert et al., 1995; 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 framework emphasized moral purpose, understanding the process
of change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing, and coherence making as core
components of leadership for change (Barber & Fullan, 2005). Fullan defined moral purpose as
the act of making a positive difference in an environment or organization. For transformational
leaders, this means that the responsibility of improving the educational system goes beyond
having one successful school. Barber and Fullan (2005) stated that to achieve improvement in an
educational system, leaders must focus on closing existing gaps in the system. Transformational
leaders have the responsibility to bring awareness to teachers about their moral responsibility to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 51
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

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
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.
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 67
data that will focus on processes and meaning about the role these leaders play in
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 68
oversee the implementation of PLCs at the secondary level. The researchers work and reside in
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 69
included a few questions that were short, open-ended responses to allow participants to elaborate
on a few ideas (Driscoll, 2011).
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 70
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.
Data Collection
Permission was obtained from the districts’ superintendent via a formal written request
(email), followed by a phone conversation, to gain access to site principals, district directors and
assistant superintendents who work with or oversee the implementation of PLCs. For each case
study, the number of participants was dictated by the number of secondary schools within the
district that met the requirements, ranging from 5 to 7 total participants, including secondary
school principals, directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents. Once permission was
granted, identified site principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents were contacted for participation in the study via email with a Request to
Participate Letter and a link for the survey. In addition, the identified participants were
contacted by phone to encourage responses and to request interviews. Several follow up emails
and phone calls followed to ensure participation.
The surveys were conducted via an online format to give participants an opportunity to
complete it at their own time and discretion. According to Weiss (1994), the interviewer should
establish a partnership with the respondents. Considering ways in which to build this
partnership, the interviews were conducted at the location designated by the participants to make
it convenient for and to maintain a natural and comfortable environment for the interviewee.
Notes were not taken during the interview to allow each researcher to listen to the participant and
be fully present during the interview. As a result, the researcher could enhance their connection
with the participant during the interview. The recordings from the interviews were transcribed
by a professional transcriber.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 71
Data Analysis
After the data was collected, it was analyzed to make meaning. According to Merriam
and Tisdell (2016), data analysis is the process to make sense out of data, which includes
consolidating and interpreting what’s been said, reported, and read. The quantitative and
qualitative data were analyzed separately. To conduct the quantitative analysis, data was
collected and organized in Excel sheets. Each participant’s responses were separated and
organized in a row, using the Likert-scale values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The average score from each
category was calculated for each participant and included one overall average score across all
categories for each participant. Responses were evaluated to determine the percent of
respondents who identified with positive attitudes within each of the categories. In addition, the
percent of participants with positive dispositions about collective efficacy were calculated from
the averages. To examine the relationship between collaboration and collective efficacy, data
points were paired across collaboration and collective efficacy categories and graphed to
determine correlation or relationship between both concepts.
To conduct the qualitative analysis, the interview data was organized. The researchers
sifted through the data and made notations – using both open and a priori coding. As described
by Corbin and Strauss (2008), coding involves interacting with the data using different
techniques, like questioning, making comparisons, drawing on personal experience, and looking
at language. In analyzing this data, the researchers drew from several of these techniques while
reading through the interview transcripts and observation notes. After open coding, the
researchers constructed categories or themes to capture patterns in the data. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) liken this process to sorting items in a grocery store, grouping and organizing the open
codes in a way that makes sense. This process is called axial coding, which goes beyond
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 72
descriptions to interpretation and reflection. The researchers sorted the open codes into themes
axial codes or themes and created a codebook to document and track these patterns and codes.
Participants in the study were selected because of their work with or oversight in the
implementation of PLCs. Therefore, common themes, patterns, processes, and characteristics
were identified to gain a deeper understanding of how leadership influences CTE in a PLC.
Ethical Considerations
This research proposal was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University
of Southern California and was conducted within the parameters of the institution’s ethical
standards. In research studies, ethical concerns are likely to arise in the collection and
presentation of the findings, which are directly impacted by the participant and researcher
relationship (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Ethical considerations included how much the
researchers revealed about the purpose of the study to the participants, how informed the consent
from the participants was, the privacy and protection from harm to the participants, and the
standard data collection techniques. To ensure that the study was conducted in an ethical
manner, the researchers took careful steps during the entry to acquire permission from the district
to approach their site and district administrators and to inform both the district and participants
of the purpose of the study, as well as ensuring they understood participation was voluntary.
During the interviews, explicit permission was requested to record the sessions. Furthermore,
the participants were made aware of how the findings would be distributed, as a dissertation in
the doctoral program at USC.
Summary
This chapter summarized the purpose of the study and the research design, which
included details of the study methods including participants, instrumentation, data collection, and
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 73
analysis. The mixed-methods study combined both quantitative and qualitative approaches to
ensure a more robust collection of data to meet the goals of the study, to understand how
leadership of principals, directors, assistant superintendents, and superintendents at the site and
district level influence or impact collective teacher efficacy. The researchers used appropriate
tools and ethical standards to ensure a study that would add to existing knowledge in this area.
The findings of the study are presented in Chapter Four.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 74
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion
Introduction
This chapter includes a discussion of the data collected from a mixed-method case study
of District TUCA intended to examine the role of educational leaders in developing collective
teacher efficacy (CTE) to leverage the positive impact of professional learning communities
(PLCs) on student achievement. The district that was identified for the study is a unified school
district in southern California where PLCs are being implemented in a number of its middle and
high schools. The identified district met the selection criteria as: (1) traditional secondary
schools in southern California, including 6-8 and 4-8 middle schools and 9-12 high schools;
(2) public, non-charter, schools; (3) student population of more than 1500; (4) schools have been
implementing PLCs a minimum of three years; (5) the principals would preferably have been at
the site for a minimum of three years; and (6) the student population is at least 50% low socio-
economic status and students of color.
Quantitative data was obtained through an online survey using a Likert scale to rank
statements on teacher efficacy and collaboration. The survey focused on both site and district
leaders’ perceptions to examine the relationship between teacher collaboration and collective
teacher efficacy at the secondary level. Qualitative data was collected through a semi-structured
interview protocol that further examined the beliefs of site and district leaders about teacher
efficacy and collaboration, the ways in which they supported/hindered the work of teachers in
PLCs, and how the role of leaders working with PLCs was impacted by these beliefs. This
chapter presents the findings from the responses to the online surveys and in-person interviews.
The following research questions guided the study:
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 75
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?
Participants
Site principals, district directors, and assistant superintendent identified for this study
play a role in the implementation of PLCs at the district’s secondary schools. Of the seven
administrators mentioned that met the criteria in the identified district, two middle school
principals, one high school principal, and two district directors responded to the online survey
and participated in the in-person interview.
Demographic Data
Demographic data for the participants listed above and the district was collected through
the online survey. Participants responded to 10 demographic questions including their
assignment, experience, participation in PLCs, district implementation of PLCs, and staff
development. Data about the participants’ experience is contained in Table 2. Of the five
participants, three are site principals and two are district directors. Two of the three site
principals serve at a middle school and one serves at a high school. Of the two district directors,
one directly supports middle schools and the other supports high schools within the district. Four
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 76
of the five participants, including the middle school and high school principals and one director,
have more than 10 years’ experience in school administration, with two of the three site
principals serving in their current role from three to five years and both district directors serving
in their current role from one to two years.
Data about PLC implementation is found in Table 3. While all participants work in the
same district, there was no consensus about the number of years that the district has been
implementing PLCs. Three of the five participants, a middle school principal, the high school
principal, and a director, indicated that the district has been implementing PLCs for more than 10
years. Another middle school principal indicated that the district has been implementing PLCs
for 3-5 years, while another director indicated that PLC implementation has been going on for 6-
10 years. Of the five participants, a middle school principal and a director indicated that they
had previously participated as teacher members of PLCs prior to becoming administrators. All
five participants indicated that they had some oversight in the implementation of PLCs.
Data about professional development on PLCs is shown in Table 4. Four of the five
participants answered questions on staff development; a middle school principal and a director
indicated that 25 to 50% of their staff had been formally trained on the implementation of PLCs,
one indicated that 51 to 75% of staff had been formally trained, and another indicated that 76 to
100% of staff had been formally trained. All site principals reported some level of professional
development for their staff with regard to PLCs.
Research Question One
What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 77
When principals and directors were surveyed, they were given statements regarding
teachers’ collective efficacy. They were presented with 15 statements about their own belief
about the impact of teacher efficacy on learning and their perceptions about their teachers’
efficacy. The principals and directors rated how much they agreed with the given statements on
a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 corresponding to “strongly disagree” and 6 corresponding to
“strongly agree.” Items on the survey were sorted into four related categories, self-efficacy
beliefs, collaboration and self-efficacy, efficacy shaping sources, and collective efficacy.
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
As described in the literature review, the concept of self-efficacy is a person’s belief that
he or she can successfully accomplish or perform a task or 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, et al., 1998). Survey statements about self-efficacy and the results of the survey are
found in Figure A.
The survey results showed that principals and directors’ belief about self-efficacy align
with the research findings. One hundred percent of the participants indicated that they agreed
that student success is impacted by a teacher’s sense of self-efficacy, with 40% of principals and
directors indicating they agreed and 60% indicating they strongly agreed with the statement.
This is further supported by measures of location, values that identify the typical or
central values that best describe the data, including the mean, most frequent response, standard
deviation, and range. Table 5 shows a mean of 5.6 and standard deviation of 0.5477 for this
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 78
item. Principals and directors, however, were mixed in their perceptions of their teachers’
