EDUCATOR PERCEPTIONS OF THE IMPACT OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING

COMMUNITIES ON PROFESSIONAL GROWTH AND STUDENT LEARNING

A Dissertation

Presented to the Faculty of

School of Education, Hospitality, and Continuing Studies

Widener University

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education

by

Pamela M. Kastner

Education Division

October 2015
 ProQuest Number: 3739266

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.

ProQuest 3739266

Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.

All rights reserved.

This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.

ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106 - 1346
 Copyright by

Pamela M. Kastner

2015
 Dedication

My dissertation and doctoral work is dedicated to my husband and best friend,

Shaun Kastner. Without the foundation of his love, support, and encouragement, I would

have never begun this journey nor be nearing its completion. His steadfast belief in me

and his willingness to be married to a perpetual learner committed to the meaningful

work offered an educator are the roots that have anchored and sustained me. When I did

not believe in me, he did, so I persevered, and look honey- we did it!

To my mother, Rita, whose love of learning, curiosity, and love for me have lifted

me up too many times to count. To my father, Jim, no longer here, but still so present in

all I do. You taught me the value of a strong work ethic and how anything can be

accomplished when done in the name of love for others.

To my children, Justin and Jessica, and to their loving spouses, Amber and Casey.

This work required a dedicated commitment and many sacrifices, and, too often, those

sacrifices have been the time I love to spend with all of you. I have missed you and all

those special times dearly. Thank you for your kindness, grace, and belief that a life

committed to learning with and from others is one worth pursuing.

Finally, to my three incredible grandchildren, Lola, Layla, and Leo. You are the

light of my life, the “icing” on the cake of life. You bring me immeasurable joy. I pray

that for all those times Nana wanted to be with you but was instead working toward this

lifelong goal that you will see a Nana who wanted to show you that learning, whether you

are a small child or a Nana, is worth the effort when it is done with no greater goal than

to better serve others.

iv
 Acknowledgements

Words seem inadequate to express my gratitude toward the community of

educators, family, and friends who have made my pursuit of a doctoral degree possible.

First, to my doctoral committee, Dr. Brenda Gilio, Dr. Chris Lay, and Dr. Beverly

Funkhouser I express my sincere gratitude for your insights, questions, and direction in

guiding my doctoral work. In particular, I would like to thank my dissertation chair, Dr.

Brenda Gilio for her timely and insightful feedback that supported me in clearly defining

and reporting my research. Dr. Gilio stepped in after the passing of Dr. Antonia

D’Onofrio, my first chair, an esteemed Widener professor whose legacy lives on in me

and the many students she profoundly impacted. I would also like to thank Dr. Beverly

Funkhouser for the guidance and direction she provided for my research study. Dr. Chris

Lay, a Widener graduate is, has been, and will always be a role model for me. She is an

esteemed educator whose generosity knows no bounds.

Dr. Elaine Bergstresser, a Widener graduate, provided immeasurable

contributions to my thinking and processing through the writing of this dissertation. Her

questions, insights, and encouragement that I could do this were a profoundly guiding

force. I will be forever grateful to her.

My colleague, at PaTTAN, Deb Fulton, was a sounding board, a friend, and when

needed, a cheerleader, who encouraged me on when the process proved challenging.

Finally, I am grateful to my cohort team members from the Pocono Mountain

School District (PMSD). We bonded through course work and comprehensive exams

and, as the only non-PMSD cohort team member, they welcomed me with open arms.

v
 Abstract

A preponderance of literature strongly suggests that teacher quality is the most

significant school-based factor influencing student achievement (Hanushek, 2010; Kane,

Taylor, Tyler, & Wooten, 2011; Mc Caffrey, Lockwoood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2003;

Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002; Wright, Horn, &

Sanders, 1997). These findings have wide-ranging implications for educators’

professional development toward effective practice. Research supports the benefits

professional learning communities offer toward substantive educator growth and

increases in student achievement (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008; Hord, Roussin, &

Sommers, 2008; Lomos, Hoffman, & Bosker, 2011; Supovitz, 2002; Vesico, Ross, &

Adams, 2008).

The purpose of this study was to explore educators’ perceptions of professional

learning communities along a continuum of the operationally defined dimensions of a

professional learning community. In addition, educators’ perceptions of the overall

quality of professional learning resulting from professional learning community

participation were explored.

