University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 1

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

by

Gilbert Rodriguez

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 Gilbert Rodriguez
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the members of my dissertation committee, USC professors, and
USC classmates for their never-ending mentoring and guidance through the entire dissertation
process. A special thanks to District C and the secondary administrators who participated IN my
case study. I am also grateful for the support that I received from my cohort members who
continued to inspire me to keep on writing my chapters: Laura Rivas, Cari White, and Ixchel
Sanchez.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 3
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my loving wife and my three beautiful children who
continued to support me through the entire process and had patience with me as I wrote and
completed the study. I also want to dedicate this dissertation to my brother, sister, and nieces
who encouraged me to keep working on my dissertation and were always there to support me.
Finally, this dissertation is also dedicated to my parents, who took the greatest challenge of
migrating to a new world in hopes of a better future for me and my siblings.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 4
Table of Contents
Abstract ................................................................................................................................9
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .................................................................................10
Background of the Problem .........................................................................................13
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................15
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................16
Research Questions ......................................................................................................16
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................17
Limitations and Delimitations ......................................................................................18
Definition of Terms......................................................................................................18
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................19
Chapter Two: Literature Review .......................................................................................21
Introduction to the Topic .............................................................................................21
Professional Learning Communities ............................................................................21
Historical Context ..................................................................................................21
Framework for PLCs..............................................................................................28
DuFour model. ...............................................................................................29
Guiding principles ............................................................................................29
Model PLCs .....................................................................................................34
Collective Teacher Efficacy .........................................................................................35
History of Efficacy .................................................................................................36
Collective Efficacy and Student Achievement ......................................................40
Collective Efficacy and PLCs ................................................................................41
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 5
The Role of Leadership: Creating Conditions .............................................................44
Historical Perspective: The Evolution of Educational Leadership ........................44
Managerial Leadership.....................................................................................45
Instructional Leadership...................................................................................45
Distributive Leadership ....................................................................................47
Transformational Leadership ...........................................................................47
Framework on Educational Leadership .................................................................49
Fullan’s Framework: Leading in a Culture of Change ..........................................50
Leading Professional Learning Communities: Principals......................................52
Communicating a Clear Vision ........................................................................53
Fostering a Culture of Collaboration ...............................................................54
Building Knowledge and Capacity ..................................................................55
Distributing Leadership ...................................................................................56
Aligning Resources for Coherence ..................................................................58
The Role of District Leaders ..................................................................................60
Fostering Collective Efficacy ................................................................................61
Summary ......................................................................................................................64
Chapter Three: Methodology .............................................................................................65
Restatement of the Purpose of the Study .....................................................................65
Restatement of the Research Questions .......................................................................66
Research Design...........................................................................................................66
Participants and Setting................................................................................................67
Instrumentation ............................................................................................................68
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 6
Data Collection ............................................................................................................70
Data Analysis ...............................................................................................................71
Ethical Considerations .................................................................................................72
Summary ......................................................................................................................72
Chapter Four: Results and Findings ...................................................................................74
Data Collections Instruments .......................................................................................75
Participating Stakeholders ...........................................................................................76
Results ..........................................................................................................................78
Knowledge Results ................................................................................................78
Motivation Results .................................................................................................78
Organizational Results ...........................................................................................79
Findings........................................................................................................................80
Research Question 1 ....................................................................................................80
Vicarious Role Modeling and Social Persuasion ...................................................82
Knowledge Sharing to Support Student Learning Outcome .................................84
Research Question 2 ....................................................................................................86
Facilitating Learning ..............................................................................................86
Guidance and Vision ..............................................................................................88
Building Culture and Motivation ...........................................................................90
Research Question 3 ....................................................................................................92
Resources ...............................................................................................................92
Building Culture and Motivation ...........................................................................94
Accountability to Foster Collaboration ..................................................................97
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 7
Research Question 4 ....................................................................................................99
Trust and Collaboration .......................................................................................100
Impacting Collective Efficacy .............................................................................101
Summary ....................................................................................................................102
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications ...................................................................105
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................105
Research Questions ....................................................................................................106
Methodology ..............................................................................................................106
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................107
Research Question #1 ................................................................................................107
Research Question #2 ................................................................................................108
Research Question #3 ................................................................................................109
Research Question #4 ................................................................................................109
Implications of the Study ...........................................................................................110
Recommendations for Future Research .....................................................................110
Conclusion .................................................................................................................110
References ........................................................................................................................112
Tables .........................................................................................................................128
Table 1: Professional Learning Communities to Other Models ..........................128
Table 2: Demographics of Interview Participants ...............................................129
Table 3: Collaboration Duties ..............................................................................130
Table 4: Belief in Student Outcome .....................................................................131
Table 5: Developing Culture ................................................................................132
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 8
Table 6: Summary Results: Collaboration vs. Teacher Capacity ........................133
Table 7: Evaluating the Perception about Collective Efficacy ............................134
Table 8: Belief and Capacity of Teachers ...........................................................135
Table 9: Capacity and Knowledge .......................................................................136
Table 10: Teacher Confidence and Ability ..........................................................137
Table 11: Student Belief and teacher Growth ......................................................138
Table 12: Teachers in PLCs .................................................................................139
Table 13: Vicarious Experience ...........................................................................140
Appendix A: Letter of Invitation .....................................................................................141
Appendix B: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Interview Protocol ........................142
Appendix C: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Survey ...........................................145

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 9
Abstract
The study examined the perceptions of school leaders in developing collective efficacy
and the ways in which they enact leadership to advance or impede the professional learning
communities’ ability to produce the intended results. A mixed-method case study at a public
unified school district in southern California was conducted, which included principals at all
secondary schools completing an online survey and interview. The purpose of the study was to
understand the role of leadership in developing collective efficacy in professional learning
communities. The need for colleagues to work together and to be a team is what motivates
members, along with providing the necessary time to collaborate during their work day (Fullan,
2005). All nine participants agreed with Bandura (1993) and believed that collaboration is a
prime factor that impacts collective efficacy in PLCs. The research findings revealed that
collective efficacy was predicated on building trust, aligning resources, collaboration, and
enhancing confidence through professional development. In addition, a hindering was teachers
have a difficult time analyzing and sharing student data with members of their professional
learning communities. This study begins to identify how administrative leadership is a highly
important factor in fostering collective efficacy within a school staff.