efficacy beliefs. Principals and directors indicated that teachers in District TUCA exhibited a
sense of self-efficacy, with 80% indicating they somewhat agreed with and 20% agreeing with
the survey statement “Teachers in my school/district are confident they are able to motivate and
prepare students to achieve.” Table 5 further shows that while 100% of principals and directors
agreed that their teachers were confident in their ability to motivate and prepare students, the
mean of this survey item is 4.2 and a standard deviation of 0.4472, with the most frequent
response of four somewhat agreeing. This shows that the responses lie on the low end of agree,
very close to the disagree categories. In addition, results to a second statement about self-
efficacy beliefs revealed that 20% disagreed, 20% somewhat disagreed, 40% somewhat agreed,
and 20% agreed with the survey statement “Teachers in my school/district believe their ability to
reach disadvantaged students has a bigger impact on student achievement than their home
environment, parental involvement, or prior student achievement.” While the survey results
show that both principals and directors’ belief in self-efficacy as a positive force on student
achievement is consistent with research findings, their responses did not reveal a strong sense of
confidence in their teachers’ sense of self-efficacy.
Collaboration and Efficacy
Voelkel and Chrispeels (2017) identified professional learning communities and
collective teacher efficacy as companion constructs, with a key tenet of effective professional
learning communities involving educators in collaborative work. Research findings further
supported the claims that teacher efficacy is predictive of increased teacher collaboration and
that a stronger sense of collective efficacy yields greater persistence and sustained efforts from
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 79
staff to reach goals, including student learning outcomes as well as greater teacher collaboration
(Goddard & Skrla, 2006; Gray & Summers, 2015).
Survey statements about collaboration and self-efficacy along with the survey results are
displayed in Figure B. The survey results showed that principals and directors believed that
teacher collaboration can both foster a group’s belief in their ability to support student
achievement and that the success of students can be enhanced through teacher collaboration.
One hundred percent of participants agreed with the collaboration statements with agree and
strongly agree ratings. All principals and directors strongly agreed that “when teachers work
together, they are more effective in supporting all students in learning.” Furthermore, principals
and directors agreed that administrators can foster a group’s efficacy beliefs through
collaborative and decision-making opportunities, with 80% strongly agreeing and 20% agreeing.
This is also supported with data in Table 6 that shows mean values of 5.8 or higher and
standard deviations of 0.4472 or smaller. The data regarding these items displayed very little
distribution. The findings show a consistent alignment with research, collaboration and
collective efficacy are companion constructs as perceived by principals and directors.
Efficacy Shaping Sources
Bandura’s (1994) research delineated various efficacy belief shaping sources, including
mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persuasion, and affective states. Bandura
asserted that efficacy is strengthened through personal repeated successes. Furthermore,
Donohoo (2017) found that collective efficacy is increased when a group of educators observes a
similar group performing well or overcoming obstacles. Social persuasion, too, was found to be
a positive efficacy shaping source that involves individuals being encouraged or given positive
performance feedback by other credible and trustworthy individuals who verbally influence them
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 80
(Bandura, 1994). These sources not only build a teacher’s self-efficacy, but it fuels and develops
collective efficacy as well (Goddard & Goddard, 2001). The survey statements about shaping
sources and the results are displayed in Figure C.
The survey results showed that principals and directors agree that teachers’ self and
collective efficacy is malleable and can be shaped through various experiences. One hundred
percent of principals and directors agreed on all three statements related to shaping sources, with
100% of principals and directors reporting that they strongly agreed that “teachers can improve
their practice through shared experiences with their colleagues.” Principals and directors further
agreed that teachers observing colleagues experienced success with similar student populations
would increase their sense of self-efficacy, with 20% indicating they somewhat agreed, 20%
stating they agreed, and 60% stating they strongly agreed. These results are further supported by
the location and distribution analysis found in Table 7. Five responses to the survey statement
“teachers in this school/district are eager to help each other improve their practice” had a mean
of 4.6 and a standard deviation of 0.5477 with the most frequent response of agree. These values
of central tendency further support that teachers recognize that together they can improve their
practice, a key idea of collective efficacy. The table further shows 100% of participants in
agreement with the shaping sources statements, with the most frequent ratings being agree or
strongly agree. These findings show that principals and directors’ responses are supported by
existing research findings.
Collective Efficacy
Teacher efficacy involves the belief of the individual teacher, whereas collective efficacy
has to do with the belief of a group of educators. Collective efficacy is defined as a shared belief
in a group’s capacity for action to achieve an intended outcome, coupled with an active sense of
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 81
engagement by the members of the group (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2004). In a study by Bandura
(1993), findings revealed that perceived collective efficacy had a greater influence on student
achievement than did socioeconomic status. Survey statements relating to collective efficacy
and the results are displayed in Figure D.
Survey results revealed a strong belief by principals and directors in the positive impact
of collective efficacy on student outcomes. Three of the six statements surveying principals and
directors’ beliefs about the impact of collective efficacy on student learning were rated
somewhat agree, agree, and strongly agree, with all three statements rated by at least 80% of the
participants as agree or strongly agree. Results showed that principals and directors’ perceptions
about their teachers’ collective efficacy were mixed, showing some lack of confidence in their
teachers’ capacity to develop collective efficacy to significantly impact student learning. All
three of the statements surveying principals and directors’ confidence in their own teachers’
sense of collective efficacy were rated with either a 2 (disagree) or 3 (somewhat disagree). One
survey statement, “For my teachers/staff, student failure results in increased teacher
effort/persistence,” generated a combined 40% of responses with some disagreement. The other
two survey statements revealed a level of confidence in their teachers’ collective efficacy with
80% of responses rated as agree or strongly agree. These survey statements were: “There is
enough capacity and knowledge among the teachers in my school/district to address barriers to
learning for all our students,” and “Teachers in this school/district believe it is their collective
responsibility to help every child master grade-level curriculum.”
The results are further supported by the data analysis presented in Table 8. The first three
statements listed in the table reveal a strong belief by the principals and directors in District
TUCA about the positive impact of collective efficacy on student outcomes. These items show a
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 82
high mean value of 4.8 or above and small standard deviations of 0.5477 or less, a spread of 1,
and the most frequent responses being agree or strongly agree. The table also shows that
principals and directors’ perceptions of their actual teachers’ collective efficacy is not quite as
consistent. The last three items listed in the table show a wider spread of 3 and standard
deviations above 1. The results show inconsistencies in the level of confidence that principals
and directors have on their teachers’ capacity and efficacy. The beliefs of the principals and
directors are consistent with research, but their responses show that they don’t believe their staff
is fully displaying those traits.
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?
When principals and directors were interviewed, they were asked questions about their
perceptions regarding collective efficacy and role as administrators in developing collective
efficacy within their PLCs. There were 21 questions in the interview protocol from which the
interviewer could draw. Depending on the responses from the participants, experiences, and/or
structures, the interviewer used the protocol flexibly to clarify and gather more detail as
necessary, allowing the interview to flow naturally and purposefully.
Building on the concepts from Research Question 1 that included self-efficacy beliefs,
collaboration, efficacy shaping sources, and collective efficacy, research has consistently
confirmed the significance of leadership in improving student achievement (Fullan, 2014b;
Leithwood et al., 2010; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wallace Foundation, 2013). According to
Leithwood et al. (2004), leadership is second only to classroom instruction when it comes to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 83
factors contributing to student learning. While the effects of leadership on student learning are
indirect, research findings suggested that leadership is significantly related to PLCs and
collective teacher efficacy (Leithwood et al., 2010).
Further research suggested that leaders can influence teachers’ sense of responsibility for
student outcomes (Jerald, 2007; Ross & Gray, 2006). LoGerfo (2006) 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). 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 focused on leadership
practices that foster CTE, aligning directly with the PLC process and the conditions necessary to
support the PLC teams.
Interview questions related to collective efficacy included:
• Do you believe there is enough capacity and knowledge in your school/district to address
barriers to learning for all of your students including your high needs populations?
Please explain why or why not?
• What role do you believe the principal/director/assistant superintendent/superintendent
play in developing the shared belief that through collective action teachers in professional
learning communities can positively influence student outcomes?
• What are some specific actions you have taken to develop this shared belief and
collective action within a PLC?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 84
• In what ways, would you say the work of PLCs impact student achievement?
• Do teachers at your school/district believe it is their responsibility to ensure every student
masters grade-level curriculum? What are some characteristics your teachers display that
make you believe that?
• What role does the principal/director/assistant superintendent/superintendent play in
developing shared responsibility for student outcomes?
Perceptions about Teacher Capacity
When asked about teacher capacity, three of the five leaders (two school principals and
one district director) indicated they believed their staffs had the capacity to carry out the work of
the PLCs and impact student learning. Leader A (middle school principal) stated,
I think there’s a tremendous capacity within. We have a super talented group of teachers
. . . But we have a lot of capacity here that we haven’t even scratched the surface to, and
we have a tremendous ability to be successful.
Leader C (high school principal) also shared “I think as far as capacity and the staff,
there’s a high capacity of leadership in the school among teachers.” And, Leader E (director)
commented,
I think the expertise is there. I think as always it comes down to the capacity and the time
and being able to address and adjust some of those things. But I do think we have the
capacity for that and the expertise within . . . Or the expertise, I should say rather, within
the organization to be able to address that.”
All three, however, expressed in some way that while the capacity exists within, it needs
to be nurtured and honed. Leader A (middle school principal) explained,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 85
But I think to say . . . that we have enough within and we don’t need any other help. We
don’t need any other resources. We don’t need district support. We can do it and hunker
down – I think would not be an accurate statement. Because I think if we did have all
that, then we would already be where we wanted to be, and we’re not. So, I think
reaching out for help and support is important . . .. But I think it’s also utilizing resources
that are there, and leveraging those resources to support our own staff.
The other two participants, B and D, expressed that there was still work to be done with
developing their staffs’ capacity. Leader B (middle school principal) shared,
I think they’re getting there . . . I think a lot of them do have the will, I think a lot are
frustrated by where our students are. It’s not that they don’t have the will, they just feel
like maybe there’s not an answer out there.
And Leader D (director) simply stated, “I think we’re still building.” The general finding
is that leaders in District TUCA don’t believe that all their teachers have the capacity, but they
generally believe that this capacity can be developed. The belief that capacity can be built is
consistent with research on efficacy and educational leadership.
Developing Collective Efficacy
When asked about their role in developing a shared belief that through collective action
teachers in professional learning communities can positively influence student outcomes,
participants discussed various ways to support teachers from listening, setting a vision, and
sharing decision making, to providing resources like time, coaches, and professional
development. Leader B (middle school principal), for example, explained