Two research questions guided this study: (a) How do educators perceive

professional learning communities as defined by the five universal dimensions; and (b)

What are educators’ perceptions of the overall quality of professional learning

experienced through participation in a professional learning community?

vi
 The study site was comprised of five schools within one school district located in

the northeastern United States. The study site was purposefully selected to meet selection

criteria aligned to the research.

The study employed a mixed methods design. Concurrent quantitative and

qualitative data collection using two research-validated surveys was followed by semi-

structured interviews of a stratified random sample of participating educators.

Descriptive statistics results from both surveys were analyzed to determine the strength of

the dimensions of the professional learning communities under study and the alignment

of the professional learning communities to established professional learning standards.

Semi-structured interview data were transcribed word for word, followed by member

checking. All interviews were coded to capture emerging themes and develop an

organizational framework through a constant-comparative analysis.

This study sought to add to the literature in the field surrounding professional

learning communities and to support educators’ clear understanding of the structures and

processes that strengthen the fidelity and integrity of professional learning community

implementation.

vii
 Table of Contents

Page

Abstract .............................................................................................................................. vi

List of Tables ................................................................................................................... xiv

List of Appendices ............................................................................................................ xv

Chapter One ........................................................................................................................ 1

Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 5

Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 8

Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 8

Significance of the Study ................................................................................................ 8

Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 10

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 12

Chapter Two ..................................................................................................................... 14

Historical Background of School Reform..................................................................... 15

School Reform .............................................................................................................. 17

The restructuring movement. .................................................................................... 17

Goals 2000. ............................................................................................................... 18

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. ................................................................... 20

Equity reform. ........................................................................................................... 20

viii
 Market-driven reform................................................................................................ 21

The Standards-Based Movement .................................................................................. 22

Common Core State Standards. ................................................................................ 25

The Role of Professional Development in School Reform ........................................... 28

The Impact of Professional Development on Teacher Quality..................................... 32

The Emergence and Evolution of Professional Learning Communities ....................... 36

Theoretical connections to professional learning communities. ............................... 36

The evolution of professional learning communities................................................ 40

Defining PLCs. ......................................................................................................... 45

The Five Universal Dimensions of PLCs: A Conceptual Framework .......................... 46

Shared and supportive leadership. ............................................................................ 47

Shared values and vision........................................................................................... 49

Collective learning and application of learning. ....................................................... 49

Supportive conditions. .............................................................................................. 52

Shared personal practice. .......................................................................................... 53

The Relationship between PLCs, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement ............. 54

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 56

Chapter Three ................................................................................................................... 58

Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 58

ix
Research Design............................................................................................................ 59

Concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection............................................ 61

Quantitative data collection. ..................................................................................... 61

Qualitative data. ........................................................................................................ 61

Case Selection ............................................................................................................... 62

Rationale for selection of criteria. ............................................................................. 62

Research Setting and Participants ................................................................................. 63

Instrumentation ............................................................................................................. 65

The Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised .................................. 66

The Standards Assessment Inventory-2 (SAI2). ....................................................... 69

Semi-structured interviews. ...................................................................................... 74

Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 75

PLCA-R data collection. ........................................................................................... 75

SAI2 data collection. ................................................................................................. 76

Interview data collection. .......................................................................................... 77

Sampling procedure. ................................................................................................. 77

Interview procedures. ................................................................................................ 78

Data Analysis Procedures ............................................................................................. 79

Quantitative Data Analyses....................................................................................... 79

x
 Qualitative data analysis. .......................................................................................... 80

Delimitations ................................................................................................................. 82

Limitations of the Study................................................................................................ 82

Self-Reporting. .......................................................................................................... 83

Representativeness. ................................................................................................... 83

Credibility. ................................................................................................................ 83

Assumptions.................................................................................................................. 84

Summary ....................................................................................................................... 85

Chapter Four ..................................................................................................................... 86

Setting ........................................................................................................................... 86

Participants .................................................................................................................... 88

Data Collection and Analysis........................................................................................ 89

Qualitative Data. ....................................................................................................... 89

Results for Research Question One .............................................................................. 90

Results for Each of the Dimensions of a PLC .............................................................. 93