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, Esker, & Karana, 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 Schoolteacher, 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. . . ” (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” (p. 6). “In 1995, Fred Newmann and Gary Wehlage reported on
research of over 1,200 schools. Much of the research was limited to quantitative [research]
studies (test scores and surveys) but included intensive, in-depth case studies as well”
(AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC, para. 6). Through this mixed research they found, “the
most successful schools were those that used restructuring tools to help them function as
professional learning communities” (AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC, para. 6). Newmann
and Wehlage (1996, as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d.) “clarified that in these schools, educators
engaged in a collective effort to achieve a clear, commonly shared purpose for student learning;
created collaborative culture to achieve the purpose, [and] took collective . . . responsibility for
the learning of all students (History of PLC, para. 7). In 1995, Sharon Kruse, Karen Seashore
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 25
Louis, and Anthony Bryk (as cited in AllThingsPLC) “reported their findings that schools most
effective in terms of student achievement operated as professional learning communities
characterized by reflective dialogue, deprivatization of practice, collective focus on student
learning, [and] collaboration . . .” (History of PLC, para. 8, 9). Regardless of consistent
conclusions or researchers regarding the power of professional learning communities’ ability to
impact schools, teachers, and students, that research was not arousing a significant desire from
schools to implement professional learning communities as a reform tool. As a response to the
lack of interest or implementation, Kruse et al. wrote in 1995 (as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d.)
“Professional community within schools has been a minor theme in many educational reform
efforts since the 1960s. Perhaps it is time it became a major rallying cry among reformers, rather
than a secondary whisper” (History of PLC, para. 11).
An important step in converting the professional learning community concept from a
“secondary whisper” to “a major rally cry” was the publication of Professional Learning
Communities at Work™: Best Practices for Enhancing Student Achievement by Richard
DuFour and Robert Eaker (Solution Tree Press, 1998). (as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d.,
History of PLC, para. 12).
According to Michael Fullan, a leader of school reform for over 25 years, it was during this time
that interest in PLCs moved from a “whisper” of researchers to a “rallying cry” among the field
of educators (as cited in AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC, para. 18).
The transformation of public schools is essential if educators are going to meet the
academic needs of all learners. Professional learning communities have been at the forefront of
reform efforts as a means of transforming schools to improve student achievement (Hord, 2004).
The literature indicated that innovative schools where PLCs are implemented showed greater
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 26
increase in student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Eaker & Keating, 2008; Lomos et al.,
2011; Louis & Marks, 1998; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001). DuFour and Eaker (1998) studied
the collaborative efforts among PLC members, the academic gains made by students, and the
benefits to teaching and learning where PLC practices were implemented. Literature also
established that academic gains were made by students in schools where PLCs were a common
practice (Lee, Smith, & Croninger, 1995). A review of 10 schools in Lee et al.’s (1995) study
revealed that academic gains were made by students in schools where PLCs were implemented.
The study found that teaching practices benefited from the PLC and that collaborative
conversations among members of PLCs had positive impact on student achievement. There is
evidence that the collaborative practice of PLCs in schools is beneficial to both teaching and
learning (Darling-Hammond, 1995; Lee et al., 1995; Lieberman, 1995; Lomos et al., 2011; Louis
& Mark, 1998; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Newmann & Wehlage, 1996).
As the concept of PLCs spread throughout the field of education, so did the stories of
schools who successfully implemented the professional learning community as a reform tool.
Adlai Stevenson High School District 125 in Lincolnshire, Illinois (also known as Stevenson
High School, SHS) was a frequently cited school because it drew the attention of many
educators. Before the first day of school at Stevenson High School, the school area had two
conflicting sets of constituents; they split into two separate schools, one of which was Adlai
Stevenson High School (n.d.). Stevenson High School had a rocky start; three months before the
start of the new year, they had an unfinished school building, no board of education, and there
was not a school principal. At the beginning of the school year, the school lacked student desks,
had minimal text books and no library books, and still had no principal. Despite the unsteady
start, the constituents of SHS were determined to create one of the best high schools in the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 27
country, so they held strong and stayed the course (Adlai E. Stevenson High School, n.d.).
Stevenson has grown since its opening to become one of the largest high schools in the area; in
the 2014-15 Stevenson enrollment was over 4000 students. A pivotal time in the success of SHS
came in the 1980s when two significant events positively impacted SHS’s goal to ensure a
quality education for their students. The first impetus came in the form of A Nation at Risk in
1983 (U. S. Department of Education, 1983). As previously mentioned, this report’s
condemnation of America’s public education system devastated the educational community.
During this time, the District 125 Board of Education used the Nation at Risk report and the
hiring of Dr. Richard DuFour, both in 1983 as a “springboard” to reemphasize the desire to be
the best and ensure quality education for all students in their community (Adlai E. Stevenson
High School, n.d.).
To ensure a quality of education for all its students, SHS put into place a plan and process
for students who were not learning. This was a small part of a reform framework that later
became known as a professional learning community (AllThingsPLC, n.d., History of PLC).
SHS developed a pyramid of intervention that helped identify and assist students who were
struggling. In addition, a number of other reforms were made for the benefit of student learning
such as the encouragement of Advanced Placement classes for all students, six-week grading
periods, a Freshman Mentor Program, and encouragement to participate in co-curricular
programs (Adlai E. Stevenson High School, n.d.). Consequently, SHS became known as a
leading example of professional learning communities. Adlai Stevenson High School was
applauded for its collaborative staff atmosphere and the assessment of student and staff learning
based on data driven, measurable results. Dr. DuFour was one of the leaders in this paradigm
shift, and as a result, was eventually in high demand as a consultant for school reform via
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 28
professional learning communities (Adlai E. Stevenson High School, n.d.). As the success of
SHS became known, schools and districts alike wanted the opportunity to improve their own
educational systems. SHS was ranked as the best public high school in America in 2017 (Niche,
2018).
Framework for PLCs
There has been a progression of PLC frameworks; there are several models that have
risen to the forefront. The four professional learning community models that were explored for
this study, were (a) DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) PLC model, (b) Hord’s (1997) PLC model,
(c) Marzano, Waters, and McNulty’s (2005) purposeful community model, and (d) Wenger,
McDermott, and Snyder’s (2002) communities of practice model (see Table 1 for a summary of
the four models). Several of these PLC models have similarities, such as all four models listed
state that there should be a shared mission, vision, and values, a joint enterprise by all
stakeholders. The foundational merits of each of the above-mentioned PLC frameworks can be
found in various types of organizations, but professional learning communities have primarily
been implemented in educational environments. In addition, the DuFour and Eaker’s (1998)
professional learning communities’ framework focused on results, which differs from the other
three frameworks. Also, only Marzano et al.’s (2005) purposeful communities organizational
learning framework clearly communicates the presence of collective efficacy while the other
three frameworks, DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) professional learning communities, Hord’s (1997)
professional learning communities, and Wenger and Snyder’s (2000) communities of practice,
indirectly communicate the presence of collective efficacy. In communities of professional
learning practice, the construct of collective efficacy was specifically integrated into the
organizational planning of the professional learning practice; in comparison, the other three
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 29
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 regard to this study’s professional learning community framework model.
DuFour model. Richard DuFour is one of the leading authors on professional learning
communities; in 1998 Richard DuFour and Robert Eaker developed a professional learning
community framework which has a focus on results. DuFour and Eaker (1998) took the concept
of learning organizations as a model of professional development one step further. DuFour and
Eaker argued that, rather than treating professional development as a separate area of focus,
teacher improvement should be approached as a natural part of teacher work. DuFour and
Eaker’s model addressed teacher improvement by encouraging teacher collaboration; through
collective inquiry, teachers are engaged in authentic learning opportunities that help them
examine evidence of student learning and collaboratively develop solutions. The DuFour and
Eaker professional learning community model is recognized as one of the leading frameworks to
help implement learning communities into schools and districts (Bullough, 2007).
Understanding the philosophical tenets on which DuFour and Eaker’s frameworks are based
helps to explain why this model offers such powerful potential for improving student learning.
Guiding principles. DuFour et al.’s (2016) guiding principles of a professional learning
community list three big ideas that drive the work of the PLC. The three big ideas include focus
on learning, building a collaborative culture, and a focus on results. Big idea number one:
ensuring that students learn — by focus on learning, comes from the core assumption that the
mission of educators is not simply to ensure that students are taught but to ensure that they learn
(DuFour, 2003). Within this first big idea that focuses on student learning, according to DuFour
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 30
et al. (2016), there are four critical questions that help educators place an emphasis on learning
for all students,
1. What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?
2. How will we know if each student has learned it?
3. How will we respond when some students do not learn it?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are already proficient?
(p. 119)
As educators engage in discussions around and find the answers to these key questions,
the exchange of ideas becomes tailored to improving the quality of instruction. In addressing
these four critical questions, educators engage in collaborating and learning together, they study
curriculum frameworks, make decisions regarding recommended pacing for units, and make
decisions about instructional strategies (DuFour & Fullan, 2013). Through these discussions,
educators continue to examine ways of assessing students and analyze the evidence of student
learning and will continue to explore strategies to enrich student learning. By utilizing the four
critical questions in collaborative discussions, educators quickly identify students who need
additional support and ensure that each student receives whatever additional support he or she
needs. For instance, Stevenson High School is truly committed to the concept of learning for
each student and will stop subjecting struggling students to education lottery (Adlai E. Stevenson
High School, n.d.). Stevenson High School functions as a PLC and the teachers are aware of the
absurdity between their commitment to ensure learning for all students and a lack of coordinated
strategy to respond when students do not learn. Stevenson’s staff addresses this discrepancy by
designing strategies to ensure struggling students receive additional time and support, no matter
who their teacher is (Adlai E. Stevenson High School, n.d.).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 31
In big idea number two: building a culture of collaboration — educators who are building
a professional learning community recognize that they must work together to achieve their
collective purpose of learning for all students (DuFour, 2003). According to DuFour et al.
(2016), it is the powerful work of collaboration that characterizes professional learning
communities; the systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve
their classroom practices will impact student achievement. In other words, teachers who work in
teams and who are engaging in the ongoing cycle of discussing the four critical questions that
promote team learning, this is the process that will lead to higher levels of student achievement.
For teachers to participate in a powerful process of collaboration the school must ensure that
everyone belongs to a team that focuses on student learning and each team must have time to
meet during the workday (DuFour, 2003). Building a collaborative culture of a professional
learning community is an ongoing process built on continuous work of all educators.
DuFour et al.’s (2016) third big idea: a focus on results — details how a professional
learning community judges their effectiveness on the basis of results. Working together to
improve student achievement becomes the routine work of everyone in the school. Every
teacher team participates in an ongoing process of identifying the current level of student
achievement, establishing a goal to improve the current level, working together to achieve that
goal, and providing periodic evidence of that progress (DuFour, 2003). When teacher teams
develop common formative assessments throughout the school year, each teacher can identify
how his or her students performed on each skill compare with other students (DuFour et al.,
2016). Freeport Intermediate School, located 50 miles south of Houston, Texas, attributed its
success to an unrelenting focus on results (DuFour, 2003). Teachers from Freeport Intermediate
School work in collaborative teams for 90 minutes daily to clarify the essential outcomes of their
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 32
grade levels and courses and to align those outcomes with standards (DuFour, 2003). They
develop consistent instructional calendars and administer the same brief assessment to all
students, roughly at the end of each week. In addition, each quarter the teams at Freeport
administer common assessments and they pore over the results to identify effective teaching
practices of essential skills (DuFour, 2003). Freeport Intermediate has been transformed from
one of the lowest performing schools in the state to a national model for academic achievement
(DuFour, 2003).
According to DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) Professional Learning Communities at Work,
when a school functions as a professional learning community, the members demonstrate six
essential characteristics, “1) shared mission, vision, and values, 2) collective inquiry,
3) collaborative teams, 4) action orientation and experimentation, 5) continuous improvement
and 6) results orientation” (p. 25). According to DuFour and Eaker, creating a shared mission,
vision, and values is an integral part of a learning community. In order to create effective
mission, vision, and values, it is vital that these three guiding principles of focus on learning,
collaborative culture, and results orientation are developed and shared by stakeholders
throughout the school and not simply handed down by those in leadership positions.
Secondly, professional learning communities were required to use collective inquiry to
drive the improvement and growth of the PLC. Every member of the PLC must be in a constant
state of inquiry, looking for new methods to improve student learning. Within a learning
community, the status quo is constantly questioned and examined for improvements for the
benefit of the primary focus, student learning. This is not done by individuals, but by a group of
teachers working collaboratively.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 33
Professional learning communities are based on the idea of a group of individuals
working together as a collaborative team, which then works with other teams in the school for
the common purpose identified in the mission, vision, and values (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). As
simplistic as this concept appears, it is easily misunderstood. “Collaborative” refers to focus on
enhancement of communication and action as a team, not by individuals within the team
(DuFour & Eaker, 1998). Collaborative groups that learn together and from each other carry the
desire for continuous improvement. Another characteristic of PLCs is action orientation and
experimentation which point out a common shortfall in many schools. Experimentation exists in
the professional learning community, allowing for improvements and accepting unexpected
results as a possibility (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
The fifth characteristic of a professional learning community is the need for continuous
improvement. The ongoing cycle of constant challenges leads to continuous improvement,
which becomes embedded in the day-to-day work of the professional learning community. The
key to the success of this characteristic is that members embrace the never-ending cycle rather
than viewing it as something to check off the completion list (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Lastly, professional learning communities focus on results (DuFour & Eaker, 1998).
Organizations often assess the success of new ideas and strategies based on data; otherwise, the
organization will not know when they have hit their target. “Peter Senge (1996) note[d] that ‘the
rationale for any strategy for building a learning organization revolves around the premise that
such organizations will produce dramatically improved results’ (p. 44)” (as cited in DuFour and
Eaker, 1998, p. 29). By implementing DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) professional learning
community framework, the basis of the model is to focus on results. It is essential to act,
collaborate, reflect, and improve. According to DuFour et al. (2016), we learn best by doing,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 34
individually and collectively, our deepest insights and understanding come from action, followed
by reflection and the search for improvement.
Model PLCs. According to the DuFour and Eaker (1998) PLC framework, in order to be
a model PLC, your school site needs to demonstrate a commitment to DuFour et al.’s (2016)
guiding principles and implementation of the guiding principles for at least three years. A school
must present clear evidence of improved student learning, by explaining the practices, structures,
and the culture of the school and/or district. A model PLC school site must ensure that there is
three years of data that shows successful implementation and sustained improvement, with a
basis of comparison between your school and that of your state (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). There
needs to be evidence of focus on learning for all students, teachers working in collaborative
teams to build a shared knowledge regarding state standards, curriculum guides, and format of
assessments (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). The school has a process for monitoring every students’
learning on an ongoing basis and a process for responding when students are struggling in
learning an essential skill (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). Furthermore, to become a model PLC a school
has a practice for elevating the learning for students who demonstrate they are proficient in the
essential skill being taught (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). There needs to be evidence of a collaborative
culture, where teachers are provided with time to collaborate during their contractual day and are
organized in collaborative teams by course or subject area to engage in collective inquiry
regarding topics related to student learning (AllThingsPLC, n.d.). Lastly, a model PLC must
provide evidence of results, where each team has identified SMART (specific, measurable,
achievable, results-focused, and time-bound) goals that are aligned with school goals. The
SMART goals focus on student learning and require evidence of improved student learning
(AllThingsPLC, n.d.). Teachers gather evidence from a variety of sources to improve teaching
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 35
practices and student achievement is clearly improving across the curriculum (AllThingsPLC,
n.d.).
Sanger Unified School District is an example of a model PLC; the development and
refinement of PLC implementation has been a journey over a period of 12 years at Sanger
Unified (AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog). PLCs are the foundation for the collaborative culture in
Sanger Unified, which created an atmosphere of trust and transparency; it was Sanger’s
willingness and determination to build their capacity to function as a sustainable PLC
(AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog). Sanger Unified required their PLC to dig deeper into answering the
four critical questions of student learning; to ensure that every student knows that there is an
adult that cares about them and believes in them (AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog). Sanger’s PLCs are
working together to identify critical standards where proficiency has not yet been achieved,
designing focused instructional support, identifying successful instructional strategies, working
to develop effective instruction that reaches all students during that best, first instruction, as
collaborative teams (AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog). The efforts of the PLC are assessed and
monitored regularly and adjustments are made as needed with immediate support being provided
to those who are not showing mastery (AllThingsPLC, n.d., Blog).
Collective Teacher Efficacy
The federal government’s Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) strived to decrease
achievement gaps for low income and minority students by providing each child with equal
opportunities to achieve a high-quality education (California Department of Education, 2018).
From a moral accountability standpoint, educators have an ethical responsibility for
ensuring disadvantaged students have equity and access (Firestone & Shipps, 2005). In
addressing school and teacher accountability, Jerald (2007) identified varying levels of
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 36
responsibility schools assume for student learning, with the highest level involving schools