I think it’s just the clarity of the vision. I mean, we have to sit down and set very clear
attainable goals for our site, and it looks very different than other school sites . . . We
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 86
really sit down as a leadership team each year and really focus in on what is most
important to us.
Another example from Leader C (high school principal) is,
when there’s coaches that are able to work alongside teachers, I think that makes a big
difference. So, when teachers feel like they’re supported and they have somebody to go
to. “I’m struggling with this. What do you think about this?” And so, I think that helps a
lot.
In addition, Leader E (director) shared,
I think our role really is in being able to provide that time, those spaces to have that
happen, and being able to, at times, help guide the conversation, especially with the
leadership . . .so that they’re familiar and have that common language across the board
and they’re all in sync with one another.
The themes emerging from these interviews included vision, collaboration, shared decision-
making, and alignment of resources.
As noted in the literature review, overarching principles in leadership to support and
sustain the collaborative efforts of PLCs and the development of collective efficacy include
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).
The leaders’ interviews were consistent with these research findings. While not all leaders
communicated all these factors, they each shared at least one which they practice.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 87
Ownership of Learning
When asked about the impact of PLCs on student learning, in particular the ownership of
student learning, only one leader (Leader A, middle school principal) expressed resolutely that
“they all feel that way.” The other four participants qualified their statements to show that not all
teachers took ownership of student learning. This was communicated as “I’m going to say
mostly” by Leader C (high school principal). Leader D (director) stated,
I’d like to say yes to that, but I don’t think that all of our teachers believe that. I think we
struggle with teachers who, and I think it’s a minority number now, but teachers who
believe that they’re there to deliver their content and not teach the learners sitting in front
of them.
Focusing on the teachers they perceived as taking ownership, the participants shared how
they knew these teachers took that ownership. Leader D (director) shared what a teacher had
done for struggling students,
On the flip side, we have some amazing teachers with the support of one our math
TOSA’s, who designed a whole new curriculum for Algebra Enrichment. And it’s a
course that we built for ninth graders who have historically failed math. So, they have at
least six years of F’s in math . . .. So, they’ve designed this, under the mathematical mind
set, it’s a growth mind set, and practices, and they really dug in and built this new
curriculum that’s changing the lives of kids and closing gaps and making kids believe in
themselves again . . . A couple of teacher leaders from each of the sites who care about
kids and care about their learning.
Additionally, Leader B (middle school director) shared,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 88
I mean these teachers are, they spend so much time. They’re here at lunch, after school,
reaching out to the parents – trying to be creative with ways to create interventions for
students who really aren’t getting any support at home. It’s just a constant kind of
reinvention . . .. I think each year we get a little bit better, but they’re always looking out
for the kids and looking for ways to pull them in.
It was apparent that leaders understood what taking ownership of learning meant and
could provide specific examples to show that some of their teachers did so. The general finding
was that leaders recognized that not all their teachers are currently taking ownership for student
learning, but they are able to recognize models and examples. 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. 3)
These examples described reflect persistence, greater levels of planning and organization,
and a willingness to experiment which are consistent with research on teacher efficacy.
Regarding the role of leaders in developing this shared responsibility, two of the
participants, a middle school principal and a director, agreed that messaging or creating a vision
was essential. Leader B (middle school principal) expressed this by stating,
it’s the messaging, the helping them focus on the way. Why are we doing this, because
it’s easy to kind of lose sight when you’re not seeing 10-point gains in testing data.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 89
We’re very small and we’re very flat, but we have to kind of dig deeper to find those
celebrations, so it’s finding those moments to celebrate.
And Leader D (director) stated,
We’re not necessarily having conversations one-on-one with teachers. But I think if I’m
equipping our teacher leaders, and our administrators, on how to have the conversations
and the dialogues and making sure people understand the why behind our work, then I
think I can create some impact.
These responses align with literature on PLCs existing research. 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) described this as a moral purpose – the nexus between the actions
of school personnel and making a positive difference for students across the system. Researchers
agreed that effective leaders 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).
Research Question Three
How are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents,
and superintendents fostering or hindering collaboration in professional learning
communities (PLCs)?
When principals and directors were interviewed, they were asked questions about their
perceptions regarding collaboration, PLCs, and role as administrators in fostering a collaborative
culture for their PLCs. Building on the concepts from Research Question Two, research on
professional learning communities has found that principals play a vital role in the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 90
implementation of the PLC process at their school sites (Fullan, 2014b; McLaughlin & Talbert,
2006; Wallace Foundation, 2013). Given the focus of PLCs on learning and collaboration, the
principal’s role is to create the conditions to foster a culture where PLCs thrive. A cornerstone
attribute of a PLC undoubtedly is teacher collaboration (DuFour et al., 2016). In creating the
conditions for PLCs to thrive, hence, the principal is required to foster a culture of collaboration
where teams of teachers engage in job-embedded professional development focused on fulfilling
the shared vision for student learning (Schmoker, 2006).
Interview questions related to collaboration included:
• Explain how professional learning communities function at your school/district? What
are their attributes and what does it look like in practice?
• 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?
• How do PLCs use student data to inform their practice or collaboration? Describe the
role you play with teacher’s use of data?
• What are some interventions that have been implemented in your school/district? How
are these connected to the work of the PLCs?
• How would you describe the culture of collaboration at your school/district?
• In what ways have you fostered a culture of collaboration?
PLCs in Practice
When asked about how PLCs function in District TUCA, the interviews revealed similar
patterns across the middle and high schools, with regularly scheduled meeting times within the
school day that were protected and arranged in grade or content alike groups. Leader A (middle
school principal) reported that minutes are banked, “so we have early out on Wednesdays and so
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 91
that gives us time that’s built in . . . we have grade level PLCs . . . but most of the groups are
meeting more frequently on their own. I’d say all of them pretty much.” In addition, Leader A
shared that to protect this collaboration time, they “don’t schedule anything else, and we have the
calendar determined before school starts.” Leader B (middle school principal) shared that their
PLCs meet “every other week, so we have late start Wednesday, so every other week they get to
meet for an hour in PLCs.” According to Leader B, “it’s a district wide initiative so everyone
gets that time and it’s pretty much written.” The other three participants, high school principal
and directors, stated “we have late starts that happen about every two weeks, sometime every
month,” “we have late-start Wednesdays and those are dedicated to department or course a-like
at the different sites,” and “middle school really does have a focus on two of those a month at
least, two of those late start early, at least Wednesdays, are going to be geared toward PD and
PLC time.” These responses are consistent with the PLC model recommendations and what is
found in literature in DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) PLC model. According to these
recommendations, 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. 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, 2003).
PLC Work
To study the nature of the work in PLCs, questions were asked by the interviewer in
relation to continuous inquiry to improve student outcomes, use of data to improve outcomes,
and interventions to support student learning. With regard to the notion of continuous inquiry to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 92
improve student outcomes, principals and directors reported that PLCs engage in sharing best
practices and developing common instructional practices. For example, Leader A (middle school
principal) explained how PLCs engage in common practices,
Specifically, they are there to really look at student work, common assessments. They
come together and will kind of plan instruction, pull opportunities for different formative
assessments with their students so that they have a talking point to look at…the whole
goal of that time is really to go through kind of data protocols. They’ll bring assessment
data or just student work samples and really look at where they are in the standards, what
they’re working on, and just kind of see what student work sample looks like. Then, they
have those discussions, how are my kids doing, are they getting it, are they not getting it,
what are we doing differently?
And Leader D (director) also shared how teachers collaborate in their PLCs in sharing
practices,
I would say it’s a significant amount of time of strategy sharing and discussion of best
practices. Our sites really don’t spend . . . time on the management and it’s more
instructional. So . . . it’s protected time for instruction strategy and discussion, I would
say.
In relation to the use of data to drive instructional practices and teacher collaboration, site
and district leaders in District TUCA reported that teachers use data protocols to engage in
discussions about student performance, identifying ways to address learning gaps. Fox example,
Leader D (director) shared that teachers,
gather the data, look at results. So, for example, English gave an argumentative essay
and look[ed] at the results and say, it’s broken down by the components of the essay.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 93
Claim, evidence, reasoning, counter argument. So, they break all that down and then
develop strengths, areas of growth, and then next things to do then is to address that with
their students.
Leader A (middle school principal) also reported that,
data is brought in, so they’re bringing either authentic work, or they’re bringing data
results at each PLC meeting . . .We have entrance or exit tickets in Math, and so it may
be an entrance or exit ticket. They bring in and show, okay, this is what my students did,
these are the issues that we’re seeing . . .. And then when we have our benchmark
assessments for the district, we actually norm and then review the data together, and
grade all in the same day. So that’s a pull-out day, and that’s a full day.
In addition, Leader D (director) stated “they are becoming increasingly more competent on data
protocols . . . we have common assessments and we have the data protocol for our checkpoints.”
As noted in the literature review, one big idea in PLC work is a focus on results, where
teams of teachers judge their effectiveness based on results (DuFour et al., 2016). According to
DuFour et al. (2016), 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. The examples
discussed by the site and district leaders suggested that the work of the PLCs in District TUCA
as it relates to a focus on results is consistent with research.
Questions about interventions were also asked. The interview revealed that in response
to learning gaps for students, teachers in PLCs implement intervention opportunities to support
students. Leader A (middle school principal) shared the various things and approaches that were
tried, highlighting the creative solutions to addressing student learning gaps,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 94
Some of the interventions we have are enrichment classes that we continue to revisit and
discuss. Our strategic reading has been hugely successful, and we have math enrichment
. . . We used to have two-period math, then we’re like that doesn’t work. So, then they
did a single period plus an enrichment class . . . When we looked at the data and we
talked about it in our PLCs, we didn’t get the results that we wanted from that. So, then
we went to focusing on remedial skills . . . We have four days a week that we have
tutorials, so two days a week is the social-emotional side, doing circles and restorative
practice work . . . The tutorial period is four days a week for 25 minutes.
Leader C (high school principal) also shared that in addition to tutorial periods, they,
hired [a] counselor and she’s been able to track students who are doing poorly and she’s
been able to basically bring it to the attention of teachers and become almost like an
advocate for that student. And not in a threatening way but hey, this student might need
some additional help. So, I think that’s been an important intervention.
When asked about how they support this work, site leaders discussed their roles as
administrators. Leader A (middle school principal) shared that,
my role is to bring the groups together to identify where they are and then the other
pieces to communicate out what the different roles, or different tiers are, and different
resources are to the staff, so that they know what’s available to them.
Leader B (middle school principal) expressed that,