Shared and supportive leadership ............................................................................. 93

Shared values and vision........................................................................................... 99

Collective learning and application ........................................................................ 105

Shared personal practice. ........................................................................................ 107

xi
 Supportive Conditions: Relationships and Structures............................................. 113

Summary: Research Question One ......................................................................... 125

Results for Each of the Seven Standards for Professional Learning .......................... 129

Learning Communities............................................................................................ 129

Leadership. .............................................................................................................. 130

Resources. ............................................................................................................... 133

Data ......................................................................................................................... 134

Learning Designs. ................................................................................................... 138

Implementation. ...................................................................................................... 139

Outcomes. ............................................................................................................... 141

Qualitative Data from Interview Responses ............................................................... 143

Summary for Research Question Two. ................................................................... 147

Summary ..................................................................................................................... 148

Discussion of Results .................................................................................................. 151

Research Question 1: How do educators perceive professional learning communities

as defined by the five universal dimensions? ......................................................... 151

Research Question 2: What are educators’ perceptions of the overall quality of

professional learning experienced through participation in a professional learning

community?............................................................................................................. 163

xii
 Significance of the Study ............................................................................................ 170

Limitations of the Study.............................................................................................. 172

Recommendations for Future Research ...................................................................... 174

References ....................................................................................................................... 178

Appendices...................................................................................................................... 209

xiii
 List of Tables

Table 1 Study Site Student Demographics ...................................................................... 64

Table 2 Professional Learning Community Assessment Revised (PLCA-R) Dimension

Statements............................................................................................................ 67

Table 3 Characteristics of the PLCA-R ........................................................................... 92

Table 4 PLCA-R Dimensions .......................................................................................... 92

Table 5 PLCA-R Shared and Supportive Leadership ...................................................... 95

Table 6 PLCA-R Shared Values and Vision...................................................................101

Table 7 PLCA-R Collective Learning and Application ..................................................108

Table 8 PLCA-R Shared Personal Practice ....................................................................110

Table 9 PLCA-R Supportive Conditions – Relationships ..............................................116

Table 10 PLCA-R Supportive Conditions – Structures ..................................................122

Table 11 Characteristics of the SAI2 ..............................................................................128

Table 12 Descriptive Statistics for SAI2 ........................................................................128

Table 13 Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Learning Communities ...........................131

Table 14 Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Leadership ..............................................133

Table 15 Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Resources ................................................135

Table 16 Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Data.........................................................137

Table 17 Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Learning Design .....................................140

Table 18 Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Implementation .......................................142

Table 19 Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Outcomes ................................................144

xiv
 List of Appendices

Appendix A. Institutional Review Board Approval: Widener University......................209

Appendix B. Permission to conduct study from school superintendent ..........................211

Appendix C. Participant Recruitment Letter ...................................................................212

Appendix D. Informed Consent Form- Participant..........................................................213

Appendix E. Permission to Use PLCA-R .......................................................................216

Appendix F. Paper Copy of PLCA-R Online Survey ......................................................217

Appendix G. E-Mail Introduction Information to PLCA-R Survey ................................221

Appendix H. Instructions for Participant for Member Checking ..................................223

Appendix I. Paper Copy of SAI2 Online Survey.............................................................224

xv
 1

Chapter One

Across the nation, teachers are increasingly becoming the focal point for school

improvement efforts aimed at raising student achievement. The preponderance of

research strongly suggests that teacher quality is the most significant school-based factor

influencing student learning (McCaffrey, Lockwood, Koretz, & Hamilton, 2003; Rivkin,

Hanushek, & Kain, 2005; Rowan, Correnti, & Miller, 2002; Wright, Horn, & Sanders,

1997). These findings have important consequences for the broader domain of teacher

professional development (Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley, 2007). According to

Borko (2004), teacher professional development is essential to overall improvements in

our schools and the advancement of teachers’ knowledge and skills toward improving

student achievement. Despite significant financial investments by school districts, Borko

(2004) further acknowledges that present practices in teacher professional development

are “woefully inadequate” and tend to be “fragmented, intellectually superficial, and do

not take into account what we know about how teachers learn” (p.3).