taking collective responsibility for the student outcomes. Performing at the highest level requires
collective teacher efficacy (CTE) which is the shared belief that through collective action, a staff
can positively impact learning outcomes for all students, including students who are disengaged
and/or disadvantaged (Donohoo, 2017). Collective efficacy is not a new concept; however, the
research surrounding the important connection to student achievement and how collective
teacher efficacy is developed has only begun emerging over the last decade.
History of Efficacy
The concept of collective efficacy is rooted in Bandura’s definition of self-efficacy which
in 1977 he described as, “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required
to produce outcomes” (Bandura, 1977, p. 193). It is a person’s belief that he or she can
successfully accomplish or perform a task/skill within a specific context that will result in an
intended outcome. Bandura (1997) found that teachers with high efficacy tended to have high
expectations for their students which resulted in higher student achievement. Conversely,
educators with low self-efficacy have lower expectations for their students and can weaken
students’ self-efficacy, resulting in lower student performance outcomes (Tschannen-
Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, & Hoy, 1998). According to social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1993),
there are four causes that impact self-efficacy: mastery (enactive) experiences, vicarious
experiences, social persuasion, and affective states. These four sources build both self-efficacy
as well as collective efficacy, and a closer examination of each source will add to the
understanding of how individual or group efficacy is developed (Goddard & Goddard, 2001).
According to Bandura (1977), mastery experiences, also referred to as performance
accomplishments, are the most influential of the four sources of efficacy. Mastery experiences
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 37
involve successes in task mastery that an individual directly experiences. Bandura asserted that
efficacy is strengthened through personal repeated successes, just as repeated failures result in
decreased efficacy. The adverse impact of failures is reduced as long as they are infrequent and
occur after several successes have occurred; furthermore, efficacy can be strengthened and
motivation can be increased when failures are overcome through perseverance (Bandura, 1977).
Similarly, when a staff experiences success with student outcomes or overcomes obstacles, their
trust in their capability as a collective unit increases and they become more inclined to believe
that successful performances can be repeated (Donohoo, 2017).
The second most powerful belief shaping source of self-efficacy is vicarious experiences
in which Bandura (1977) explained as “seeing others perform threatening activities without
adverse consequences can generate expectations in observers that they too will improve if they
intensify and persist in their efforts” (p. 197). The vicarious experiences are more powerful
when the behaviors are modeled by an individual who the observer believes has similar abilities
or whom they view to be a role model; similarly, the less the observer identifies with the
individual modeling the behavior, the lower the efficacy impact will be (Bandura, 1977).
Similarly, Donohoo (2017) shared that collective efficacy is increased when a group of educators
observes a similar group performing well or overcoming obstacles.
Social persuasion is a third efficacy shaping source that involves individuals being
encouraged or given positive performance feedback by other credible and trustworthy
individuals who verbally influence them (Bandura, 1977). An example that applies to teacher
efficacy involves co-workers or supervisors coaching teachers to take on new tasks, try new
teaching strategies, or simply to persevere. When those experiences result in a positive
performance experience, teacher efficacy can increase; however, the verbal persuasion alone
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 38
might be limited in influence and is dependent on the credibility and expertise of the messenger
(Bandura, 1986).
The fourth and least influential efficacy shaping source involves an individual’s
emotional state which can play a significant role in affecting an individual’s perception of his or
her competence (Bandura, 1977). When individuals or groups perceive themselves as unable or
unprepared to accomplish a task, reactions of stress and anxiety are emotional responses that can
result in failure of a task (Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004). Conversely, Goddard, LoGerfo, &
Hoy (2004) found groups that respond emotionally with excitement and belief in their collective
ability can overcome obstacles, withstand pressure, and rise to the challenge.
An extension of self-efficacy is teacher efficacy which evolved from a survey constructed
by the RAND Corporation in the mid-1970s (Henson, 2001). According to Protheroe (2008),
two questions which teachers responded with agreement or disagreement garnered powerful
results that caught the eye of other researchers, (1) “When it comes right down to it, a teacher
really can’t do much because most of a student’s motivation and performance depends on his or
her home environment” (p. 1) and (2) “If I try really hard, I can get through to even the most
difficult or unmotivated students” (p. 1). From these two responses, the concept of teacher
efficacy emerged and as Henson (2001) reported, “this early work suggested powerful effects
from the simple idea that a teacher’s belief in his or her ability to positively impact student
learning is critical to actual success or failure in a teacher’s behavior” (p. 32). In 1998,
Tschannen-Moran et al. conducted thorough research surrounding teacher efficacy and
introduced a teacher efficacy model that resolved two rivaling conceptualizations of the concept.
The first conceptual strand built on Rotter’s (1954) social learning theory that focused on
teachers’ locus of control and their belief that factors under their control, such as student
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 39
motivation, had a greater influence on student learning than factors outside of their control, such
as home environment. The second strand was based on Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory
and the concept of self-efficacy in which educators have beliefs about their ability to impact
student performance and outcomes. Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) reconciled the two
conceptual strands and concluded,
Teacher efficacy is the teacher's belief in his or her capability to organize and execute
courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a
particular context. It is in making explicit the judgment of personal competence in light
of an analysis of the task and situation that our model improves upon previous models.
(p. 233).
Just as Bandura (1977) found mastery experiences to be the most influential factor in
developing self-efficacy, he also found mastery experiences to have the greatest impact on
teacher-efficacy. In 2000, A. W. Hoy further explored Bandura’s findings and found that
mastery experiences during the early years of teaching have the most powerful impact on the
development of teacher efficacy. A. W. Hoy (2000) asserted that just as Bandura found efficacy
to be most easily shaped in the early years of learning, the beginning years of teaching could
critically affect 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 could 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 varieties 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 on the duties of keeping students safe, organizing the day-to-day
operations related to facilities and transportation, ordering supplies, and managing the budget.
Under this style of leadership, the duties of instruction were left to be handled by teachers who
would be working in isolation within their classrooms (Murphy, 1988). However, federal and
state policy, like the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 (U. S. Congress, n.d.), began to
pressure managerial leaders to shift into being instructional leaders to create equal educational
opportunities for all students (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). Although the responsibilities associated
with a managerial administrator are still needed, more impetus was placed on the issues of
teaching and learning (Neumerski, 2012; Rigby, 2014).
Instructional leadership. Instructional leadership focused more on the duties of
curriculum guidance and directing instruction (Murphy, 1988). This model gained popularity in
the late 1980s (Murphy, 1988) when President Ronald Reagan addressed America with A Nation
at Risk (U. S. Department of Education, 1983). In this report, the President challenged the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 46
educational system because the US had fallen behind as compared to other nations in educating
its youth (U. S. Department of Education, 1983). The responsibility to establish a mission and
vision statement that promoted academic improvement for students became primary duties of an
academic leader (Coldren & Spillane, 2007). Such duties were curriculum planning, program
coordination, and monitoring of student learning. Promoting a productive-student and teacher-
learning environment through the promotion of professional learning among staff, and the
enforcement of academic standards were also duties the instructional leader was responsible for
managing and coordinating (Coldren & Spillane, 2007). Hallinger and Heck (2010) defined
those duties as the administrator being the “headmaster” in orchestrating and synchronizing all
instructional movements in a school. In the 1980s, research on effective schools identified the
duties of an instructional leader as being the difference between schools who had success and
those that did not (Murphy, 1988). Researchers further described an instructional leader as a
“combination of expertise and charisma;” being able to lead teachers with curriculum,
instructional practices, and identified best-learning practices for students, while at the same time
collaborating with teachers to enhance the quality of teaching (Hallinger & Heck, 2010; Marks &
Printy, 2003).
The duties of an instructional leader soon began to take the form of a check list for
administrators to complete and the authenticity of the duties began to lose their purpose, similar
to those of a managerial leader completing a list of duties. Schools were back to being operated
by a checklist needed to be completed by administration, primarily the principal. The focus on
training others on specific leadership skills and characteristics to meet the needs for student
learning continued to be a gap (Hallinger, 2005; Onorato, 2013). From this model, other similar
models emerged such as teacher leader, shared leadership, and distributive leadership. All three
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 47
of these models were similar in nature and emerged at similar times by different theorists. These
models were a response to the identified gaps that existed in the instructional leadership model.
Distributive leadership. Distributive leadership was defined as a conceptual approach
of leadership that reinforces multiple sources of influence within an organization and has focused
particular attention on the ‘leader plus-’ aspect of leadership work (Harris, 2013). This concept
of leadership gained momentum in the late 1990s. The 90s brought on new demands on the
educational system through new policy changes with the Improving American Schools Act
(IASA; U. S. Department of Education, 1994). Glickman (1989) stated that the principal is not
the only one responsible for instruction, but he/she should be the leader of an instructional group
of leaders. The responsibilities of instruction and curriculum now belonged to a team of leaders
to sustain long-term improvement (Elmore, 2000; Lambert, 1998; Lambert et al., 1995; Lambert,
Collay, Dietz, Kent, & Richert, 1997; Olson, 2000; Poplin, 1994; Spillane, Halverson, &
Diamond, 2001). Accountability for student performance increased since the No Child Left
Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) was adopted, thus becoming an impetus for administration to address
the needs of all students through a distributive leadership approach (Thompson, Gregg, & Niska,
2004). By distributing leadership, it gave leaders the opportunity to focus on a single problem
instead of juggling many issues simultaneously. With this model, all stakeholders were
considered to share the responsibility of instruction and learning to ensure all students achieved
academically (Thompson et al., 2004). However, the challenge of unifying the efforts of a larger
leadership team towards a common vision surfaced (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Transformational leadership. Leithwood, Day, Sammons, Harris, and Hopkins (2006)
looked at successful leadership styles by doing qualitative studies in schools that were
considered exceptional and found that a transformation leadership approach provides the best
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 48
student-learning outcome. Transformational leadership is anchored on two key concepts,
increased teacher and student awareness about the importance of organizational goals and
inspired staff who can “transcend their own self-interest for the sake of the organization” (Marks
& Printy, 2003, p. 375). Thompson et al. (2004) stated that it is imperative for a transformational
leader to be able to motivate teachers to be life-long learners to be able to sustain continuous
student learning. Even though the concept of a transformational leader first emerged in the
1970s, it did not gain much momentum until the early 21st century when accountability for
school performance became more understandable to society through the increased awareness of
NCLB and the use of school rankings (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). The increased awareness on
school performance also increased the expectations for schools to meet the needs of all students.
Hallinger and Heck (2010) noted that the greatest difference between a transformational
leadership and other models of leadership was the focus in generating innovation and change
within an organization and its leaders. This differed from previous leadership models that
focused on completing duties and maintaining control (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). Nedelcu
(2013) stated that a transformational leader must possess at least one of these characteristics:
idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized
consideration.
Challenges for a transformational leader lie with time management, as they are required
to continue fulfilling the duties as both a managerial and instructional leader. This hinders their
ability to focus on developing effective learning structures as well as motivating teachers to
foster a student-learning environment (Shaked & Schechter, 2017). The responsibilities of an
instructional leader and a managerial leader continue to be embedded in the duties of a
transformational leader; however, those duties are expected to be carried out by a support team
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 49
that is led by other administrators or support team, not the principal (Hallinger & Heck, 2010).
The transformational leader is expected to lead by creating a sense of purpose, developing a
climate of high expectations, recognizing accomplishments, creating situations that stimulate
learning, modeling school values, promoting confidence, and constantly promoting innovation
and change (Hallinger & Heck, 2010). The 21st century continues to demand the need for
transformational leaders who cultivate a culture of change to meet student needs in preparing
students for post-secondary challenges (Key, 2010).
Framework on Educational Leadership
There are many frameworks on educational leadership proposed by various educational
theorists including Fullan (2008), Hallinger and Heck (1998), Hess and Kelly (2007), Leithwood
et al. (2002), Marzano et al. (2005), Wilhelm (2010), and Witziers, Bosker, and Kruger (2003).
Theorists concurred that leadership is important for the improvement of performance in
education, although it is not through direct influence on student achievement outcomes (Onorato,
2013). Several frameworks are briefly mentioned in this section that support the role of a
transformational leader. These frameworks connect the duties that were outlined with the
previous leadership styles but also add a connection to building relationships. Fullan’s (2008)
model will be examined more closely as the primary framework due to its alignment with
transformational leadership and collective efficacy.
Hess and Kelly’s (2007) framework consisted of seven areas in management: managing
for results; managing personnel; technical knowledge; external leadership, norms, and values of
the organization; managing instruction; and school culture and leadership. Wilhelm (2010)
proposed a framework that supports teachers in building confidence and acquiring the skills to
become an effective teacher leader. According to Wilhelm, any educational leadership
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 50
framework depends on the administrator, primarily the principal, to cultivate a culture that
promotes teacher confidences and continuous professional growth. Leithwood et al. (2002)
offered an educational leadership framework that consists of the following practices: buffering
and delegating the responsibilities concerning the reform efforts, modeling reform effort
behavior, providing contingent rewards which are dependent upon results, providing
individualized support, and inspiring a sense of shared purpose. While these frameworks
provide various lenses from which to examine the role of leadership in developing CTE through
the implementation of PLCs, they are loosely connected with transformational leadership and
collective efficacy. Onorato (2013) stated that Fullan’s (2008) framework for change is
grounded on the cultivation of a culture that can sustain the demands of constant changes that
exist in education. The two foundational concepts in Fullan’s framework, transformational
leadership and change management, are fundamental in building collective efficacy, which
according to Hattie’s (2016) research has the highest correlation to student achievement.
Fullan’s Framework: Leading in a Culture of Change
Fullan’s (2001) framework emphasized moral purpose, understanding the process of
change, relationship Fullan’s (2001) framework emphasized moral purpose, understanding the
process of change, relationship building, knowledge creation and sharing, and coherence making
as core components of leadership for change (Barber & Fullan, 2005). Fullan defined moral
purpose as the act of making a positive difference in an environment or organization. For
transformational leaders, this means that the responsibility of improving the educational system
goes beyond having one successful school. Barber and Fullan (2005) stated that to achieve
improvement in an educational system, leaders must focus on closing existing gaps in the
system. Transformational leaders have the responsibility to bring awareness to teachers about
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 51
their moral responsibility to support the learning of all students. At the site level,
transformational leaders must be able to help teachers understand the importance of collective
teacher efficacy to support all students and not just the students in their class.
The second core component is understanding the process of change. Fullan (2002)
provided guidelines for understanding change, which include selective innovation, process for
developing commitment to new ideas, honor the try, leverage resistance, and reculturing. Fullan
extended the concept of innovation and creativity to teachers taking ownership of the problem
that needs to be solved. He pointed out that the process of change is more sustainable when
leaders are part of the struggle to find a possible solution. By doing so, Fullan explained that
contradictions are ironed out and everyone feels they are being heard. Implementing a process of
change depends on the third component, relationship building.
Fullan (2005) stated that relationship building is a task that every educational leader must
work on and be good at. Fullan stated that if a relationship remains the same or gets worse, this
can lead to “productive progress digressing.” Productive progress digressing refers to
relationships not becoming stronger, therefore, with time a gap begins to grow. This element is
the most difficult for education leaders to master because they must be able to build relationships
with people from whom they differ. Goleman, Boyatzis, and McKee (2002) stated it is
especially important for leaders to be able to self-manage their own emotions and be able to have
empathy towards others. Fullan followed this component with the notion of creating and sharing
knowledge through a social process.
Knowledge, creation, and sharing are the foundation to effective leadership. The years of
expertise gathered by veteran leaders coupled with sharing the latest research are fundamental to
the growth of a professional learning community (Fullan, 2005). Furthermore, the sharing of
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 52
knowledge by all leaders establishes a community of continuous growth. However, it is
important to first establish relationships and moral purpose (Fullan, 2005).
Interweaving these four components in a way that supports change is the concept of
coherence making (Fullan, 2001). The challenge to make fluid transitions during change
requires transformational leaders to have a deep understanding of their leader’s moral purpose
and understanding of their challenges. Transformational leaders need to use social interactions
to gain the understanding of their leaders’ challenges. Coherence making requires
transformational leaders to be able to have an internal system of checks and balances that allows
them to manage problem solving without losing positive momentum. Coherence making is the
component that fuses Fullan’s (2001) framework.
Educational leadership, when practiced through these five components, is what separates
transformational leaders from other leaders (Fullan, 2005). Fullan’s (2001) framework was
supported by Wilhelm’s (2010) concept of shared leadership between teachers and
administrative leaders to drastically improve student achievement. In addition, Huggins et al.’s
(2016) framework aligns with the importance of teacher voices heard by educational leaders to
build social relationships and understand their moral purpose.
Leading Professional Learning Communities: Principals
Leading change is a vital component of the principalship (Fullan, 2002). Literature has
more recently focused on the principal enacting instructional leadership skills as a vehicle for
school improvement (Fullan, 2002). Fullan (2002) posited that this view is very limiting and that
the principalship requires much more sophisticated conceptual thinking and the transformation of
schools through people and teams. More specifically, research on professional learning
communities has found that principals play a vital role in the implementation of the PLC process
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 53
at their school sites (Fullan, 2014b; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wallace Foundation, 2013).
Given the focus of PLCs on learning and collaboration, the principal’s role is to create the
conditions to foster a culture where PLCs thrive. A cornerstone attribute of a PLC undoubtedly
is teacher collaboration (DuFour et al., 2016). In creating the conditions for PLCs to thrive,
hence, the principal is required to foster a culture of collaboration, where teams of teachers
engage in job-embedded professional development focused on fulfilling the shared vision for
student learning (Schmoker, 2006).