a lot of it was just really trying to brainstorm with the teachers what do we need. Finding
the need and finding a way to make it happen. At first, it started with putting aside
funding, writing it into the school site plan, making sure that I could pay teachers to stay
after school. Then, we’ve expanded.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 95
And Leader C (high school principal) reported,
I think my role is to create structures in place so that those things start to happen. So, our
PBIS team, our SEL committee, Social Emotional Committee, is actually very productive
piece of our school leadership . . . And so, I think those things are areas where
intervention conversations can start to come into play. I think my role is to help organize
all these structures that can start to think about and deliver on interventions.
Themes emerging from the analysis of the interview responses on these questions were
distributed leadership and alignment of resources. As described in the literature review, 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). 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). This current study found that the best results are obtained when principals and teachers
shared leadership. The middle and high school principals described ways in which they work
with their teachers to implement interventions, distributing and sharing leadership, and decision-
making.
In addition, 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; Reeves, 2006). To
support PLCs, principals must allocate resources and manage structures to provide structured
time for collaboration to leverage teacher expertise in curriculum, assessment, instruction, and
leadership (Buttram & Farley-Ripple, 2016; DuFour et al., 2016). The leaders described ways in
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 96
which they access or make resources known, including how they implement new structures to
leverage these resources through various committees. The roles as described by the site leaders
are consistent with research.
Challenges in supporting PLCs as identified by the participants included time,
accountability, and mindset. Leader A (middle school principal) shared,
The most popular one is time. How do we get them to be able to meet every week as
opposed to two to three times a month? Which is good it’s just still not enough time.
Time’s always an issue . . . and getting more regular meetings.
Leader B (middle school principal) described “a lot of it is the accountability right now . .
. Just really trying to make sure that we’re establishing some clear norms, so that no matter
who’s part of that team that the work still gets done.” And Leader C (high school principal)
explained,
I think the biggest is mindset. I think there’s some teachers that think their job is
basically an independent contractor and there’s others that say, “No, we’re part of an
innate team and if we work together we can actually make something happen better than
we could if we’re on our own.” . . . So, I think that’s the biggest barrier is continuing to
try to inspire, challenge, encourage teachers to make that shift.
Research Question Four
Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy
in PLCs?
When principals and directors were surveyed, they were given statements regarding
teacher collaboration in PLCs. They were presented with 15 statements about the nature of
teachers’ collaborative work within their PLCs and the impact of this collaboration on teachers’
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 97
individual practice. The principals and directors rated to what extent collaboration and its impact
were evident in relation to the given statements on a 6-point Likert scale, with 1 corresponding to
“not at all” and 6 corresponding to “always.” Items on the survey can be sorted into four related
categories: culture of collaboration, PLC practices, impact of collaboration on collective
efficacy, and shaping teacher efficacy.
Culture of Collaboration
As described in the literature review, DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) model addressed
teacher improvement by encouraging teacher collaboration through collective inquiry, teachers
are engaged in authentic learning opportunities that help them examine evidence of student
learning, and collaboratively develop solutions. From the model’s three big ideas, big idea
number two focused on building a culture of collaboration, where educators working in
professional learning communities recognize that they must work together to achieve their
collective purpose of learning for all students (DuFour, 2004). Further research conducted by
Moolenaar et al. (2012) 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. Research on collaboration also showed
that collaboration stimulates the brain to a greater degree than working alone (Chapman et al.,
2005; Reason, 2010). Survey questions about the culture of collaboration and the results are
found in Figure E.
Survey results on the first three questions found in Figure E show that collaboration is
valued by principals and directors, that teachers work together to seek ways to improve student
outcomes, and that teacher relationships within their PLCs show a commitment to improvement
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 98
efforts, with all three questions rated 4 (quite a bit) and 5 (a great deal). These findings are
further validated by data found in Table 9, which shows responses that report high levels of
evidence for these three items, with the most frequent responses at 5 (a great deal) and 6
(always). Two of the items further showed stronger agreement between the participant with
means of 4.8, standard deviations of 0.4472, and a spread of 1. The last three questions,
however, revealed inconsistencies in what principals and directors perceive in teacher
relationships within a PLC. All three items are rated with at least a 3 (some degree), with two of
the items rated as such by 40% of the participants. These items are related to trust and
celebrations, concepts related to group dynamics, and relationships. The third item specifically
addressing the sharing of responsibility within the PLCs also shows greater variance in the
leaders’ responses, with 40% reporting some degree, 40% reporting quite a bit, and 20%
reporting a great deal.
PLC Practices
According to DuFour et al. (2016), there are four critical questions that help educators
place an emphasis on learning for all students within the PLC structure and work: (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?
In addressing these four critical questions, teachers study curriculum frameworks, make
decisions regarding recommended pacing for units, make decisions about instructional strategies,
and engage in assessment and intervention practices to support student learning (DuFour &
Fullan, 2013). The nature of the PLC work is explicitly linked to these four PLC guiding
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 99
questions. Survey questions about the culture of collaboration and the results are found in
Figure F.
Survey results showed teachers in District TUCA engaging in PLC practices consistent
with research findings to a mixed degree. With regard to sharing common practices in
curriculum, instruction, assessment, and interventions, principals and directors reported their
teachers engaging in this work quite a bit, a great deal, and always. With regard to reviewing
student work and working with data to improve their practice, 20% of site and district
administrators reported their teachers working to some degree in this area, 60% reported their
teachers engaged a great deal in this work, and 20% reported their teachers as always working on
this. Overall, the findings indicated that the nature of the collaboration is consistent with what
research suggested effective PLCs do. The findings are further supported by the data found in
Table 10, that shows at least an 80% of principals and directors reporting high levels of
engagement in PLC practices and a most frequently reported rating of quite a bit across all three
questions in this subset.
Impact of Collaboration on Collective Efficacy
As noted in the literature review, Voelkel and Chrispeels (2017) 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. The results of their study
strongly suggested that for districts systemically implementing PLCs “(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). The researchers concluded that districts who support their teachers
in the PLC can enhance collective teacher efficacy which ultimately leads to increased student
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 100
achievement. A key tenet of effective professional learning communities involved educators
working collaboratively in cycles of collective inquiry, a practice that increases collective
efficacy (Donohoo, 2017).
Survey questions relating to the culture of collaboration and the results of the survey are
found in Figure G. The results of the survey revealed inconsistencies and disparities in what
principals and directors report about the impact of collaboration within the PLCs on collective
efficacy. All three questions show a response in the low levels of incidence observed with
ratings below 4. In response to collaboration resulting in increased collective responsibility and
student outcomes, 40% of principals and directors reported some degree, 40% reported quite a
bit, and 20% a great deal. Furthermore, the responses to the question about requiring students to
receive additional support, principals and directors reported a lower incidence with 40%
expressing that teachers engaged in this practice very little and 60% expressing teachers engaged
in this practice to some degree. This reveals that providing the necessary supports for students
who need it is voluntary, which reflects a lack of ownership for the learning of students and a
lack of instructional decision making on behalf of the adults responsible for teaching.
Data analysis shown in Table 11, confirms the findings. The table shows mean values for
all items that are less than 4, which is quite a bit. It further shows that responses were divided,
40 to 60%, in two items and one item reflected 100% of the responses with low levels of
incidence. The findings are not aligned with what research suggested about the impact of
collaboration on collective efficacy. The previous section reviewed findings on collaborative
practices, showing strong levels of collaboration. However, the impact of this collaboration on
CTE is not highly evident as perceived by principals and directors in District TUCA.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 101
Shaping Teacher Efficacy
As noted previously, teachers’ sense of self-efficacy can be shaped through collaborative
experiences with colleagues, primarily with colleagues they trust and respect (Donohoo, 2017).
When teachers are collaborating closely, they are able to observe and engage in the efficacy
shaping sources described by the Bandura (1994), including mastery experiences, vicarious
experiences, and social persuasion. Survey questions about shaping teacher efficacy and the
results are displayed in Figure H.
The results of the survey, again, reveal inconsistencies and disparities with some
responses on the low level of incidence and some on the high level. All three questions
regarding the impact of collaboration on teachers’ sense of self-efficacy have responses reported
with a rating of 3 (some degree). Two of the questions show some responses rated with a 5 (a
great deal). A closer look, suggested that while teachers’ may share and apply practices from
their collaboration, the level of confidence in the application of these practices is lower. The
question rated by 60% of the principals and directors with a 3 specifically asks about the
confidence of teachers with their own practice. The other two questions related to the use or
application of shared practices and teachers’ attitudes about teaching and learning. Responses to
these two questions showed greater variance and lower mean values, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12 also shows the most frequent responses vary across all three questions, with 3 being the
lowest and 5 the highest. The percent of leaders reporting low or high levels is also inconsistent
across the three items, with one item showing 40% low to 60% high, another showing 60% low
to 40% high, and another showing 20% low to 80% high. This analysis confirms the variance in
incidences reported by the principals and directors. Comparing these results to those found in
Figure C and Table 7 related to Research Question One, it is clear that site and district leaders
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 102
believe that collaboration can impact teachers’ sense of self efficacy, however, they don’t quite
agree that this impact is evident with their teachers.
Summary and Discussion of Findings
This chapter presented results from the study and an analysis of both the survey and
interview responses from principals and directors in District TUCA about efficacy and
collaboration to examine the role of educational leaders in developing collective teacher efficacy
(CTE) to leverage the positive impact of professional learning communities (PLCs) on student
achievement. Each of the research questions were presented separately to allow for closer
examination and analysis and to bring greater clarity to the findings.
Research Question One examined principals and directors’ perceptions about collective
efficacy, including their beliefs about the concept of efficacy and their confidence in their
teachers’ efficacy. The findings indicated that both principals and directors believed self-
efficacy positively influences student achievement. The findings also indicated that principals
and directors believed that teachers’ efficacy is malleable and that it can be positively shaped
through experiences including collaboration with peers, shared decision-making opportunities,
and peer observations. However, principals and directors were not confident that their teachers
displayed a strong sense of self-efficacy to close the existing learning gaps. The findings
revealed a lack of confidence in their teachers’ capacity to develop collective efficacy, with
PLCs having the full capacity to address barriers to learning.
Research Question Two further examined leaders’ perceptions regarding collective
efficacy and what they believed their role as administrators was in developing collective efficacy
within their PLCs. The findings indicated that principals and directors in District TUCA
believed that teacher capacity can be developed. However, their perception of their teachers’