Advancements in teacher professional development are beginning to take into

account theories about how people learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000) and, in

particular, how people learn in communities (Chappuis, Chappuis, & Stiggins, 2009;

Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Oakes, Franke, Quartz, & Rogers, 2002). Professional

development can be a key lever for advancing educators’ knowledge and skills toward

more effective pedagogical practices and improved student learning, particularly when

collaborative structures are a prominent feature (Ball & Cohen, 1999; Cohen &Hill,

2000; Darling-Hammond & Mc Laughlin, 1995; Elmore, 1997, 2002; Killon, 2006;
 2

Little, 1993; Morrissey, 2000; National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future,

1996, 2010).

Recognizing this potential, school districts invest heavily in professional

development by allocating percentages of total budget ranging from 1.7 % to 7.6%

(Hertert, 1997; Miles, Odden, Fermanich, & Archibald, 2004). More than 90% of

educators report having participated in some form of professional development each year

(Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos, 2009). However, the vast

majority of educators recount that these professional development experiences reflect a

conventional model of disconnected one-day workshops. In fact, research suggests that

this type of professional development has minimal impact on improving teacher practice

and student learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009). Harvard University’s Dr. Heather

Hill describes the current professional development system for teachers as “by all

accounts, broken” (2009, p. 470).

The crux of the problem in developing effective educators appears to lie in the

gap between transferring what educators learn through professional development and

what they actually do because of it. This gap, often referred to as the knowing-doing gap,

advances the idea that knowing “what” to do is an essential first step in improving one’s

practice, but, in isolation, it is unlikely to impact practice (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). The

available research suggests that educators must also know “how” to engage in effective

practice in order to improve. Fragmented, intermittent professional development is

unlikely to get them there (Demonte, 2013).

 3

French (1997) argues that educators may need as many as 50 hours of instruction,

practice, and coaching before a new instructional strategy is mastered and consistently

implemented into practice. Building on this research, Joyce and Showers (2002) report

that, on average, it takes 20 separate opportunities of practice with ongoing corrective

feedback or coaching to master a new skill. These numbers likely increase with the

complexity of skill.

Traditional professional development does little to meet the standard for

professional learning that results in substantive improvement in educator practice and

student achievement (Harris & Sass, 2011). The type of professional development that

can make a difference in classroom practice and student learning has specific attributes.

These attributes include job-embedded, sustained, and collaborative opportunities to learn

(Demonte, 2013). This means that an alignment exists between professional development

and the typical problems of practice educators face on a daily basis. Support for educators

includes structures that ensure ongoing coaching and feedback as new practices are

implemented.

One hallmark of job-embedded professional development is that it takes place

during the workday in collaboration with peers. Moreover, the goal of collaboration is an

unrelenting focus, both individually and collectively, toward improving student learning

(Archibald, Cogsahll, Crofts, & Goe, 2011). Collaborative structures of professional

development encourage educators to learn from one another (Desimone, 2009). Guskey

and Yoon (2009) find that “educators at all levels need just-in-time, job-embedded
 4

assistance as they struggle to adapt new curricula and new instructional practices to their

unique classroom contexts” (p. 498).

Senge’s (1990, 2006) work on learning organizations has strongly influenced the

idea for collaborative structures of professional development in educational settings.

Although focused on the business world, his description of a learning organization as one

in which “people continually expand their capacity to create desired results, where new

and expansive patterns of thinking are nurtured, [and] where collective aspiration is set

free” resonated strongly with educators (p. 3). Adopting the philosophical tenets of

Senge’s learning organizations to educational settings, the term professional learning

communities (PLCs) emerged in field. Educators contextually operationalized the term to

signify “a school’s professional staff who continuously seek to find answers to inquiry

and then act on their learning to improve student learning” (Hipp & Huffman, 2010, p.

11).