According to DuFour et al. (2016), specific actions that a principal should take to support
PLCs at their school include initiating structures and systems to foster a learning-centered
school, reallocating resources to support the initiative, and modeling what is valued. Emerging
from the literature as overarching principles in leadership to support and sustain the collaborative
efforts of PLCs and the development of collective efficacy are articulating a clear vision,
fostering a culture of collaboration, building knowledge and capacity, distributing and sharing
leadership, and aligning resources for coherence (DuFour et al., 2016; Fullan, 2002; Leithwood
et al., 2010; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Wallace Foundation, 2013). These principles align
with Fullan’s (2001) framework for educational leadership that include moral purpose,
relationship building, knowledge, coherence making, and understanding change.
Communicating a clear vision. Changing the culture of an organization is both a
difficult and time-consuming process that must be driven by a shared, relevant, and working
vision of what the organization is attempting to accomplish (Huffman, 2003). The vision must
lead to norms of behavior, guide decision-making, and be aligned to the systems of beliefs and
values of the staff to impact the organization’s work. Declaring and imposing a vision will not
solicit the commitment necessary to change behaviors. The leader must share and combine the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 54
individual vision and values of the staff into a collective vision that can be embraced by the staff
and that can inspire commitment (DuFour et al., 2016). According to DuFour et al. (2016), the
commitment to guiding principles that clearly communicate what the people in the organization
believe and seek to create is what separates a true learning community from an ordinary school.
Fullan (2002) took this notion of vision and values to a deeper level, focusing on moral purpose
as the most crucial driver in school reform. Fullan contended that moral purpose is the nexus
between the actions of school personnel and making a positive difference for students across the
system. Said in different ways, researchers agreed that effective principals establish a
commitment at their schools of high expectations and learning for all students, often captured,
communicated, and lived through the shared vision and values within the learning community
(Wallace Foundation, 2013).
Fostering a culture of collaboration. Research has shown that collaboration stimulates
the brain to a greater degree than working alone (Chapman, Ramondt, & Smiley, 2005; Reason,
2010). Merrill and Gilbert (2008) noted that collaborative learning has a symbiotic relationship
with individual learning; our brain relies on context clues from those around us to categorize and
assemble new learning. Processing new information, then, is shaped by the collaborative
experiences shared with others. Reason (2010) outlined the impact on collaboration in the
educational setting; it stimulates individual and group learning, challenges, inconsistencies, and
enhances perspective; tests values and beliefs; establishes accountability; builds memory and
stimulates emotional ties; reduces fear and feelings of isolation; reveals problems; and calls on
educators to shape and reshape goals. Furthermore, Fullan (2002) asserted that forging
relationships between teachers can have a multiplying effect on the climate of the organization.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 55
Site leaders are in a unique position to influence collaboration between teachers (Balyer,
Karatas, & Alci 2015). Creating a collaborative environment requires principals to be
knowledgeable about PLCs and build relationships across the organization by providing
opportunities for teachers to work together, encouraging participation in decision making, and
providing opportunities for teachers to take on leadership roles. Research suggested that when
principals provide teachers support and intellectual stimulation, they help create a culture of
collaboration at the school (Leithwood et al., 2004). In addition, when principals enact
instructional leadership by engaging in teacher coaching, they communicate what is important to
the organization, reducing uncertainty and increasing the likelihood of teachers collaborating
with their peers on their practice. Furthermore, by developing shared vision and values,
principals signal to teachers that improving instruction is a collective enterprise, setting the
expectation that staff will work together to address barriers in achieving the desired outcomes
(Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011). Cherkowski (2016) found that without a
clearly articulated vision, collaborative teams worked on what they felt was most important,
which is not necessarily of service to the school and learning community in achieving the desired
outcomes.
Building knowledge and capacity. Building capacity is a key driver in ensuring lasting
system change (Fullan, Cuttress, & Kilcher, 2005). According to Fullan et al. (2005), building
capacity involves “policies, strategies, resources, and actions designed to increase people’s
collective power to move the system forward” (p. 55). Buttram and Farley-Ripple (2016)
suggested that enhancing collaboration through PLCs, by itself, is not sufficient to produce the
changes in teacher practices that are necessary to support continuous growth in schools;
principals must focus teachers’ collaboration on acquiring new knowledge, skills, and
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 56
dispositions. Central to the work of effective PLCs is knowledge sharing and knowledge
creation (DuFour et al., 2016; Fullan, 2002). Learning is a fundamental concept in PLCs;
requiring teachers to hone and refine their teaching practice and skills as part of the process.
Fullan (2002) affirmed that information becomes knowledge through a social process of
give and take, making collaboration in PLCs essential for the development of new of knowledge.
He suggested that discovery and refinement of the knowledge base in teaching through PLC
collaboration fuels the moral purpose of teaching and that technical knowledge is superficial
unless it is coupled with the social construct. Furthermore, research suggested that learning in
context produces the greatest payoff (Fullan, 2002). Learning, therefore, is best when teachers
collaborate to solve real problems in the context of their daily work. DuFour et al. (2016)
referred to this as job-embedded professional development, anchored on teachers’ collective
inquiry and action orientation. For PLCs, this means, building shared knowledge of their current
realities and best practices and turning the learning into actionable steps that can be tested and
refined. For leaders, it means providing opportunities and structures for teachers to participate in
meaningful, job-embedded professional development and modeling learning. Principals must
embrace that their primary role is not to hold all the knowledge and skills, rather to ensure that
people in the organization acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to carry out the intended
work collectively. Leaders must create an environment for collective inquiry to thrive, including
space for teachers to innovate, experiment, fail, and practice without judgement or negative
repercussions (DuFour et al., 2016).
Distributing leadership. To meet the complexity of the demands and challenges in
education, extensive participation in leadership from teachers is necessary (Fullan, 2002;
Lambert, 2002; Printy & Marks, 2006). The model of the principal as the sole leader of the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 57
school “leaves substantial talents of teachers largely untapped” (Lambert, 2002, p. 37) and
principals stretched too thin between managerial and instructional demands that make it too
difficult to make and sustain significant change to impact teacher behavior and student learning.
Printy and Marks (2006) revealed that “principals alone cannot provide sufficient leadership
influence to systematically improve the quality of instruction or the level of student achievement.
Nor can teachers, even collectively, supply the required leadership to improve teaching and
learning” (p. 130). The study found that the best results are obtained when principals and
teachers share leadership. Leithwood, Harris, and Hopkins (2008) conducted an extensive
review of literature on leadership from which seven strong claims emerged about successful
school leadership. One such claim is that the influence of leadership on schools and students is
greatest when it is widely distributed. The study revealed that when combined, leadership from
the principal, teachers, teams, and district has a significant impact on student learning,
accounting for 27% of the variation in student achievement across schools.
Professional development that supports teacher learning in communities of practice have
great potential for teacher talent to be honed and leadership capacity to be built (Lai, 2014;
Murphy, 2005). Opportunities for teachers to share in leadership, including planning activities,
sharing knowledge, problem-solving, and decision-making contributes to the development of
shared ownership and collective responsibility in change efforts and school improvement
(Murphy, 2005). Principals have a pivotal role in formalizing how leadership is distributed; to a
great degree, a principal’s influence or control who sits on committees, provide common
planning time in the master schedule, and implement and use processes that facilitate democratic
or shared decisions (Printy & Marks, 2006). Terry Wilhelm (2010) asserted that to share
leadership, principals must become a trainer of trainers, developing teacher leaders. Teachers
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 58
rarely have opportunities to develop their leadership skills in teacher education programs and as
classroom teachers. The principal, then, must develop the requisite leadership skills for teachers
to fully participate in a distributed or shared model. According to Wilhelm, these skills include
facilitating discussions among peers and putting structures in place to hold them accountable. In
fostering leadership capacity, principals must identify potential leaders, create opportunities for
teachers to lead, facilitate the transition to this new role, and provide ongoing support (Klar,
Huggins, Hammonds, & Buskey, 2016). The study revealed a large degree of interdependence
and high levels of interaction and trust between principals and their teachers. According to Klar
et al. (2016), principals apply their knowledge of staff and understanding of school leadership to
enact the strategies within the context of their schools. While the study revealed the potential for
conflict and the complex nature in fostering leadership across the school, successful principals
demonstrated a keen focus and intentionality toward the development of teacher leaders.
Aligning resources for coherence. “When innovation runs amok, even if driven by
moral purpose, the result is overload and fragmentation” (Fullan et al., 2005, p. 57). Overload
and fragmentation impede growth and change over time, as teachers and leaders experience
initiative fatigue. Reeves (2006) affirmed that educators experience initiative fatigue when they
attempt to use the same amount of resources (time, money, energy) to achieve more objectives.
Schools attempting to improve student outcomes often implement a wide array of initiatives to
support their improvement efforts. The strategy of throwing everything but the kitchen sink at it
might work to bring about some improvement in the short term; but eventually, the addition of
new initiatives to the plate creates a significant decline in the effectiveness of each initiative and
the organization as a whole (Reeves, 2006). Leadership attention, teacher energy, and limited
resources, according to DuFour and Fullan (2013), have spread many schools and districts too
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 59
thin over too many activities. The constant piling of new, disconnected, and uncoordinated
activities leads to teacher confusion, exhaustion, and cynicism rather than program improvement.
Leadership research pointed to the alignment of resources, including energy and
attention, to the organization’s vision and goals as a key component to the success of the
organization in achieving its goals (DuFour & Fullan, 2013; Fullan, 2005; Fullan et al., 2005;
Reeves, 2006). Coherence making is a never-ending proposition (Fullan, 2005); it requires
alignment of goals and resources across the organization, ensuring that initiatives are connected
to and support the focus or goals of the organization, and communicating the big picture of how
things fit together and to what end. According to Fullan (2005), improvement is “not about
developing the greatest number of innovations, but rather about achieving new patterns of
coherence that enable people to focus more deeply on how strategies for effective learning
interconnect” (p. 57).
Furthermore, the alignment must be adequately and intentionally supported through the
allocation of resources including time, energy, and personnel (Buttram & Farley-Ripple, 2016;
DuFour et al., 2016; Leithwood, 2013). Principals exert leadership and communicate what
matters through the decisions they make in the allocation and management of resources (Buttram
& Farley-Ripple, 2016). To support PLCs, principals must allocate resources and manage
structures to provide structured time for collaboration, access to ongoing professional
development; tools that support learning and action research; instructional materials to support
implementation of strategies; and leverage teacher expertise in curriculum, assessment,
instruction, and leadership (Buttram & Farley-Ripple, 2016; DuFour et al., 2016). Principals
must continuously consider how each decision made with regard to the use of resources impacts
or is connected to what the school and PLCs are attempting to accomplish.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 60
The Role of District Leaders
Waters and Marzano (2006) determined in a meta-analysis of 27 studies that district
leadership matters in influencing student achievement. Moreover, the findings revealed that
effective superintendents focused on creating goal-oriented districts driven by teaching and
learning. In addition, the study identified specific leadership actions that positively contributed
to student achievement – collaborative goal setting; non-negotiable goals for achievement and
instruction; board alignment with the goals, monitoring of the goals, and use of resources to
support the goals.
Broadly stated, superintendents must focus on instructional matters that influence the
behaviors of their principals and teachers to impact student achievement (Harvey, Cambron-
McCabe, Cunningham, & Koff, 2013). Harvey et al. (2013) posited that superintendents’
greatest leverage point in improving teaching and learning is the development of the district
principals. Superintendents guide challenging and dynamic educational organizations and
cannot single-handedly oversee all aspects of the instructional program. They, too, are called to
serve as instructional leaders by building on the human capital and resources of the school
district to enhance teaching and learning instead of focusing on the managerial aspects of
running the district (Harvey et al., 2013). Their leadership must be anchored on the development
of structures and processes that support whole-system learning, working with school
administrators to improve instruction, and providing the resources for teams to collaborate
(Schmoker, 2006).
Furthermore, Leithwood (2013) examined the role of central office leadership in
supporting learning for the organization to impact students and staff. The study highlighted the
importance of re-culturing the central office from a one-location service model to one in which
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 61
district leaders, instead, spend their time at school sites helping site principals and teachers
achieve system and site goals. The benefit of spending frequent, high quality, purposeful time on
site is that it brings greater understanding of the school context, school needs, and the district’s
impact on student learning, which in turn allows district leaders to allocate resources, prioritize
initiatives, and work with site administrators more effectively to support district and school site
goals.
More specifically to supporting the successful implementation of PLCs, DuFour et al.
(2010) maintained that district leadership has three key responsibilities – limit initiatives, build
capacity, and monitor progress. Limiting initiatives requires great restraint and focus on behalf
of the district leaders (Dumas & Kautz, 2014). Any innovation that the district pursues must fall
within the scope of the focus, defined by the work of the PLCs. Dumas and Kautz (2014) stated
that building capacity and monitoring progress go hand-in-hand; teachers cannot be expected to
perform without the knowledge or skills necessary to implement an initiative or perform a
function. Together, they refer to these three key responsibilities as focus, build, and check.
Fullan (2001) pointed out that leaders must understand that they can lead change, not manage it.
Instead of trying to control change, district leaders must create the necessary conditions for
change to happen by focusing district-wide efforts, building the capacity of personnel throughout
the district, and monitoring the implementation of collaboration and learning across the district.
Fostering Collective Efficacy
Goddard and Skrla (2006) found that organizations with strong transformational leaders
and high levels of collective efficacy within the staff would be able to sustain positive change.
Porter’s (2011) research supported his prediction that transformational leaders have a strong
influence on PLCs and promote collective efficacy in an organization. Ross and Gray’s (2006)
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 62
study also supported Goddard and Skrla’s findings related to transformational leadership
correlating to increasing a collective efficacy culture. Fullan (2005), Hallinger and Heck (1998),
Leithwood et al. (2002), and Porter (2011) all concluded with their research that transformational
leaders help teachers increase their confidence, and the understanding of organizational goals
versus personal goals lead to higher student success, which are key characteristics of a
transformational leader.
Research also suggested that teacher ownership of student outcomes has an impact on
student achievement (Goddard et al. 2015; Jerald, 2007; LoGerfo, 2006; Takahashi, 2011).
LoGerfo (2006) found, from a nationally representative sample of first graders and their teachers,
that students learned more in reading when their teachers demonstrated a greater sense of
responsibility for student outcomes. Research also suggested that leaders can influence teachers’
sense of responsibility for student outcomes (Jerald, 2007; Ross & Gray, 2006). LoGerfo found
that teachers who expressed having supportive school leaders had a greater sense of
responsibility for the learning outcomes of their students. In another study, Goddard et al. (2015)
confirmed that “principal’s instructional leadership is a significant positive predictor of
collective efficacy beliefs through its influence on teachers’ collaborative work” (p. 525).
Additionally, the study demonstrated that together with the principal’s instructional leadership,
teachers’ collaboration on the improvement of instruction is an indirect predictor of the
differences in academic achievement across schools.
Furthermore, research suggested that individual and collective efficacy can be developed
(Donohoo, 2017; Jerald, 2007; LoGerfo, 2006). Principals can foster collective efficacy by
providing experiences that contribute to teacher’s beliefs, including mastery and vicarious
experiences. Goddard et al. (2015) observed that while direct mastery experiences are difficult
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 63
to provide, there are various strategies that a principal can use to help, including providing access
to meaningful and relevant professional development and giving teachers the freedom to conduct
action research projects for professional learning and growth. Additionally, research indicated
that role playing or micro-teaching experiences involving the planning, delivery, and observation
of lessons supported with timely and specific feedback can have a significant impact on teachers’
self-perception of their teaching competence (Goddard, Hoy, & Hoy, 2000). Goddard, Hoy, and
Hoy (2004) also noted that vicarious experiences, observing successful models with which one
relates, contribute to efficacy beliefs. Principals can provide these vicarious experiences by
providing teachers the opportunity to observe other teachers, visiting other schools, and/or
watching instructional videos.
In addition, research suggested that social persuasion, supportive leadership,
collaboration and shared decision-making, and a positive school culture can impact teachers’
perceived efficacy (Jerald, 2007). Principals can enact leadership strategies in these areas to
build on teachers’ collective efficacy. For example, relentlessly communicating the school’s
vision and goals, participation in PLCs, and participation in professional development can serve
as social persuasion. Supportive leadership can be enacted by providing opportunities for
professional development, modeling expected behaviors, and providing feedback. Donohoo’s
(2017) Theory of Action for Fostering Collective Teacher Efficacy requires principals to create
opportunities for meaningful collaboration, empower teachers, set goals and high expectations,
and help educators interpret results and provide timely and appropriate feedback. This theory of
action focuses on leadership practices that foster CTE, aligning directly with the PLC process
and the conditions necessary to support the PLC teams. Jerald (2007) concluded that “if we want
teachers to believe in the ability of all students to learn and to take responsibility for educational
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 64
outcomes, we [leaders] must take positive steps to help teachers believe in their own abilities as
well” (p. 6).
Summary
Recent reform efforts have dramatically increased the emphasis on student achievement.
To meet these demands, a teacher working in isolation no longer seems to be an option. In order
for the educational system to compete globally, educators will need to focus on student learning,
create collaborative cultures that allow teachers to share the work load and best instructional
practices, and analyze data to determine specific student learning needs. This literature review
examined DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) professional learning community model, the role of
district and site leaders in establishing and implementing professional learning communities, and
the importance of collective efficacy.
While research about the role of leaders in developing teachers’ efficacy beliefs is
emerging, literature in this area is scant. There is extensive research around each of the three
constructs examined, leadership, professional learning communities, and collective efficacy. The
manner in which leadership is enacted to develop collective efficacy in professional learning
communities, however, has not been widely researched. While scholars and practitioners draw
on these bodies of knowledge to make inferences about the relationship and intersection of these
constructs, a gap in the literature remains. Given the wide implementation of PLCs across the
educational sector, it is important to examine how leaders can foster and develop collective
efficacy to unleash the full power and benefit of PLCs.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 65
Chapter Three: Methodology
Authors: Laura Rivas, Gilbert Rodriguez, Ixchel Sanchez, and Cari White
3