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 103
capacity was mixed showing that they didn’t all believe their teachers have the capacity to carry
out the necessary work without additional support. Furthermore, the findings revealed that
principals and directors employed some effective leadership strategies in supporting their PLCs
toward developing teacher collective efficacy, including developing and communicating a clear
vision, fostering a culture of collaboration, providing opportunities for shared decision-making,
and aligning resources. In addition, the findings showed that principals and directors do not
believe all teachers take ownership for student learning, but they employ some effective
leadership strategies toward building the collective capacity of their staffs, as listed above.
Research Question Three examined leaders’ perceptions regarding collaboration within
PLCs and their role as administrators in fostering a collaborative culture for the PLCs. The
findings showed that principals and directors perceived the nature of the collaborative work for
PLCs in District TUCA aligns with the PLC model recommendations, which includes teachers
being afforded collaborative time within the school day, working in content or grade alike teams,
and engaging in explicit work to improve student achievement like sharing best practices,
developing common instructional practices, and implementing interventions to close learning
gaps. Furthermore, the findings showed that principals and directors employed some effective
leadership practices to support this work and focus; in particular, distributing leadership and
aligning resources. Challenges identified by the participants in moving the PLC work forward
included time, accountability, and adult mindset.
Research Question Four examined principals’ and directors’ perceptions about the impact
of collaboration within the PLCs on teachers’ collective efficacy. The findings revealed that
collaboration is valued and that teachers work together, to some extent, on common practices,
including instruction, assessment, and interventions. The findings, however, revealed that
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 104
teachers work well together, but lack trust and accountability. The findings further revealed that
while teachers are focused on the right work when they collaborate, there is a lack of ownership
for the learning of students. The impact of this collaboration on CTE, then, is not highly evident.
Chapter five will include a discussion these findings, limitations of the research, and
recommendations for further research about the role of leadership in developing collective
efficacy in professional learning communities.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 105
Chapter Five: Summary, Recommendations, and Conclusion
Summary
Educational leaders are challenged with ensuring high levels of learning for all students;
an endeavor 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 implemented to accomplish the goal for teachers to work collectively to improve
student achievement. 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. 11).
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 et al., 2010). To operationalize PLCs, three big
ideas facilitate and guide the work – PLCs must focus on learning, build a collaborative culture,
and focus on results (DuFour et al., 2004). 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.
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
(Donohoo, 2017). Research demonstrated that there is 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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 106
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. Research has further suggested that collective
efficacy can be developed (Goddard, 2002; Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2017). Research has
confirmed 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” (Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2017, p. 520).
The researchers concluded that districts who support their teachers in the PLC can enhance
collective teacher efficacy which ultimately leads to increased student achievement.
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). 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. In creating the conditions for PLCs to thrive, hence, the principal is required to foster a
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 107
culture of collaboration, where teams of teachers engage in job-embedded professional
development focused on fulfilling the shared vision for student learning (Schmoker, 2006).
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 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 needed further exploration.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 108
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 were central agents in the study. 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?
Methodology
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. A survey was distributed to school principals and in
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 109
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 and
district directors to obtain qualitative data to answer questions two and three. The semi-
structured interviews generated open-ended data to understand processes and meanings 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 district directors who were surveyed and
interviewed worked with or oversaw the implementation of PLCs at the secondary level in the
district selected for the case study. The district that was identified for the case 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.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 110
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 five total participants, including three secondary school principals from both middle
and high school and two district directors supporting middle and high schools within the district.
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. Several follow up emails
followed to ensure participation.
Five 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 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. The recordings from the interviews were transcribed by a
professional transcriber.
Key Findings
Key findings based on data analysis from Chapter Four are presented below by research
question. The research questions focused on the concepts of efficacy and collaboration to
examine the role of educational leaders in developing collective teacher efficacy (CTE) to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 111
leverage the positive impact of professional learning communities (PLCs) on student
achievement.
Research Question One examined principals and directors’ perceptions about collective
efficacy, including their beliefs about the concept of efficacy and their confidence in their
teachers’ efficacy. It was evident from the survey questions that the principals and district
directors believed the following:
1. Teachers’ self-efficacy positively influences student achievement.
2. Teachers’ efficacy is malleable and it can be positively shaped through experiences,
including collaboration with peers, shared decision-making opportunities, and peer
observations.
While the survey results showed that both principals and directors believe that self-
efficacy has a positive correlation to student achievement, they lack confidence in their teachers’
ability to develop a strong sense of collective efficacy to leverage this positive correlation.
Research Question Two further examined leaders’ perceptions regarding collective
efficacy and what they believe their role as administrators is in developing collective efficacy
within their PLCs. It was evident from the interview questions that the principals and district
directors believed the following:
1. Teacher capacity can be developed.
2. Some teachers take ownership of student learning.
3. School administrators can foster an environment for collaboration and collective
ownership.
While principals and district administrators believed that capacity and efficacy can be
developed and that they are implementing strategies to develop a culture of collaboration and
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 112
collective ownership, they do not believe all teachers take ownership for student learning and
have, hence, not developed teacher collective efficacy.
Research Question Three examined leaders’ perceptions regarding collaboration within
PLCs and their role as administrators in fostering a collaborative culture for the PLCs. It was
evident from the interview questions that the principals and district directors believed the
following:
1. There is a strong culture of collaboration that supports the work of the PLCs, including
protecting time within the school day for teachers to collaborate in content or grade a like
teams.
2. PLCs focus on the improvement of student achievement, which includes sharing best
practices, developing common instructional practices, and implementing interventions to
close learning gaps.
3. School administrators employ some effective leadership practices to support the work
and focus of their PLCs – in particular, distributing leadership and aligning resources.
Principals and district directors agreed that their teachers collaborate and have access to
resources and support to carry out their work in the PLCs, but have not reached the level of
collective efficacy, where ownership of student learning by all teachers is evident and positive.
Challenges identified by the participants in moving the PLC work forward included time,
accountability, and adult mindset.
Research Question Four examined principals’ and directors’ perceptions about the impact
of collaboration within the PLCs on teachers’ collective efficacy. It was evident from the survey
questions, the principals and district directors believed the following:
1. Teacher collaboration has a positive impact on teaching and learning.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 113
2. Teachers work together, to some extent, on common practices, including instruction,
assessment, and interventions.
While the study revealed that principals and district directors believed that teachers work
well together, they also believed that there is a lack trust and accountability for this work. As a
result, there is a lack of ownership for the learning of students and a low impact on teachers’
collective efficacy.
Limitations
Limitations of the study included self-reporting surveys, bias of the researchers’
interview questions, and the sample size. The data gathered from the rubric and survey are only
self-reported, which limits the triangulation of the results or data. Furthermore, the researcher
has experience and background in the implementation of PLCs. This background can create a
bias during the interview which can either hinder or support the use of the semi-structure
interview protocol. In addition, the sample size limits the generalizability of the study and its
findings.
This was a case study that focused on administrators’ perceptions in a single district in
southern California, which included a sample size of five educational leaders. Therefore, the
study was further limited in its application across other districts and quantitative analysis. 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. In
addition, the perceptions of teachers participating in or leading the work of the PLCs can be
included.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 114
Recommendations for Future Research
Based on the findings and limitations of this study, the following areas are recommended
for further research:
1. The importance of leadership in developing effective PLCs has been established. In
addition, effective leadership practices that support the work of PLCs have been
identified. To further understand what leadership practices support and/or hinder the
development of collective efficacy in PLCs, the beliefs and perspectives of teachers
involved in the work of PLCs is necessary to determine how these align with leaders’
perspectives.
2. The case for collective efficacy as an important lever in increasing student achievement
has been established and supported. To further validate the development of collective
efficacy within PLCs, the beliefs and perspectives from teachers involved in PLCs on
efficacy needs to be examined as it relates specifically to working in PLCs.
3. Collaboration has also been identified as a strong influence in the improvement of student
learning. In order to further understand how collaboration leads to the development of
collective efficacy, the impact of specific collaborative practices on teacher efficacy
beliefs needs to be examined.
Conclusion
This study examined the role of leaders in developing collective teacher efficacy to
leverage the positive impact of professional learning communities on student learning outcomes.
The research findings further supported existing literature, augmenting research on the topic of
PLCs and the construct of teacher efficacy. While the study examined the implementation of
PLCs and development of collective efficacy in a single, secondary school district in southern
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 115
California, the findings have applicability for leaders implementing PLCs in their schools.
Leaders are encouraged to reflect on the implementation of PLCs in their schools and identify
how practices used by the leaders in this study can be applied to their work. In addition, leaders
are encouraged to examine their own and their teachers’ beliefs about efficacy to examine their
alignment with research and how these can either support or hinder the development of collective
efficacy within their schools.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 116
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. (1994). Self-efficacy. In R. J. Corsini (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (2nd ed.,
Vol. 3, pp.368-369). New York, NY: Wiley & Sons.
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 117
Barber, M., & Fullan, M. (2005). Tri-level development: Putting systems thinking into
action. Education Week, 24(25), 32-35.
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 118
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.
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 119
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for
professional learning communities at work - A practical guide for PLC teams and
leadership (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many, T., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing – A
handbook for professional learning communities at work
TM