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

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: Results and Findings
The purpose of this study was to understand the role of leadership in developing
collective efficacy in PLCs. The study examined the perceptions of site and district leaders on
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 site and district leaders in developing collective efficacy of the PLCs that
operate within the educational system was also studied. Principals and assistant superintendents
of educational services are central agents in the study along with the vision of the superintendent.
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.
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 district leaders 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. The
following four questions were used to guide the study.
1. What are secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
2. How do secondary site and district leaders’ perceptions about collective efficacy
support/hinder the work of their PLCs?
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 75
3. How are secondary site and district leaders fostering or hindering collaboration in
professional learning communities (PLCs)?
4. Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
The literature review examined the DuFour and Eaker’s (1998) professional learning
community model, Bandura’s 1993 work on teacher collective efficacy, and a brief timeline on
the change in roles a district and site administrator took in becoming instructional leaders. There
is extensive research around each of the three paradigms examined: leadership, professional
learning communities, and collective efficacy (Bandura, 1986, DuFour et al., 2010; Leithwood,
1994). The way leadership was enacted to develop collective efficacy in professional learning
communities 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 and understand how leaders can foster and develop
collective efficacy to unleash the full power and benefit of PLCs.
Public education continues to struggle to meet the needs of all of students. The pressure
to prepare all students to be college and career ready has become a task that is too great for
administration to address. Teachers, as an entire site team, believing their students have the
ability to learn and meet expected standards from the state is one of the latest challenges for
administrators.
Data Collections Instruments
The researcher used a mix method and a case study model approach for collecting data to
answer the guiding research questions. A four-part survey and semi-structured interviews were
used as tools to gather qualitative and quantitative data. The survey was distributed using the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 76
application Google Survey. This allowed the participants to participate anonymously. The
survey was not timed, and participants were able resume the survey if it was not completed in
one seating. 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 obtain qualitative data. Interviews
were conducted in person and over the phone, depending on the time availability of the
participants. 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 and the literature review (Creswell, 2014).
Participating Stakeholders
A southern California public school district, District C, approved the researcher to
complete a case study on all its public secondary schools within its boundaries. District C
secondary schools service approximately 6800 students with one principal for each of its six
sites. The principals have a director of secondary education and an assistant superintendent as
district support. Over 450 teachers work under the leadership of the site principals and district
leaders. The participants were six secondary site principals, the director of secondary
curriculum, assistant superintendent of instruction and curriculum, and the district’s
superintendent. Table 2 shows the demographic data collected from the online Google Survey.
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 77
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 director, assistant
superintendent, and superintendent surveyed and interviewed must work with or oversee the
implementation of PLCs at the secondary level. The district that was identified for the study was
a unified district in southern California with PLCs being implemented in their secondary schools.
The selection criteria included the following: (a) traditional secondary schools in southern
California, including grades 6-8 and 9-12 high schools; (b) public, non-charter, schools;
(c) schools have been implementing PLCs a minimum of three years; (d) the principal must have
been a site administrator for a minimum of three years; and (e) the student population is at least
50% low socio-economic status and students of color. District director, assistant superintendent,
and superintendent identified for this study played a role in supporting site principals in the
implementation of PLCs at their schools. The participants in this case study consisted of all
secondary site principals from District C, which are three middle school principals, three high
school principals, and three district administrators.
The researcher gathered data from both from surveys and one-on-one interviews to gain
an insight on district and site leaders’ perception on collaboration and collective efficacy.
Results from all nine participants who participated and completed the Likert scale survey agreed
that collaboration among staff is a key factor for student success and that they believe they have
the capacity within their staff to move forward with their vision. The researcher’s findings from
District C in regard to knowledge, motivation, and organization was the secondary administrative
leadership team have a common understanding on what it takes to build collective efficacy
through PLCs: trust, time, professional development, and positive relationship building. All nine
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 78
participants reported on the Likert scale survey that they agreed it is more difficult to cultivate
collective efficacy if there is lack of trust within a team and that there is an even greater
challenge in getting teachers to complete duties that are intentional towards meeting the
academic needs of the students.
Results
Knowledge Results
Data from the survey reported secondary administrators had a higher belief of
collaboration is needed for the success of all students to learn in; however, the actionable
responsibilities associated with collaboration were rated lower. For example, all secondary
administrators reported six out of six on the Likert scale used for the survey when asked: when
teachers work together they are more effective in supporting all students in learning. The
actionable responsibility to this question reported 3.6 out of 6 score: teachers share best practices
and apply new learning from their collaboration in PLCs to their own individual classroom.
Secondary administrators reported on the survey that collaboration is important in cultivating
collective efficacy and the work of teachers is more effective in supporting all students in
learning. The belief to support teacher collaboration was rated higher by district administrators
in comparison to secondary site administrators (see Table 3).
Motivation Results
District C secondary administrators reported they believed they have the capacity within
their district to increase collective efficacy within each secondary site. From the superintendent
to secondary site principals, there was a common belief that the most effective teachers in
District C shared a similar set of values, beliefs, and attitudes related to teaching and learning.
The survey reported 5.7 out of 6 that an administrator can foster a group’s belief in their ability
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 79
to reach high needs students by creating opportunities for meaningful collaboration and including
teachers in schoolwide decision making. In contrast, the survey reported a 3.4 out of 6 for PLCs
requiring, rather than invite, students to receive additional academic support until they are
successful (see Table 4). Based on the survey results, the challenge for the secondary
administrative team in District C is monitoring the accountability of teachers while motivating
teachers to implement the structure set by their PLCs to support all student learning.
Organizational Results
Qualitative data showed District C to have a consistent vision from district administrators
to secondary site administrators. The vision of the superintendent was clear to all administrators,
and nine out of nine participants reported the district’s structure allows for administrators to
collaborate with teachers during PLC time. At all secondary sites, there is time during the
regular contractual time for teachers to collaborate and administrators to be part of the learning
process. The qualitative data from the interviews showed that establishing the culture for
collective efficacy to exist at sites is closely related to having trust among all members. The
participants reported a 4.3 out of 6 average when asked “to what extent has a culture of trust and
respect for taking instructional risks been developed in the PLCs?” Furthermore, the qualitative
data exposed the challenge for secondary administrators of balancing managerial duties along
with instructional responsibilities. This conflict of time management was reported by all
participants as the biggest obstacle when it came to building trust and establishing a stronger
positive culture between administration and teachers. The time conflict limits the frequency of
communicating a constant and candid plan to those involved in the progression for change (Clark
& Estes, 2002). The researcher observed that survey questions asking “to what extent do
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 80
teachers…” had lower rates in part because administrators were not able to find the time needed
to support implementation (see Table 5).
Findings
The summary scores on the survey revealed a 20-point differential between
administration believing teachers have the capacity to support all student learning through
collaboration versus teachers practicing the best methods identified by DuFour and Eaker (1998)
in implementing PLCs. The researcher analyzed the data from the surveys and interviews and
found motivation, trust, resources, learning together, capacity, data, culture, and social
persuasion to be categories that surfaced as important to create a culture of collective efficacy
among staff. The four research questions were the anchors to the questions asked in the survey
and during the interviews. Using a mixed method allowed the researcher to engage the
participants in the process of self-reflecting on their professional and personal educational
experiences to promote collective efficacy. Quantitative and qualitative data from the instrument
tools used showed the efforts by District C’s secondary administrators to increase the level of
collective efficacy among its teaching staff (see Table 6).
Research Question 1
What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
Ramos et al. (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. found that when collective teacher efficacy was increased, the negative effects of low
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 81
socioeconomics were reduced. In response to evaluating the perception about collective efficacy
in District C among secondary site and district leaders, a survey was used with a Likert scale of 1
to 6; from strongly disagree to strongly agree, respectively. In total, the perception of collective
efficacy was significantly important to promote all students can learn, and was greater by district
leaders than site leaders (see Table 7). Although site leaders rated collective efficacy at 5.75 out
of 6, district leaders all strongly agreed with a rate of 6 out of 6.
District leaders strongly agreed that when teachers work together, they are more effective
in supporting all students in learning, student success increases when teachers collaborate on
common practice, and student success is impacted by the teachers’ belief in their own capacity to
teach them. Correspondingly, district leaders agreed teachers can improve their practice through
shared experiences with colleagues. Teachers’ belief in their own competence to improve
student achievement is malleable and can be shaped by watching their colleagues experience
success with similar students’ populations. Goddard, LoGerfo et al. (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. The
perception from district leaders in District C is that administrators 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, and successful schools leverage the
expertise of all teachers to achieve a common goal. The superintendent from District C stated
“the way I promote vicarious experiences for all my teachers is by modeling that I am a learner
just like them.” For example, during the summers the district hires outside agencies to coach
administrators and the superintendent in District C stated, “it is a long year but being part of the
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 82
training with my administration show them how important this is for me . . . it also makes them
participate more.”
Vicarious Role Modeling and Social Persuasion
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 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. 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. Principal A stated,
I truly believe in trust, high levels of trust. If you really want to be able to move a group,
they have to be able to be comfortable with each other and trust each other so they can
have those authentic conversations that happens over time. Or something can happen
with the personality of whoever you’re leading, that they’re able to approach others along
the way. So I think that one of my roles all the time is to make sure that I’m checking in
with PLC’s to know if there are hiccups or issues . . . I don’t expect my department chairs
or my PLC leads to have to deal with teachers who are not implementing the groups
decisions.
Principal A used trust as the vehicle to create comfort between his teachers to open up to
each other and be willing to share their experiences. The respondent further stated the
importance to gain the trust of teachers to provide a level of confidence that allows them to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 83
explore new teaching methods without the fear of failure. Principal A stated promoting
creativity by celebrating the attempts and not criticizing mistakes. The respondent’s support for
teacher leaders with teachers who did not implement PLC decisions gave his teacher leaders the
confidence that they are on the same path and striding for a common goal as their administration
team. The two foundational concepts in Fullan’s (2014a) framework, transformational
leadership and change management, are fundamental in building collective efficacy, which
according to Hattie’s (2012) research has the highest correlation to student achievement. As
transformational leaders, Principal A and Principal B reported in their interviews that being very
transparent with the staff when they did not have an answer for all situations allowed teachers to
feel safe to share when they were also not sure about expectations. This transparency by the
principals established a social persuasion of being honest during difficult situations.
Collaborations are the actions that lead to vicarious role modeling. 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.” The findings
suggested that a culture of collaboration within a professional learning community is predicted to
increase collective teacher efficacy. Site and district leaders in District C showed a 5.3 of 6
score on the survey in believing teachers in their district have the collective responsibility to help
every student master grade-level curriculum (see Table 8). Even more important, a 5.4 of 6
score was reported to the success of the district in meeting academic and behavioral goals for all
students depends on the capacity and collaboration of all teachers at the schools.
Furthermore, all six principals acknowledged there is a greater challenge in establishing a
school culture where vicarious role modeling is evenly practiced in all PLC sessions. The belief
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 84
from all the secondary site leaders was an increase of vicarious role modeling during PLC time
would be evidence of progress being made in District C’s vision of establishing a greater sense
of collective efficacy to improve student-learning outcomes.
Knowledge Sharing to Support Student Learning Outcome
Site and district leaders were asked if they believed there is enough capacity and
knowledge in your schools to address barriers to learning for all your students including the high
needs populations.
The responses on the survey showed the greatest gap percentage of strongly disagreeing
and strongly agreeing. District leaders’ perception of having enough capacity and knowledge in
their schools to address the learning needs of all students was 94.3% compared to site leaders
whose perception was at 75% (see Table 9). Principal D made the connection between
knowledge sharing and collaborative culture as,
I look at any educational paradigm, I tend to think of it as something with knowledge,
skills, procedures, but then the underlying component is belief. And that’s about
culture. . . I believe that the skills and the knowledge are present in the building. I think
that through things like a collaborative culture, then you start getting to the bed rock,
which is the beliefs and the operational frames of individual teachers.
Establishing a collaborative culture by increasing social persuasion is the 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,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 85
the verbal persuasion alone might be limited in influence and is dependent on the credibility and
expertise of the messenger (Bandura, 1986).
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 knowledge.
Site administrators reported on the survey a 75% score when asked if teachers were confident to
motivate and prepare students to achieve (see Table 10). Similarly, the belief was teachers are
eager to help each other improve their practice. Those scores resonated when the lowest score of
70% on the survey showed that teachers in their district believed in their ability to reach
disadvantaged students has a bigger impact on student achievement than their home
environment, parental involvement, or prior student achievement. Part of the challenge reported
on the survey with a score of 4.3 (71%) of 6 by secondary principals in District C was getting
teachers to increase their effort/persistence when students fail to show growth in their learning.
Dumas and Kautz (2014) stated that building capacity and monitoring progress go hand
in hand. The research showed site administrators believe teachers at their schools may not be
practicing sharing knowledge, especially when working with students who do not demonstrate
growth in their learning. This does not align with the belief of district leaders of having the
capacity within the district to support academic growth for all students. Based on the survey
results shown above, the perception of site and district leaders in District C with regard to
collective efficacy may increase with collaborative knowledge sharing to support all students
grow in their learning. As Hattie (2016) also found, collective teacher efficacy has three times
the effect of socio-economic status, two times the effect of prior achievement, approximately
three times the effect of home environment, parental involvement, student motivation,
concentration, persistence, and engagement.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 86
Research Question 2
How do secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder the work of their
PLCs?
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). The perception about collective efficacy to
support the work of PLCs was interpreted by District C as providing the proper services for
teachers to be able to work effectively during PLC time. Facilitating, guiding, and culture were
the themes the researcher identified from the qualitative data as services District C believed
would support collective efficacy. The perception that collective efficacy will be the number one
difference maker with student learning outcomes was clear for the researcher to observe. All
participants shared the common message that if teachers work collaboratively and believe as a
group, then every student can grow academically from the start of the year to the end of the year.
Facilitating Learning
Mastery experiences and vicarious experiences were seen as the hindrance for building
collective efficacy in District C. Even though site leaders agreed with Hattie’s (2016) meta-
analyses that collective teacher efficacy is the number one factor influencing student outcomes
with an effect size of 1.57. Principal C stated,
I would say the hindrance is negativity or individuals that really don’t believe in any sort
of collective goal and they prefer to just do things their own way. I think when you come
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 87
across people that are incredibly either egocentric or maybe they . . . It may not be as
completely obvious, but the truth is they’re kind of arrogant in what they do, and they
believe their way is the best way and they’re not willing to see what others are doing or
improve in their practice.
Principal D went on to add that the challenge is getting teachers to change past behaviors
that have been established at sites. Principal D believed that this is a problem not only in District
C’s schools but in education.
Principal B and Principal D stated that patterns of behaviors by teachers that hinder them
from vicarious experiences is being passive aggressive with others due to fear of being seen
incompetent along with being complacent with their performance. Principal D described these
behaviors as teachers looking to check the box and report a task as being completed. Principal D
stated that in short term a teacher might prolong the process; however, data will eventually show
the benefits of being part of a collective efficacy team.
You might get away with it for a short period of time. There will be a point, if teachers
don’t have ownership, or buy-in with just the basics of the process, it’ll collapse. Really,
about empowering people and that is through influence. So, it really goes back to over
communicating why this is the important thing to do right now, to guide student
achievement and learning. I honestly feel like some of the PLCs that struggle at my
school have either leaders or key people in their department that constantly find a way to
derail the conversation, almost like a deflection because they’re insecure or nervous about
what their own progress would look like.
There is the other side of the problem when a teacher is too competitive, jealous, or
simply negative and members not wanting to share new ideas. Bandura (1993) identified social
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 88
persuasion as one of four causes that impact collective efficacy. Administrators need to be able
to control or neutralize these emotions from teachers to facilitate the learning during PLCs.
District C site administrators’ efforts to address these challenges have been one-on-one
conversations to understand the true reason of why they are resistant to joining the group.
Principal C shared that these conversations must happen behind closed doors for all trust to be
built between teacher and administrator. This practice aligns to Bandura’s statement about social
persuasion and building trust. Using data to guide the conversations can help avoid the dialogue
being seen as personal and truly address the need for change.
Fullan (2014a) 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. The superintendent from District C stated “it is the duty of
administrators to know when to be facilitators for their PLCs depending on the talent and
abilities of the teams.”
Guidance and Vision
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 districtwide efforts, building the capacity of
personnel throughout the district, and monitoring the implementation of collaboration and
learning across the district. District C has worked on creating a common vision to drive the
direction of collective efficacy within the PLCs. For example, the goal to move every student to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 89
achieve higher scores on common assessments and state assessments was broken to simple terms
that motivated teachers. Principal E stated,
It was actually kind of a cool transformation of, we still had, “100% of kids will,” but it
was just done in a “70% will hit this level and the other 30 will move up within this level
piece,” which I think to teachers was a new mindset for them where they’re like, “Hey,
actually every kid can move.”
The impact of student achievement has increased when PLCs are implemented with
fidelity (Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2017). Principal B’s perception on schools operating without
PLCs would have staff who would not be responding to the needs of students. Teachers would
be focused on teaching standards throughout the year and not recognizing if students are
learning. In 2017, Voelkel and Chrispeels conducted a study based on the results of 310 surveys
from 16 schools in a district that had systematically implemented PLCs. The researchers 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 (2017)
concluded that districts who support their teachers in the PLC could enhance collective teacher
efficacy, which ultimately leads to increased student achievement.
Secondary administrators are being trained to promote collective efficacy by increasing
the confidence of teachers, celebrating small wins, using data to guide difficult discussions, and
providing time for teachers to share vicarious experiences. Secondary administrators are
entrusted to implement these initiatives to increase collective efficacy within their PLCs. The
researcher noticed a continuous pattern in responses by the participants that PLCs are impactful
on teachers’ classrooms. Principal E stated,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 90
It is powerful when you can walk from class to class and see instruction across the
campus where you walk into one ninth grade English class and then two hours later you
walk into a different teacher’s ninth grade English class and they’re basically teaching the
same amazing lesson in the same day with the same type of strategy, it’s just, it’s good
for kids. In addition, teachers working in silos are and should be things of the past if
PLCs are properly implement[ed].
Building Culture and Motivation
Part of the role of a transformational leader is placing the right people in the right seats is
very important if you’re the principal and you’re in that leadership role (Marks & Printy, 2003).
Supporting if there’re weaknesses and allowing the areas of strength the space to continue their
work. The researcher posed the question to all the participants of “how they would determine if
the right person is on the right seat?” Principal A and Principal B best summarized what all
participants reiterated; Principal A summarized,
It’s like I mentioned in a few of my other responses, it’s all about relationships. And
what I mean by that, in terms of working with your teachers. It’s about spending enough
time both in their classroom, and in conversations about kids, their beliefs, assessing their
skills, assessing their knowledge, trying to determine where those gaps are. But really
building that relationship so you become a resource, and you’ve also got some credibility
when you’re talking curriculum with your teachers.
Principal B stated,
The collective efficacy component, again it goes back to team building. Again, it goes
back to really establishing strong norms for how we’re going to treat each other within
the groups. I’m going to continue to come back to culture, culture, culture, culture. And
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 91
really modeling the processes that I would expect from the teachers, the interactions.
And also calling them when they’re in violation of our norms. And privately correcting,
and publicly praising.
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).
Letting them know where the principal stands and what they expect is really the key. The
principal must show they are a lead learner because going through the process of learning with
the staff may assist in solidifying that collective efficacy. Principal A stated,
again, same documentation issue I think from a leadership frame, you have to create
conditions and it’s all about culture. Culture eats every strategy for lunch every day. So,
you set the culture, and you also model being the lead learner. You model the struggle.
When they are going through professional development, you want to be not just at the
table, but engaged . . . So, you’ve got to live your expectations for your teachers.
Fullan (2001) stated 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. By modeling it through support, being present,
going through classrooms, talking to teachers, supporting them, and creating an atmosphere
that’s conducive to people working together becomes a critical role in building culture. The
superintendent from District C reiterated what site principals mentioned in modeling
participation in the PLC, just as a member, not as the Superintendent. Their core mission is to
educate all children, everyone who walks through their doors. The main goal of District C is to
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 92
build culture, making students and families feel safe and protected, and then creating efficacy
within the teachers to let the students get what they deserve within the four years that they’re in
high school. Teachers are constantly reminded that collective efficacy can move a student one
whole grade level up; hence, the importance of PLCs to support teachers to get better at their
craft. However, the researcher’s analysis of the data from the surveys and interviews showed
that creating experiences within a PLC that contribute to teachers’ confidence in their capacity to
apply new knowledge or information was one of the biggest challenges.
Research Question 3
How are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents fostering or hindering collaboration in professional learning communities
(PLCs)?
Resources
Principal E stated,
I think before you can establish a real effective PLC, you need the resources, you need
the time, and you need the money. If you don’t have those things, I think it’s very
difficult to put any kind of structure in place.
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). To maximize the resources available, principals need
to have a clear vision on the smart goals that they are trying to reach. DuFour et al. (2016)
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 93
referred to smart goals as specific goals that are measurable and realistic for a team to take action
in a timely window. For example, Principal B shared:
We had embedded interventions to the master schedule and lining up our math tutoring
with our PLC assessments. If the students do poorly on their common assessment, they
get pulled out of the wheel and into a two-week program and then they go back again . . .
Assigning the correct teacher is huge . . .. If it’s not a person that can pull off that
intervention, and I mean pull off by actually doing the work, the hard work, then there’s
no point in having the intervention; then you’ll have to be a very dynamic teacher and
someone who can work well with all types of learners.
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. Principal F stated,
I believe a school needs to have a purpose behind its initiatives. That they really need to
have a purpose behind what they’re doing and that it really comes down to the level of
commitment of the team members to have a successful PLC.
Principal B reiterated the same message by stating, “If your team itself is not committed
and on board with meeting and being an organized group that moves together, then they don’t
get any traction and they don’t get anywhere.” PLCs need to have an establishment of common
interest, common goals to go with a common meeting place and time. Principal A added,
“Having all the resources will not necessarily result into success.” The need for people to work
together and be a team is what motivates members (Fullan, 2005). The process of establishing a
strong supportive culture needs to be the responsibility of all members and not only the site
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 94
administrator. The site administrator does need to facilitate and be a part of the process in order
to build internal capacity (Fullan, 2005).
Building Culture and Motivation
District C superintendent was asked, “How administration was fostering collaboration
within PLCs” and the superintendent responded,
Now that we’ve built the ability for them to meet . . . you’ve got to find teacher leaders.
That’s a hard one for us. In our district, the principal has the autonomy to choose
department coordinators. That’s a good thing and a bad thing, but the good part of it is
you can search for the person that truly wants to be a leader, the person who more
innately has that born efficacy or is willing to actually grow.
The researcher recognized that the participating principals did share that they did not
have to worry about teacher popularity which made it easier for them to approach newer teacher
members for leadership roles. However, the researcher found the challenge remained with some
sites lacking the leadership capacity within the staff.
The assistant superintendent in District C noted that the barriers the school site
administrator faced were the things that they were able to address. For example, the bell
schedule, the meeting locations, the meeting times, and the union pieces; those barriers can be
overcome when people are on board with your vision and mission. They believe that what
you’re saying is going to happen. The respondent stated, “Those are some barriers that I think if
you can overcome you can start to see change.” Marks and Printy (2003) stated once you inspire
your organization to focus on key concepts to address barriers then the changes will begin to
occur.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 95
A theme from the research that surfaced was the site administrator’s belief that they have
to be able to be vulnerable with their team to truly experience and promote collaboration.
Accepting failures and learning from them as a team allows for vicarious experience to exist.
The acceptance of failure helps build trust that may lead to motivation and the establishment of
building a culture that is sustainable. Principal A stated,
Culture is everything to me. As a young administrator, my principal had a sign in his
office that says, “Culture trumps strategy.” It took me that first year as an AP to realize
that, yes, if you don’t create a culture that’s strong, that’s in trust and collaboration and
moving forward and positivity, that all the strategies of all the PLCs, all the stuff, none of
it will work.
Building capacity is a key driver in ensuring lasting system change (Fullan et al., 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).
Bringing the different strengths that members can contribute to a group will bring the best of any
organization, any PLC; people need to collaborate. A site principal needs to be able to relay the
message that the more hands are involved the lighter the load will be for everyone. With this
philosophy, working in silos is not possible (Fullan et al., 2005). The benefits of collaboration
are generating better outcomes to support student achievement. Collaboration is one of the
major components in building collective efficacy (Ramos et al., 2014). 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. Motivation can be promoted by
showing members of the staff that successes exist within the team. Fullan stated that it is
important for others to see someone they can relate to experience success because it puts things
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 96
into perspective. It allows for others to feel that it is possible to achieve higher goals. Part of it
is building the collegiality, and that open culture is to break down barriers, and ask questions of
colleagues. Principal F thought it was key when a teacher genuinely asks for assistance from
their peers without having to worry about it being something that’s later on going to be judged,
or that somehow exposes a personal failure, or a personal weakness.
Allowing the staff to experience short-term wins in the beginning, and administration
celebrating small accomplishments promotes motivation. Revisiting the ideas of the importance
of collaboration with your staff and setting up every meeting to be collaborative with the
message from John Hattie’s (2016) work of collective teacher efficacy being the biggest support
for student outcome. The superintendent in District C believes site and district administrators
need to work very hard to create a climate of constant improvement and a family atmosphere.
We have established that in the four years I’ve been back as Superintendent, we’re not a
gotcha district. We’re not out to get anybody. If you screw up, you screw up. What’d
you learn from your screw up? Now if you were constantly repeating your screw up, then
we’ve got an issue. Everybody screws up. I screw up. I’m about building teams. I love
to think I model that. I think the high levels of trust and transparency definitely helps to
foster trust. They’re more willing to be on your team.
The importance of culture is evident in District C based on the nine participants’
responses on the survey and the repeated statements mentioned during the interviews. For
example, Principal A stated “culture eats any strategy for lunch.” In addition, the nine
participants rated a 71.6% that culture has been established in PLCs for teachers to take
instructional risk to support student learning. The qualitative data showed that every site
principal was focused on establishing, maintaining, or growing a positive collaborative culture.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 97
Celebrating small accomplishments on assessment scores allows the leadership teams in District
C to keep staff motivated. The use of data by all to make sure that celebrations were not simply
occurring without a purpose is one-way accountability is attained.
Accountability to Foster Collaboration
According to Leithwood et al. (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). Hence, it is essential for principals and
district leaders to provide teachers with leadership that will hold them accountable. Fullan et al.
(2005) stated it is important to have checks and balances within an organization to produce the
best possible outcomes. District C has added instructional leadership teams to help foster
collaboration and hold PLCs accountable. Principal C stated,
our instructional leadership team is definitely doing that [supporting accountability]. It’s
great to be able to have that time with them and that each department is represented . . .
so, we have a collective group of 12 of us, then they go back to their PLCs, and then they
can share that information. They get a chance to work with them [PLCs] individually on
things that need to get done.
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). Data allows for trends and
correlations to be easily identified which help administrators to have purposeful conversations
with PLC teams. Data not only allows internal discussion to happen, but it also allows for
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 98
validation of the work being done. The need for external validations support the direction of the
district because eventually students from District C will be compared to the rest of the nation’s
graduating students. District C has asked for secondary site administrators to set SMART goals.
SMART is an acronym that stands for Specific, Measurable, Action-oriented, Realistic, and
Timely goals for a team.
According to Fullan et al. (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). Making sure
schools in District C are keeping curriculum and assessments standard based is part of their
vision. Principal E found that a lot of assessments tend to go off on something that teachers are
teaching, but it might not be key standards. It might be something that they’re working on and
they want to know, or they feel like it’s a really hard task but it’s not a key standard or maybe not
even a California standard. Principal B responded to importance of accountability by stating,
An ideal professional learning community is when the teachers are truly committed to
talking about what’s best for kids. The use of pre- and post-tests, doing both formative
and summative assessments, but then evaluating your formative and summative
assessments with your colleagues to learn from one another to ensure that if you are
teaching something better than I am, finding out what you’re doing to be successful.
Having said that, the assessments need to be aligned to what you’re teaching, and you
should be teaching what’s aligned to the power standards.
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). It’s overcoming the culture of nice. Learning how to work through
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 99
disagreements. Working with teachers, so that they take their personal results very seriously, but
they don’t take everything too personally. Principal B reminds teachers, especially at a middle
school level, “We praise publicly. We correct privately.” Principal B works on being the
biggest cheerleader for his PLCs as well as chief to ensure accountability and motivation. This
practice allows collaboration to exist in PLCs while accountability is addressed as needed by the
principal.
Research Question 4
Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
Table 11 shows data from the surveys that contradicted data from the interviews. The
collection of data continues to show there is a lack of understanding of how to cultivate and
promote collective efficacy at the secondary schools, as evidenced from the data collected from
the survey showing that teachers as a group do not believe they can impact student outcomes.
The quantitative research completed showed that the site administrators surveyed agreed having
a stronger belief that teachers working together can support collective efficacy; however, it also
stated there is a struggle to get teachers to collaborate effectively during PLC time. The
superintendent stated, “There are pockets of excellence at all sites in District C where PLCs have
embraced collaboration and the collective efficacy within the group is evident by the actions of
teachers when data is reviewed.” Site administration reported on the survey that 72% of their
staff believed the collaboration in PLCs increases the sense of collective responsibility.
However, the districts’ perception that collaboration in PLCs results in improved student
outcomes was 77.8%. The survey reported site administration believed 61.1% of the
collaboration efforts in PLCs result in improved student outcomes. The superintendent’s
perception was 65.5% which was lower than the site and district average combined of 67.7%.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 100
Trust and Collaboration
Collaboration is the driving force to building collective efficacy (Bandura, 1993).
Without collaboration, education would be working with teachers operating in silos. Trust is one
of the biggest challenges that District C faces with building collective efficacy by increasing
collaboration. Site administrators stated in their interviews that building trust between
administration and teachers is a district-wide focus. Building teacher-on-teacher trust did not
surface as a concern, but data from the surveys indicated differently.
From the surveys provided by the researcher, the challenge of getting teachers at the
secondary level in District C to collaborate is the lack of belief that students need to be invited
and encourage to learn. The lack of belief in motivating students to learn becomes a barrier for
collaboration.
When asked to what extent do teachers collaborate in reviewing student work and data to
share and improve instructional practices, share common practices in the delivery of curriculum
and instruction, and teachers in PLCs share common practices in assessments and interventions,
as shown in Table 12, the average score on a Likert scale of 1 to 6 was 3.99. That is a 66%
belief that collaboration at the secondary level impacts teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs.
Within the pockets of successful PLCs in District C, Principal B shared an example of the
progress made by a teacher leader and its PLC.
So, a strong PLC, like for example the English PLC that I worked with over the course of
several years, they did their research on the best practices for implementing common
core. They pulled resources from across the United States to meet the standards that were
within California. They built their curriculum together. They worked lockstep together
across four grade level spans. As they really reached into what works for kids and what’s
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 101
best for kids, they looked down into the middle school to see what was happening there.
So, they knew if there were any gaps they needed to fill.
Teachers had to trust on their colleagues in order to complete the goal of rewriting their
curriculum to meet the requirements of the State and most importantly to meet the needs of all
their students. Principal A, B, C, and F think the PLC lead is the main part of what makes or
breaks a departments’ collective teacher efficacy. The selection of the teacher lead is valued in
District C and those teachers are recognized with a monetary stipend. Collaboration and
constant improvement is what the superintendent from District C really pushes hard with these
administrators. In addressing school and teacher accountability, Jerald (2007) identified varying
levels of responsibility schools assume for student learning, with the highest level involving
schools taking collective responsibility for the student outcomes. Performing at the highest level
requires collective teacher efficacy which is the shared belief that through collective action, a