(3rd ed.) Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
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.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2002). Principals as leaders in a culture of change. Educational leadership, 59(8),
16-21.
Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership & sustainability: System thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Fullan, M. (2008). The six secrets of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. (with Ballew, A. C.). (2014a). Leading in a culture of change: Personal action guide
and workbook. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 120
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 121
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 122
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 123
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 124
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 125
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 126
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 127
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 128
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 129
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 130
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 131
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 132
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 133

Table 2
Demographics of Interview Participants
Participant Level Position
Years in
Administration
Years in Current
Assignment
A Middle School Principal 10+ years 3-5 years
B Middle School Principal 10+ years 3-5 years
C High School Principal 10+ years 1-2 years
D District High School Director 10+ years 1-2 years
E District Middle School Director 6-10 years 1-2 years

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 134

Table 3
PLC Implementation
Participant District Years of
Implementation
Teacher Member
of PLCs
Oversee/Support
Implementation of PLCs
A 10+ years No Yes
B 3-5 years Yes Yes
C 10+ years No Yes
D 10+ years No Yes
E 6-10 years Yes Yes

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 135

Table 4
PLC Staff Development
Participant Frequency of Staff Development Percent of Staff Formally Trained
A Occasionally, as needed 25 to 50%
B Occasionally, as needed 51 to 75%
C Regular and on-going 76 to 100%
D Once or twice 25 to 50%
E Did not respond Did not respond

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 136

Table 5
Analysis of Responses to Self-Efficacy Beliefs Survey Statements
Self-Efficacy Statements Mean STDV Range
Most
Frequent
Dis-
agree
Agree
Teachers in my school/district
are confident they are able to
motivate and prepare their
students to achieve. 4.2 0.4472 1 4

100%

Teachers in my school/district
believe their ability to reach
disadvantaged students has a
bigger impact on student
achievement than their home
environment, parental
involvement, or prior student
achievement. 3.6 1.1402 3 4 40% 60%

The success of students is
impacted by the teachers’ belief
in their own capacity to teach
them. 5.6 0.5477 1 6

100%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 137

Table 6
Analysis of Responses to Collaboration and Efficacy Survey Statements
Collaboration and Efficacy Statements Mean STDV Range
Most
Frequent
Dis-
agree
Agree
The success of students is increased
when teachers collaborate on common
practices. 5.8 0.4472 1 6 100%

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. 5.8 0.4472 1 6 100%

When teachers work together, they are
more effective in supporting all students
in learning. 6 0.0000 0 6

100%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 138

Table 7
Analysis of Responses to Efficacy Shaping Sources Survey Statements
Efficacy Shaping Sources Statements Mean STDV Range
Most
Frequent
Dis-
agree
Agree
Teachers in this school/district are eager
to help each other improve their
practice. 4.6 0.5477 1 5 100%

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. 5.4 0.8944 2 6 100%

Teachers can improve their practice
through shared experiences with
colleagues. 6 6

100%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 139

Table 8
Analysis of Responses to Collective Efficacy Survey Statements
Collective Efficacy Statements Mean STDV Range
Most
Frequent
Dis-
agree
Agree
For my teachers/staff, student failure
results in increased teacher
effort/persistence. 3.6 1.1402 3 4 40% 60%

There is enough capacity and knowledge
among the teachers in my school/district
to address barriers to learning for all our
students. 4.8 1.0954 3 5 20% 80%

Teachers in this school/district believe it
is their collective responsibility to help
every child master grade-level curriculum. 4.8 1.0954 3 5 20% 80%

The success of my school/district in
meeting academic and behavioral goals
for all students depends on the capacity
and collaboration of all teachers at my
school/district.
5.4 0.5477 1 5 100%
Successful schools leverage the expertise
of all teachers to achieve a common goal. 6.0 0.0000 0 6 100%

The most effective teachers in my
school/district share a similar set of
values, beliefs, and attitudes related to
teaching and learning? 4.8 0.4472 1 5

100%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 140

Table 9
Analysis of Responses to Culture of Collaboration Survey Statements
Culture of Collaboration Statements Mean STDV Range
Most
Frequent
Low
Level
High
Level
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? 4.8 0.4472 1 5 100%

To what extent do teachers value
collaboration in their PLCs? 5.4 0.8944 2 6 100%

To what extent do relationships and
work in the PLCs reflect a
commitment to school improvement
efforts? 4.8 0.4472 1 5

100%

To what extent has a culture of trust
and respect for taking instructional
risks been developed in the PLCs? 4.2 0.8367 2 5 20% 80%

To what extent do teachers share
responsibility for decision making in
their PLC? 3.8 0.8367 2 4 40% 60%

To what extent do teachers share and
celebrate their success within their
PLC? 3.6 0.5477 1 4 40% 60%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 141

Table 10
Analysis of Responses to PLC Practices Survey Statements
PLC Practices Statement Mean STDV Range
Most
Frequent
Low
Level
High
Level
To what extent do teachers in PLCs
share common practices in
assessments and interventions?
4.2 0.4472 1 4 100%

To what extent do teachers in PLCs
share common practices in the
delivery of curriculum and
instruction? 4.6 0.8944 2 4 100%

To what extent do teachers in PLCs
collaborate in reviewing student work
and data to share and improve
instructional practices? 4.0 0.7071 2 4 20% 80%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 142

Table 11
Analysis of Results to Impact of Collaboration on Collective Efficacy Survey Statements
Impact of Collaboration on Collective
Efficacy Statements Mean STDV Range
Most
Frequent
Low
Level
High
Level
To what extent has teacher
collaboration in PLCs resulted in
improved student outcomes? 3.8 0.8367 2 3 40% 60%

To what extent do PLCs require rather
than invite students to receive
additional academic support until they
are successful? 2.6 0.5477 1 3 100% 0%

To what extent has collaboration in
PLCs resulted in an increased sense of
collective responsibility for the
success of every student? 3.8 0.8367 2 4 40% 60%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 143

Table 12
Analysis of Responses to Shaping Teacher Efficacy Survey Statements
Shaping Teacher Efficacy Statements Mean STDV Range
Most
Frequent
Low
Level
High
Level
To what extent have teachers’ attitudes
about teaching and learning improved as
a result of their collaboration in PLCs?
3.8 0.8367 2 4 40% 60%

To what extent has teacher confidence
in their own practice improved as a
result of their collaboration in PLCs? 3.4 0.5477 1 3 60% 40%

To what extent do teachers share best
practices and apply new learning from
their collaboration in PLCs to their own
individual classroom? 4.2 0.8367 2 5 20% 80%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 144
Figures

Legend: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Somewhat Disagree, 4=Somewhat Agree, 5=Agree, 6=Strongly Agree
Figure A: Responses to Self-Efficacy Survey Statements

2 3 4
4
5
5
5
6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The success of students is impacted by
the teachers’ belief in their own capacity
to teach them.
Teachers in my school/district believe
their ability to reach disadvantaged
students has a bigger impact on…
Teachers in my school/district are
confident they are able to motivate and
prepare their students to achieve.
Self-Efficacy Beliefs
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 145

Legend: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Somewhat Disagree, 4=Somewhat Agree, 5=Agree, 6=Strongly Agree
Figure B: Responses to Collaboration and Efficacy Survey Statements

5
5
6
6
6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
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.
An administrator can foster a group's
belief in their ability to reach high needs
students by creating opportunities for…
Collaboration and Efficacy
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 146

Legend: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Somewhat Disagree, 4=Somewhat Agree, 5=Agree, 6=Strongly Agree
Figure C: Responses to Efficacy Shaping Sources Survey Statements

4
4
5
5
6
6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
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…
Teachers in this school/district are eager to
help each other improve their practice.
Efficacy Shaping Sources
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 147

Legend: 1=Strongly Disagree, 2=Disagree, 3=Somewhat Disagree, 4=Somewhat Agree, 5=Agree, 6=Strongly Agree
Figure D: Responses to Collective Efficacy Survey Statements

2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
The most effective teachers in my
school/district share a similar set of values,
beliefs, and attitudes related to teaching…
Successful schools leverage the expertise
of all teachers to achieve a common goal.
The success of my school/district in
meeting academic and behavioral goals for
all students depends on the capacity and…
Teachers in this school/district believe it is
their collective responsibility to help every
child master grade-level curriculum.
There is enough capacity and knowledge
among the teachers in my school/district to
address barriers to learning for all our…
For my teachers/staff, student failure
results in increased teacher
effort/persistence.
Collective Efficacy
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 148

Legend: 1=Not at All, 2=Very Little, 3=Some Degree, 4=Quite a Bit, 5=A Great Deal, 6=Always
Figure E: Culture of Collaboration Survey Results

3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
To what extent do teachers share and
celebrate their success within their PLC?
To what extent do teachers share
responsibility for decision making in 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 relationships and work in
the PLCs reflect a commitment to school
improvement efforts?
To what extent do teachers value
collaboration in their PLCs?
To what extent do teachers work together in
their PLCs to seek knowledge, skills, and
strategies that lead to continued inquiry…
Culture of Collaboration
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 149

Legend: 1=Not at All, 2=Very Little, 3=Some Degree, 4=Quite a Bit, 5=A Great Deal, 6=Always
Figure F: PLC Practices Survey Results

3
4
4
4
5
5
5
6
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
To what extent do teachers in PLCs share
common practices in assessments and
interventions?
To what extent do teachers in PLCs share
common practices in the delivery of
curriculum and instruction?
To what extent do teachers in PLCs
collaborate in reviewing student work and
data to share and improve instructional…
PLC Practices
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 150

Legend: 1=Not at All, 2=Very Little, 3=Some Degree, 4=Quite a Bit, 5=A Great Deal, 6=Always
Figure G: Responses to Impact of Collaboration on Collective Efficacy Survey Statements

2
3
3
3
4
4
5
5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
To what extent has teacher collaboration in
PLCs resulted in improved student
outcomes?
To what extent do PLCs require rather than
invite students to receive additional
academic support until they are successful?
To what extent has collaboration in PLCs
resulted in an increased sense of collective
responsibility for the success of every
student?
Impact of Collaboration on Collective Efficacy
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 151

Legend: 1=Not at All, 2=Very Little, 3=Some Degree, 4=Quite a Bit, 5=A Great Deal, 6=Always
Figure H: Shaping Teacher Efficacy Survey Results

3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
To what extent have teachers attitudes about
teaching and learning improved as a result of
their collaboration in PLCs?
To what extent has teacher confidence in their
own practice improved as a result of their
collaboration in PLCs?
To what extent do teachers share best practices
and apply new learning from their collaboration
in PLCs to their own individual classroom?
Shaping Teacher Efficacy
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 152
Appendix A: 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. As
Dr. Castruita and Dr. Cash have identified you as a successful leader in your district, 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 via email rivasl@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 kind assistance. In exchange for your
participation, I will gladly provide you with an executive summary of my research.

Sincerely,

Laura Rivas
Ed.D Candidate USC

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 153
Appendix B: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Interview Protocol

INSTRUCTIONS
Good morning (afternoon). My name is Laura Rivas. Thank you for your time and willingness to
participate in my research study. This interview consists of questions, in which I will ask you
about your work as a principal/director/assistant superintendent/superintendent working with
professional learning communities in your school/district. The purpose is to get your perceptions
and your experiences about collective efficacy, collaboration, and leadership in the context of
professional learning communities (PLCs). There are no right or wrong or desirable or
undesirable answers. I would like you to feel comfortable with saying what you really think and
how you really feel.