staff can positively impact learning outcomes for all students, including students who are
disengaged and/or disadvantaged (Donohoo, 2017). To support trust and collaboration in the
successful PLCs, DuFour et al. (2010) suggested 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).
Impacting Collective Efficacy
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). 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). In addressing school and
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 102
teacher accountability, Jerald (2007) identified varying levels of responsibility schools assume
for student learning, with the highest level involving schools taking collective responsibility for
the student outcomes. Performing at the highest level requires collective teacher efficacy which
is the shared belief that through collective action, a staff can positively impact learning outcomes
for all students, including students who are disengaged and/or disadvantaged (Donohoo, 2017).
Table 13 shows the results on the survey of actions that potentially can lead to the representing
evidence of collective efficacy.
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). It is a joint effort that will give the greatest opportunity to
improve teaching and student learning. Principals can foster collective efficacy by providing
experiences that contribute to teacher’s beliefs, including mastery and vicarious experiences.
Collective efficacy will become a priority responsibility of a transformational leader. Ross and
Gray’s (2006) study also supported Printy and Marks (2006) related to transformational
leadership correlating to increasing a collective efficacy culture.
Summary
The researcher used a mixed-method approach to gather data on how collaboration can
support, cultivate collective efficacy, and to understand the perception of secondary and district
administrators in District C on collective efficacy. The qualitative data showed district
administrators have a higher belief that collective efficacy is attainable through promoting
collaboration in PLCs. The use of time in PLCs provides teachers the time needed to establish a
professional relationship with their peers. By establishing a positive relationship with peers,
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 103
teachers are able to gain trust among each other which may allow them to collaborate on how to
best support student academics. As Fullan (2002) and Bandura (1998) stated, vicarious
experiences are essential in the development of collective efficacy. However, the researcher’s
data from the surveys revealed that it is challenging administrators to monitor if teachers are
truly implementing what is shared during PLCs. Data from common assessments was identified
by all six-site administrators as one way to hold teachers accountable for using best practices.
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).
Site administrators in District C believed it is essential to develop trust to be able to increase
collaboration in PLCs. All six site administrators see building a culture of trust as one of their
primary responsibilities that will support developing collaboration. Principal B noted “it was
essential to have teacher leaders who are willing to challenge their peers to improve . . .
transformational leader, I work on building capacity to be part of the solution by distributing
meaningful duties to key members.”
The work done by teachers needs to be valued and respected by administrators and one
way that the superintendent has shown teachers that what they do matters was by providing the
needed time during the regular work day. Resources from District C are aligned to support their
site leaders to implement effective PLCs. Every secondary school site offers a 7-period day that
allows teachers to meet at least three hours per week to collaborate. The district also supports
professional development for site administrators and teachers. In addition to the planning time,
lead teachers receive stipends for completing specified PLC duties.
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 104
school improvement (Fullan, 2002). For administrators to accomplish sustainable change,
teachers need to be engaged in collaboration to stimulate the brain to a greater degree than
working alone (Chapman et al., 2005; Reason, 2010).
In Chapter Five, there will be a discussion of the research, further conclusions, and
implications of the research. Finally, recommendations for future research will be reported.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 105
Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications
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.
Site and district leaders are faced with the challenge of supporting all students to show
academic achievement. Today’s leaders are asked to do more than before in terms of being an
instructional leader, management organizer, and facilitator to establish a culture that promotes
collective efficacy among all teachers. High school principals today are tasked with an
enormous amount of responsibilities, one of the chief responsibilities being an instructional
leader who ensures all students receive high-quality instruction and achieve at a high level.
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. Lumpkin, Claxton, and Wilson (2014) found that teacher leaders who work with
their colleagues in sharing professional expertise and experiences can broaden and sustain school
improvement efforts.
According to research, 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.
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
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 106
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
Research Questions
The following research questions were used to guide 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
A mixed-method approach was conducted for this study. Quantitative data was collected
from a survey that was distributed to the nine participants from a public school district in
southern California. Qualitative data was retrieved from six secondary site leaders and three
district leaders in the means of interviews. The type of interviews used were semi-structured
interviews to allow the researcher to collect as much detailed data by adding probing questions to
the original questions. This allowed for the researcher to clarify questions that may not be clear.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 107
It also allowed the researcher to explain his or her view of the questions being asked. A semi-
structured approach was used during the interviews, which contained 22 questions on the
interview protocol. Qualitative research provides a descriptive view of someone’s point of view
of how they internalized and interpreted an experience (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016). All of the
data was interpreted and analyzed using the process of triangulation where various sources of
information were used to support the findings. Triangulating the data captured from the
interviews and observation helped to ensure credibility and trustworthiness of the findings that
were relevant to the research topic (Merriam & Tisdale, 2016).
Results and Findings
The findings in this study were based on the data that was collected and analyzed. This
section will interpret the combined results of the quantitative and qualitative data and relate the
findings back to the literature.
Research Question #1
What are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy?
The strongest theme that emerged from site and district leaders was the importance of
building a collective efficacy culture at the secondary level. Their perceptions about collective
efficacy was that it relates to trust, collaboration, and aligning resources. Site and district leaders
believed it is their responsibility to establish a trusting relationship with their teachers and to
align the district resources to support collaboration. Through the interviews, a challenge that
emerged was teachers trusting each other due to lack of confidence in their own abilities,
jealousy, competitiveness, or simply passive aggression towards change.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 108
Establishing a culture to support all students’ learning was seen as a challenge for PLCs.
Site and district leaders felt that culture was the key to sustaining the successes. The impact of
student achievement has increased when PLCs are implemented with fidelity (Voelkel and
Chrispeels, 2017). Without a culture of collective teacher efficacy in PLCs, no curriculum or
processes will work for all students.
Research Question #2
How do secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents’ perceptions about collective efficacy support/hinder the work of their
PLCs?
The perception about collective efficacy to support the work of PLCs was interpreted by
District C as providing the proper services for teachers to be able to work effectively during PLC
time. The process of aligning the proper services for PLCs is what Fullan (2001) described as a
leader understanding that they can lead change by managing resources properly. Facilitating,
guiding, and culture were the themes the researcher identified from the qualitative data as
services District C believed would support collective efficacy.
District C is very supportive of building collective efficacy through the use of PLCs. Part
of the role of a transformational leader is placing the right people in the right seats is very
important if you’re the principal and you’re in that leadership role (Marks & Printy, 2003).
PLCs allow a principal to frame and create the ideal conditions to cultivate and build a team with
collective efficacy.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 109
Research Question #3
How are secondary school principals, district directors, assistant superintendents, and
superintendents fostering or hindering collaboration in professional learning communities
(PLCs)
In the study, resource allocation was the theme that site and district leaders saw as their
best way to demonstrate their support towards building a collective efficacy within their PLCs.
The need for people to work together and be a team is what motivates members (Fullan, 2005)
and providing the necessary time for teachers to collaborate during their workday was identified
as the greatest resource available to teachers. The alignment of district resources to build
capacity is a key driver in ensuring lasting system change (Fullan et al., 2005).
District C continues to perfect their PLCs by minimizing the initiatives and focusing on
staying consistent with their vision and mission. According to Fullan et al. (2005), improvement
does not require for districts to introduce or start new innovations. District C asked all secondary
sites to create SMART goals to help teachers and faculty stay on track with their goals.
Research Question #4
Does collaboration at the secondary level impact teachers’ collective efficacy in PLCs?
The superintendent from District C stated “there are pockets of excellence at all sites in
District C where PLCs have embraced collaboration and the collective efficacy within the group
is evident by the actions that are taken when data is reviewed.” The process of getting teachers
to collaborate while incorporating data into the discussions was the challenge District C faced.
All nine participants agreed with Bandura (1993) and believed that collaboration is a prime
factor that impacts collective efficacy in PLCs; however, in District C there are many more PLCs
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 110
at each campus than administrators, which has been challenging for the district to monitor the
process in every PLC.
Implications of the Study
This study contributes to research regarding barriers that continue to create challenges for
districts to operate every PLC in a secondary school with efficiency. Findings from this study
aligned with the research; collaboration, trust, time, and culture are components that must be
carefully managed by secondary leadership administrators to increase the success of building
collective efficacy within PLCs.
Recommendations for Future Research
This study surveyed and interviewed nine administrators from District C; three
administrators from the district central office and six secondary site principals. Findings from
this study revealed additional areas that need to be further explored. The following are
recommendations for future research:
 The development of teacher leaders to guide PLCs
 Methods to properly introduce data in a non-threatening way into every PLC meeting
 Systematic approach to monitor PLCs with minimal staff and without adding unnecessary
initiatives
 School schedule that allows for teacher collaboration without interfering with
instructional time
 Professional development on school climate and culture procedures
Conclusion
This study demonstrated that administration is highly important in fostering collective
efficacy within a school staff. The pressure for a transformational leader to lead a school where
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 111
all students learn and are prepared for post-secondary careers and education has exponentially
grown. Principals are tasked with the duties to lead and manage all operations of a school with
minimal resources available. District C has supported administrators and teachers by adding an
additional period to secondary schedules. Although this is not a complete solution, it has
allowed for site administrators to collaborate and build a culture of trust with staff. Throughout
this study, all six site administrators who are responsible for over 6800 students denoted the
challenge of getting teachers to use data to assess their effectiveness. Trust and confidence rose
as the reasons why administrators in District C believed teachers have a difficult time with
analyzing student data results during PLCs.
By knowing the challenges ahead of time, administrators can lead discussions with staff
to set norms and guidelines on how to manage data analysis conversations. Administrators and
teacher leaders should be trained on how to maneuver difficult conversations with teachers that
are reluctant to change or explore new ways to support students. This study also presented that
fostering collective efficacy the administrator must be part of the learning process with teachers.
With many subjects to master at the secondary level, it is critically important to have secondary
administrators show their vulnerability and model how to build capacity. Educational leaders
today are tasked with ensuring high levels of learning for all students, which requires teachers to
collaborate and take collective responsibility for all student learning (DuFour et al., 2016).
Even though the barriers to build collective efficacy focus around teachers believing all
students can learn, administrators must work on creating the same belief that all tenure teachers
can learn to become facilitators and motivators for students.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 112
References
Adlai E. Stevenson High School. (n.d.). About Adlai E. Stevenson High School District 125.
Retrieved from hhtp://www.d125.org/about/default
AllThingsPLC. (n.d.). History of PLC. Retrieved from http://www.allthingsplc.info/about/
history-of-plc
Balyer, A., Karatas, H., & Alci, B. (2015). School principals’ roles in establishing collaborative
professional learning communities at schools. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 197, 1340-1347.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1989). Social cognitive theory. In E. Barnouw (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of communication (Vol 4., pp. 92-96). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1998). Personal and collective efficacy in human adaptation and change. Advances
in psychological science, 1, 51-71.
Barber, M., & Fullan, M. (2005). Tri-level development: Putting systems thinking into
action. Education Week, 24(25), 32-35.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 113
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.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press.
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 114
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., & Karana, G. (2004). Whatever it takes: How professional
learning communities respond when kids don't learn. Bloomington, IN: National
Educational Service.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 115
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 116
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 117
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.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. New York, NY:
Routledge.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 118
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 119
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.
Kruse, S., Seashore Louis, K., & Bryk, A. (1995). Building professional community in schools.
Retrieved from https://www.learner.org/workshops/principals/materials/pdf/kruse.pdf
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 120
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. (1994). Leadership for school restructuring. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 30(4), 498-518.
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 121
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
Lumpkin, A., Claxton, H., & Wilson, A. (2014). Key characteristics of teacher leaders in
schools. Administrative Issues Journal: Education, Practice, and Research, 4(2), 59-67.
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 122
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.
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.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 123
Nedelcu, A. (2013). Transformational approach to school leadership: Contribution to continued
improvement of education. Manager, 17(1), 237-244.
Neumerski, C. M. (2012). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about
principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership, and where should we go from here?
Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310-347.
Newman, F., & Wehlage, G. (1996). Restructuring for authentic student achievement. Authentic
achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality, 286-301.
Niche. (2018). 2017 Rankings recognize top public schools in every state. Retrieved from
https://about.niche.com/2017-rankings-recognize-top-public-schools-in-every-state/
No Child Left Behind. (2002). Public law 107-110: An Act to close the achievement gap with
accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf
Olson, L. (2000, November 1). Principals try new styles as instructional leaders. Education
Week, 20(9). Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2000/11/01/09lead
.h20.html
Onorato, M. (2013). Transformational leadership style in the educational sector: An empirical
study of corporate managers and educational leaders. Academy of Educational
Leadership Journal, 17(1), 33-47.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative designs and data collection. Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Poplin, M. (1994, November). The restructuring movement and voices from the inside:
Compatibilities and incompatibilities. Seminar conducted at the meeting of the
Association of California School Administrators, Palm Springs, CA.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 124
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.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Teachers' workplace: The social organization of schools. Boston, MA:
Addison-Wesley Longman Ltd.
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 125
Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now how we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching
and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New
York, NY: Currency Doubleday.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning communities.
Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63-77.
Shaked, H., & Schechter, C. (2017). Systems thinking for school leaders: Holistic leadership for
excellence in education. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2017.1398339
Spillane, J., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (2001). Investigating school leadership practice: A
distributed perspective (Research news and comment). Educational Researcher, 30(3),
23-28.
Stringer, P. (2009). Capacity building for school improvement. Educational Research for Policy
and Practice, 8(3), 153-179.
Takahashi, S. (2011). Co-constructing efficacy: A “communities of practice” perspective on
teachers’ efficacy beliefs. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(4), 732-741.
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning communities,
leadership, and student learning. Research in Middle Level Education Online, 28(1), 1-
15, 20, 35.
Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to
improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and
leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-536.
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 126
Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning
and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68(2), 202-248.
U. S. Congress. (n.d.). Equal Opportunity Act of 1974. Title 20–Education: Subchapter I–Equal
Educational Opportunities. Retrieved from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-
2010-title20/pdf/USCODE-2010-title20-chap39-subchapI-part2-sec1703.pdf
U. S. Department of Education. (1983). A Nation at Risk: The imperative for educational reform.
Retrieved from https://www.edreform.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/A_Nation_At_
Risk_1983.pdf
U. S. Department of Education. (1994). Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994. Retrieved
from https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/6/text
U. S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington DC: Office of Planning,
Evaluation and Policy Development.
Voelkel, R. H., Jr., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2017). Understanding the link between professional
learning communities and teacher collective efficacy. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 28(4), 505-526.
Wallace Foundation. (2013). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching
and learning. Author.
Waters, T., & Cameron, G. (2007). The balanced leadership framework: Connecting vision
with action. Denver, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Waters, T., & Marzano, R. (2006). School district leadership that works: The effect of
superintendent leadership on student achievement–a working paper. Denver, CO: Mid-
continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 127
Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview
studies. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Wenger, E. C., & Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational
frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139-146.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A
guide to managing knowledge. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Wilhelm, T. (2010). Fostering shared leadership. Leadership, 40(2), 22-38.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M. (2003), Educational leadership and student achievement:
The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(3), 398-
425.