TAPE RECORDER INSTRUCTIONS
If it’s okay with you, I will be tape-recording our conversation. The purpose of this is so that I
can get all the details but at the same time be present and attentive during our conversation. I
assure you that all your comments will remain confidential and will only be used in my research
study. I will be compiling a report which will contain all participants’ comments without any
reference to individuals – this research study will be published in the University of Southern
California (USC) library.

PREAMBLE/CONSENT FORM INSTRUCTIONS
I am completing this research as part of my dissertation study at USC, therefore I have a consent
form for you to sign. Please know that you can skip any question you’d like or you can stop the
interview at any time.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS (FOR RESEARCHER)
Research Questions:
How do secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder
the work of their PLCs?

How are secondary site and district leaders fostering or hindering collaboration in professional
learning communities (PLCs)?

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL
The first couple of questions will help me gather some basic descriptive information:

1. How many years have you been a site/district administrator?
a. Of these years, how many would you say you have worked with professional
learning communities in some capacity?

2. Please describe what your experience has been in working with professional learning
communities as an administrator?
a. What is your current role in the oversight of PLCs in your school/district?

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 154
3. How many PLCs do you oversee in this capacity and how are they structured?
a. Do you have time built into the schedule for PLC meetings?
b. What is the frequency and duration of these meetings?
c. How is this time protected for PLC work?

The next set of questions will help me gather information about your perceptions and your
role in developing collective efficacy and collaboration in professional learning communities.

4. Please describe what you believe makes an ideal professional learning community?

5. Explain how professional learning communities function at your school/district?
(What are their attributes and what does it look like in practice?)

6. 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?

7. How do PLCs use student data to inform their practice or collaboration?
a. Describe the role you play with teacher's use of data?

8. What do you believe are the benefits of collaboration?

9. How would you describe the culture of collaboration at your school/district?
a. In what ways have you fostered a culture of collaboration?

10. Some would say that the work of the PLC has no impact on the individual teacher's
classroom, what would you tell them?
a. What types of experiences within a PLC do you believe contribute to teachers'
confidence in their capacity to apply new knowledge or information?
b. Provide some examples from your current work with PLCs.

11. Some teachers would argue that it is more efficient to have a small group of teachers or
the district create the curriculum and assessments for your PLCs. How would you
address this argument from a leadership standpoint?

12. Do you believe there is enough capacity and knowledge in your school/district to address
barriers to learning for all of your students including your high needs populations?
a. Please explain why or why not?

13. What role do you believe the principal/director/assistant superintendent/superintendent
play in developing the shared belief that through collective action teachers in professional
learning communities can positively influence student outcomes?
a. What are some specific actions you have taken to develop this shared belief and
collective action within a PLC?
14. What are behaviors that a PLC displays that hinder the growth of their shared belief in
their collective action?
a. How have you addressed these behaviors?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 155
15. In what ways, would you say, the work of PLCs impact student achievement?

16. Do teachers at your school/district believe it is their responsibility to ensure every student
masters grade-level curriculum?
a. What are some characteristics your teachers display that make you believe that?
b. What role does the principal/director/assistant superintendent/superintendent play
in developing shared responsibility for student outcomes?

17. Do teachers at your school believe they have a greater impact on student outcomes than
their home environment, parental involvement, or prior student achievement?
a. If so, provide examples or evidence that lead you to believe that.

18. What are some interventions that have been implemented in your school/district?
a. How are these connected to the work of the PLCs?
b. What role have you played in the implementation of these interventions?

19. What opportunities have you created to foster shared leadership throughout the school to
support the work of the PLCs?

20. In what ways does the work of PLCs at your school/district align with the school/district
vision?
a. What are some things you have done to develop a shared vision for PLCs?

21. What barriers or challenges do you face moving your PLCs forward?
a. Describe ways in which you might address these barriers or challenges?

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 156

Appendix C: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Survey

Directions: Please indicate your level of agreement about each
of the questions below from strongly disagree to strongly
agree.
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Somewhat
Agree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
1. When teachers work together, they are more effective in
supporting all students in learning.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
2. The success of students is increased when teachers collaborate
on common practices.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
3. The success of students is impacted by the teachers’ belief in
their own capacity to teach them.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
4. Teachers can improve their practice through shared
experiences with colleagues.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
5. 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.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
6. 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.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
7. Successful schools leverage the expertise of all teachers to
achieve a common goal.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
8. Teachers in this school/district believe it is their collective
responsibility to help every child master grade-level
curriculum.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
9. The success of my school/district in meeting academic and
behavioral goals for all students depends on the capacity and
collaboration of all teachers at my school/district.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
10. There is enough capacity and knowledge among the teachers
in my school/district to address barriers to learning for all our
students.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
11. Teachers in my school/district are confident they are able to
motivate and prepare their students to achieve.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
12. Teachers in this school/district are eager to help each other
improve their practice.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
13. Teachers in my school/district believe their ability to reach
disadvantaged students has a bigger impact on student
achievement than their home environment, parental
involvement, or prior student achievement?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
14. The most effective teachers in my school/district share a
similar set of values, beliefs, and attitudes related to teaching
and learning?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
15. For my teachers/staff, student failure results in increased
teacher effort/persistence.
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 157

Please indicate your opinion about the extent to which the
following have taken place, from not at all to always. Your
answers are confidential.

Not at All
Very
Little
Some
Degree
Quite a
Bit
A Great
Deal
Always
1. To what extent do teachers share best practices and apply
new learning from their collaboration in PLCs to their own
individual classroom?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
2. 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?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
3. To what extent do relationships and work in the PLCs reflect
a commitment to school improvement efforts?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
4. To what extent do teachers in PLCs collaborate in reviewing
student work and data to share and improve instructional
practices?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
5. To what extent do teachers in PLCs share common practices
in the delivery of curriculum and instruction?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
6. To what extent do teachers in PLCs share common practices
in assessments and interventions?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
7. To what extent do PLCs require rather than invite students to
receive additional academic support until they are
successful?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
8. To what extent has teacher confidence in their own practice
improved as a result of their collaboration in PLCs?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
9. To what extent has collaboration in PLCs resulted in an
increased sense of collective responsibility for the success of
every student?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
10. To what extent do teachers share responsibility for decision
making in their PLC?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
11. To what extent have teachers attitudes about teaching and
learning improved as a result of their collaboration in PLCs?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
12. To what extent has teacher collaboration in PLCs resulted in
improved student outcomes?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
13. To what extent do teachers share and celebrate their success
within their PLC?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
14. To what extent has a culture of trust and respect for taking
instructional risks been developed in the PLCs?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥
15. To what extent do teachers value collaboration in their
PLCs?
① ② ③ ④ ⑤ ⑥

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 158
Demographic Information: Please select the appropriate response.
1. At what level do you work?
① District ② Middle School ③ High School

2. What is your current position?
① Superintendent ② Assistant Superintendent ③ Director ④ Principal

3. How long have you been in administration, including site and district?
① 1 – 2 years ② 3 – 5 years ③ 6 – 10 years ④ 10+

4. How long have you served in your current assignment?
① 1 – 2 years ② 3 – 5 years ③ 6 – 10 years ④ 10+

5. How long has your district/school been implementing Professional Learning Communities?
① 1 – 2 years ② 3 – 5 years ③ 6 – 10 years ④ 10+

6. Were you ever a member of a Professional Learning Community as a teacher?
① Yes ② No

7. Do you currently oversee and/or support the implementation of Professional Learning
Communities?
① Yes ② No

8. Has your site/district received any formal staff development in the implementation of
Professional Learning Communities?
① Yes ② No

If yes, please answer the following:

9. Which best describes the frequency of formal staff development?
① once or twice ② occasional, as needed ③ regular and on-going

10. What percent of your staff has been formally trained in the implementation of Professional
Learning Communities?
① Less than 25% ② 25 to 50% ③ 50 to 75% ④ 75 to 100%

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Professional learning communities: the role of 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

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

PDF

An examination of a social justice teacher cohort and its capacity to support transformational professional learning

PDF

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

PDF

Female elementary school principals and building capacity for teacher leaders

PDF

Collaborative instructional practice for student achievement: an evaluation study

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

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

PDF

Future Ready Schools: how middle school principals support personalized and digital learning for teachers and students at mid-sized urban middle schools

PDF

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

PDF

Comparative study of the networked principal vs. the isolated principal

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

Authentic professional learning: a case study

PDF

Implementation of professional learning communities at the Progressive Academy of Southeast Asia

Asset Metadata

Creator Rivas, Laura (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/28/2019

Defense Date 04/25/2019

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

Tag collaboration,collective efficacy,collective teacher efficacy,leadership for professional learning communities,leadership to foster collaboration,OAI-PMH Harvest,PLC,PLC leaders,professional learning communities,teacher collaboration

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 rivas_jeff@yahoo.com,rivasl@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-152706

Unique identifier UC11661002

Identifier etd-RivasLaura-7316.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-152706 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RivasLaura-7316.pdf

Dmrecord 152706

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rivas, Laura

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