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 128
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.

Table 2
Demographics of Interview Participants
At what
level do
you work?
What is your
current position?
How long have
you been in
administration,
including site and
district?
How long
have you
served in
your current
assignment?
How long has
your
district/site
been
implementing
PLCs?
Were you
ever a
member of a
PLC as a
teacher?
Do you currently
oversee and/or
support the
implementation
of PLC?
Which describes
the frequency of
formal staff
development for
PLCs?
What percent
of your staff has
been formally
trained in the
implementation
of PLCs?
High
School Principal A 10+ years 3-5 years 10+ years No Yes
regular and on-
going less than 25%
Middle
School Principal B 6-10 years 3-5 years 3-5 years No Yes

regular and on-
going 51 to 75%
Middle
School Principal C 6-10 years 6-10 years 6-10 years Yes Yes

regular and on-
going 51 to 75%
Middle
School Principal D 10+ years 6-10 years 10+ years No Yes

regular and on-
going 51 to 75%
High
School Principal E 6-10 years 1-2 years 10+ years Yes Yes

regular and on-
going 51 to 75%
High
School Principal F 3-5 years 1-2 years 10+ years Yes Yes

occasionally, as
needed less than 25%
District
Assistant
Superintendent 10+ years 3-5 years 6-10 years No Yes

regular and on-
going 25 to 50%
District Director 10+ years 1-2 years 10+ years No Yes

occasionally, as
needed 51 to 75%
District Superintendent 10+ years 3-5 years 10+ years No Yes

occasionally, as
needed 76 to 100%

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 129
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 130
Table 3
Collaboration Duties
Participants
n=9
To what extent
do teachers share best
practices and apply new
learning from their
collaboration in
PLCs to their own
individual classroom?
To what extent do
teachers work together
in their PLCs to seek
knowledge, skills, and
strategies that lead to
continued inquiry and
improved student
outcomes?
To what extent do
relationships and
work in the PLCs
reflect a
commitment to
school improvement
efforts?
To what extent do
teachers in PLCs
share common
practices in the
delivery of
curriculum and
instruction?
Principal A 4 3 5 5

Principal B 4 4 4 5

Principal C 4 4 5 5

Principal D 5 5 5 5

Principal E 4 4 4 5

Principal F 2 3 3 3

Assistant
Superintendent 4 4 5 4

Director 3 4 4 4

Superintendent 3 5 4 4

Total Average 3.66 4 4.33 4.44

Total Site
Administration 3.83 3.83 4.33 4.66

Total D.O
Administration 3.33 4.33 4.33 4
Likert Scale: 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Disagree; 4: Somewhat Agree; 5: Agree; 6: Strongly
Agree

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 131
Table 4
Belief in Student Outcome
Participants
n=9

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.
To what extent do PLCs
require rather than invite
students to receive additional
academic support until they are
successful?
Principal A

6 4

Principal B

Principal C

6 4

5 3

Principal D

6 3

Principal E

6 4

Principal F

5 3

Assistant
Superintendent

6 4

Director

Superintendent

6 3

6 3

Total Average

5.77 3.44
Total Site
Administration

5.66 3.5

Total D.O
Administration

6

3.33
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Disagree; 4: Somewhat Agree; 5: Agree; 6: Strongly
Agree

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 132
Table 5
Developing Culture
Participants
n=9
To what extent has a
culture of trust and
respect for taking
instructional risks
been developed in
the PLCs?
To what extent
has teacher
collaboration in
PLCs resulted in
improved student
outcomes?
To what
extent do
teachers
share and
celebrate
their success
within their
PLC?
To what extent
do PLCs require
rather than invite
students to
receive additional
academic support
until they are
successful?
To what extent
do teachers in
PLCs
collaborate in
reviewing
student work
and data to share
and improve
instructional
practices?
Principal A 4 4 4 4 5

Principal B 4 3 4 4 3

Principal C 4 4 5 3 3

Principal D 5 4 3 3 4

Principal E 5 5 5 4 5

Principal F 3 2 2 3 3

Asst.
Superintendent 5 5 4 4 4

Director 5 4 2 3 4

Superintendent 4 4 4 3 4
Total Average 4.333333 3.888889 3.666667 3.444444 3.888889

Total Site
Administration 4.166667 3.666667 3.833333 3.5 3.833333

Total D.O
Administration 4.666667 4.333333 3.333333 3.333333 4
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Disagree; 4: Somewhat Agree; 5: Agree; 6: Strongly
Agree

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 133
Table 6
Summary Results: Collaboration vs. Teacher Capacity
Participants
n=9
Teachers practicing
the best methods
identified by the
DuFour’s in
implementing PLCs
Administration believing
teachers have the capacity
to support all student learning
through collaboration

Column 1 Minus
Column 2
Principal A 60 90
(30)

Principal B 59 74

(15)

Principal C 68 77

(09)

Principal D 67 78

(11)

Principal E 71 82

(09)

Principal F 39 68

(29)

Assistant
Superintendent

66

83

(17)

Director 60 83

(23)

Superintendent 59 84

(25)

Total Average 61 79.88889

(18.8)

Total Site
Administration 60.66667 78.16667

(17.5)

Total D.O
Administration 61.66667 83.33333

(21.64)
Summative survey results from each participant\

Table 7
Evaluating the Perception about Collective Efficacy
Participants
n=9
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.
The success of
students is
impacted by the
teachers’ belief in
their own capacity
to teach them.
Teachers can
improve their
practice through
shared
experiences with
colleagues.
Teachers’ belief
in their own
competence to
improve student
achievement is
malleable and
can be shaped by
watching their
colleagues
experience
success with
similar student
populations.
An administrator
can foster a
group’s belief in
their ability to
reach high needs
students by
creating
opportunities for
meaningful
collaboration
and including
teachers in
schoolwide
decision making.
Successful
schools
leverage the
expertise of all
teachers to
achieve a
common goal.
Total Site
Administration 6 5.83 5.83 5.66 5.5 5.66 5.83

Total D.O
Administration 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Disagree; 4: Somewhat Agree; 5: Agree; 6: Strongly Agree

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 134
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 135
Table 8
Belief and Capacity of Teachers
Participants
n=9
Teachers in this school/district
believe it is their collective
responsibility to help every student
master grade-level curriculum.
The success of my school/district
in meeting academic and behavioral
goals for all students depends on the
capacity and collaboration of all teachers
in my school/district.
Principal A 6 6

Principal B 4 5

Principal C 6 5

Principal D 6 4

Principal E 5 6

Principal F 4 6

Assistant
Superintendent 5 5

Director 6 6

Superintendent 6 6

Total Average 5.33 5.44

Total Site
Administration 5.16 5.33

Total D.O
Administration 5.66 5.66
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Disagree; 4: Somewhat Agree; 5: Agree; 6: Strongly
Agree

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 136
Table 9
Capacity and Knowledge
Participants
n=9
There is enough capacity and
knowledge among the teachers
in my school/district to address
barriers to learning for all our
students.
Percentage (%) on a
1 to 6 liker scale
Principal A 6
100%

Principal B 4 66.6%

Principal C 4

66.6%

Principal D 4

66.6%

Principal E 6

100%

Principal F 3

50%

Assistant
Superintendent 6

100%

Director 6

100%

Superintendent 5

83.3%

Total Average 4.888889

81.3%

Total Site
Administration 4.5

75%
Total D.O Administration 5.666667

94.3%

Total Site-Total D.O. (1.166667)

(19.3%)
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Disagree; 4: Somewhat Agree; 5: Agree; 6: Strongly
Agree

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 137
Table 10
Teacher Confidence and Ability
Participants
n=9
Teachers in my
school/district are
confident they are able
to motivate and prepare
their students to achieve.
Teachers in my school/district
believe in their ability to reach
disadvantaged students has a
bigger impact on student
achievement than their home
environment, parental
involvement, or prior student
achievement.
For my teachers/staff,
student failure results
in increased teacher
effort/persistence.
Principal A 6 (100%) 6 (100%) 6 (100%)

Principal B 4 (66.6%) 2 (33.3%) 3 (50%)

Principal C 6 (100%) 5 (83.3%) 4 (66.6%)

Principal D 4 (66.6%) 4 (66.6%) 5 (83.3%)

Principal E 4 (66.6%) 4 (66.6%) 5 (83.3%)

Principal F 3 (50%) 3 (50%) 2(33.3%)

Assistant
Superintendent 4 (66.6%) 5 (83.3%) 5 (83.3%)

Director 6 (100%) 4 (66.6%) 4 (66.6%)

Superintendent 4 (66.6%) 5 (83.3%) 5 (83.3%)

Total Average 4.55 (75.8%) 4.2 (70.3%) 4.3 (71.6%)

Total Site
Administration 4.5 (75%) 4 (66.6%) 4.1 (68.7%)

Total D.O
Administration 4.6 (77.6%) 4.6 (77.6%) 4.6 (77.6%)
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Disagree; 4: Somewhat Agree; 5: Agree; 6: Strongly
Agree

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 138
Table 11
Student Belief and Teacher Growth
Participants
n=9
To what extent
do PLCs
require rather
than invite
students to
receive
additional
academic
support until
they are
successful?
Teacher
confidence in
their own
practice
improved as a
result of their
collaboration
in PLCs?
Collaboration
in PLCs
resulted in an
increased sense
of collective
responsibility
for the success
of every
student?
Teachers share
responsibility
for decision
making in their
PLC?
Teachers’
attitudes about
teaching and
learning
improved as a
result of their
collaboration
in PLCs?
Teacher
collaboration
in PLCs
resulted in
improved
student
outcomes?
Principal A 4 4 4 3 4 4

Principal B 4 3 4 4 4 3

Principal C 3 6 6 5 5 4

Principal D 3 4 5 5 4 4

Principal E 4 5 5 5 5 5

Principal F 3 3 2 2 2 2

Assistant
Superintendent 4 4 4 4 5 5

Director 3 5 5 4 4 4

Superintendent 3 3 5 5 4 4

Total Average

3.44
(57.3%)
4.11
(68.5%)
4.44
(74.4%)
4.11
(68.5%)
4.11
(68.5%)
3.88
(64.6%)

Total Site
Administration
3.5
(58.3)
4.16
(69.3%)
4.33
(72.1%)
4
(66.6%)
4
(66.6%)
3.66
(61%)

Total D.O
Administration
3.33
(55%)
4
(66.6%)
4.66
(77.6%)
4.33
(72.1%)
4.33
(72.1%)
4.33
(72.1%)
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree (16.6%); 2: Disagree (33.3%); 3: Somewhat Disagree (50%); 4: Somewhat Agree
(66.6%); 5: Agree (83.3%); 6: Strongly Agree (100%)

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 139
Table 12
Teachers in PLCs
Participants
n=9
To what extent do
teachers in PLCs
collaborate in
reviewing student
work and data to
share and improve
instructional
practices?
To what extent do
teachers in PLCs
share common
practices in the
delivery of
curriculum and
instruction?
To what extent
do teachers in
PLCs share
common
practices in
assessments
and
interventions?
To what extent do
PLCs require rather
than invite students
to receive additional
academic support
until they are
successful?
To what extent do
teachers work together
in their PLCs to seek
knowledge, skills, and
strategies that lead to
continued inquiry and
improved student
outcomes?
Total Average 3.88
(64.6%)
4.44
(74%)
4.22
(70.3%)
3.44
(57.3%)
4
(66.6%)

Total Site
Administration
3.83
(63.8%)
4.66
(77.6%)
4.16
(69.3%)
3.5
(58.3%)
3.83
(63.8%)

Total D.O
Administration
4
(66.6%)
4
(66.6%)
34.33
(72.1%)
3.33
(55.5%)
4.33
(72.1%)
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree (16.6%); 2: Disagree (33.3%); 3: Somewhat Disagree (50%); 4: Somewhat Agree
(66.6%); 5: Agree (83.3%); 6: Strongly Agree (100%)

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 140
Table 13
Vicarious Experience
Participants
n=9
To what extent do
teachers share and
celebrate their success
within their PLC?
To what extent has a culture
of trust and respect for taking
instructional risks been
developed in the PLCs?
To what extent do teachers
value collaboration in their
PLCs?
Principal A 4 4 4

Principal B 4 4 5

Principal C 5 4 5

Principal D 3 5 5

Principal E 5 5 5

Principal F 2 3 2

Assistant
Superintendent 4 5 5

Director 2 5 5

Superintendent 4 4 3

Total Average 3.66 4.33 4.33

Total Site
Administration 3.83 4.16 4.33

Total D.O.
Administration 3.33 4.66 4.33
Likert Scale 1: Strongly Disagree; 2: Disagree; 3: Somewhat Disagree; 4: Somewhat Agree; 5: Agree; 6: Strongly
Agree

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 141
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 at (31073891110 or via email at
sc.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,
Gilberto Rodríguez
Gilberto Rodríguez
Ed.D Candidate USC

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 142

Appendix B: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Interview Protocol
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 143

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 144

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 145

Appendix C: Collective Efficacy and Collaboration Survey
PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 146

PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES 147

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The study examined the perceptions of school leaders in developing collective efficacy and the ways in which they enact leadership to advance or impede the professional learning communities’ ability to produce the intended results. A mixed-method case study at a public unified school district in southern California was conducted, which included principals at all secondary schools completing an online survey and interview. The purpose of the study was to understand the role of leadership in developing collective efficacy in professional learning communities. The need for colleagues to work together and to be a team is what motivates members, along with providing the necessary time to collaborate during their work day (Fullan, 2005). All nine participants agreed with Bandura (1993) and believed that collaboration is a prime factor that impacts collective efficacy in PLCs. The research findings revealed that collective efficacy was predicated on building trust, aligning resources, collaboration, and enhancing confidence through professional development. In addition, a hindering was teachers have a difficult time analyzing and sharing student data with members of their professional learning communities. This study begins to identify how administrative leadership is a highly important factor in fostering collective efficacy within a school staff.

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

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

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

PDF

Elementary principals attitudes, perceptions, and their ability to support students with autism and emotional behavioral disturbances in inclusive settings

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

The influence spouses have on superintendents in Los Angeles County school districts

PDF

Masters in Governance training and its impact on California school boards’ effectiveness

PDF

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

PDF

The role of leadership in creating guided pathways for career technical education

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Principal implementation of Education Code 215: pupil and student suicide prevention policies in southern California public middle schools

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

Best practices to improve mathematics achievement of middle school Latina/o students

Asset Metadata

Creator Rodriguez, Gilberto Sr. (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/30/2019

Defense Date 02/28/2019

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

Tag Administration,collective efficacy,efficacy,leadership,OAI-PMH Harvest,Secondary

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 gilb716@usc.edu,gilos1124@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-160951

Unique identifier UC11660848

Identifier etd-RodriguezG-7358.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-160951 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-RodriguezG-7358.pdf

Dmrecord 160951

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Rodriguez, Gilberto Sr.

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