Because of their potential to advance organizational objectives, PLCs were

quickly adopted as a means for school improvement in an increasing number of schools

beginning in the early 1990’s (Darling-Hammond, 1997; Hargreaves, 2007; McLaughlin

& Talbert, 2010; Rosenholtz, 1989). Subsequently, Shirley Hord, an early pioneer in the

field and a well-known researcher on school improvement, embarked on an extensive

literature review and field-based research to clarify the attributes that define a PLC (Hipp

& Huffman, 2010). The result of her work is a holistic theoretical framework—widely

accepted in the field—of five interdependent dimensions necessary to develop, nurture,

and sustain a community of learners (Hord, 1997). These five dimensions include: (a)
 5

shared and supportive leadership; (b) shared values and vision; (c) collective learning and

application; (d) shared personal practice; and (e) supportive conditions, structures, and

relationships (Hord, 1997). In offering this framework, Hord strives to lessen

misunderstandings around PLCs and support their substantive and effective

implementation. When implemented with fidelity and integrity, a strong evidence base

exists to suggest that PLCs can lead to deep and lasting improvements in educators’

practices and a reculturing of school norms focused on improving learning for all

students (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008).

In response to the call for more effective professional development for educators,

school districts across the nation are increasingly looking to professional learning

communities as one relevant answer, “offered as an infrastructure to address these issues”

(Morrissey, 2000, p.3). Gulamhussein (2013) further notes, “We often ask questions

about how students learn, but not often about how teachers learn” (p.1). This study did

explore how teachers learn. It did so by examining educator perceptions as to the overall

quality of the professional learning they experienced in their respective PLCs. In

addition, by examining the perceived impact of this participation on educator

effectiveness and student learning, this study sought to add to an area of research

identified as a need in the field.

Statement of the Problem

Educators today face growing accountability for preparing all students for college

and career so that they may be successful in an increasingly complex and competitive

global economy. Workforce demands are changing, and it has become more and more
 6

evident that, in order to participate in a global economy, students will need at least some

postsecondary education or training (Sambolt & Blumenthal, 2013). A report by

Carnevale, Smith and Strohl (2010) emphasizes this reality, projecting that by 2018, 63%

of all jobs in the United States and 90% of new jobs in emerging fields will require some

postsecondary training. Preparing students for post-secondary success—both in their

work and as citizens—has been a long-standing core mission of public education.

Accumulating research asserts that “our education and training systems have failed too

many of our students and businesses” (United States Department of Education, 2012,

p.1).

As a result, there has been increasing pressure at the local, state, and national

level to identify what school-based factors have the most influence over student

achievement. A growing body of research supports the claim that teacher quality matters

more to student achievement than any other school-related factor (Kane, Taylor, Tyler, &

Wooten, 2011; Nye, Konstantopoulo, & Hedges, 2004). Furthermore, numerous

researchers have found that teacher quality has long-lasting and cumulative effects on

student learning (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2004; Mc Caffrey, Lockwood, Korerz, &

Hamilton, 2003; Mendro, Jordan, Gomez, Anderson, & Bembry, 1998; Sanders & Rivers,

1996). This research has resulted in increased attention from researchers and educators

alike toward identifying and engaging in the most effective structures that advance

teacher quality. In particular, the focus is on professional development structures and

processes that offer evidence for increasing teacher quality by substantively increasing

teachers’ professional knowledge and skills. (Hord, 1997, 2004; Hord & Sommers, 2008;
 7

Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Newmann & Wehlage, 1997; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sackney,

Mitchell, & Walker, 2005; Stoll, McMahon, & Thomas, 2006).

One such structure that has the potential to increase teacher quality and improve

student learning is a PLC (Hord, Roussin, & Sommers, 2008; Lomos, et al., 2011;

Schmoker, 2006; Sparks & Hirsh, 2000; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). The promise of

PLCs has led many educators to adopt them as means for professional development in

numerous educational settings (Talbert, 2010). Hargreaves (2008) speaks to the growth of

PLCs when he states:

Professional learning communities are now ubiquitous. Few educational leaders

and decreasing numbers of teachers remain unaware of what professional learning

communities are meant to be—communities of professionals caring for and

working to improve student learning together, by engaging in continuous

collective learning of their own (p. ix).

However, in many instances, and despite Hord’s framework to guide them,

numerous schools are claiming to operate as professional learning communicates but

“have shown little evidence of their understanding of the dimensions and implementing

practices of professional learning communities” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 9).

DuFour (2004) bemoans the pervasive use of the term PLC by educators “to describe

every imaginable combination of individuals with an interest in education” (p.6).

This study addressed this problem of practice by supporting educators’ clear

understanding of the structures and processes of a PLC through assessment of progress

along a continuum of operational criteria aligned to Hord’s (1997) five dimensions. By

 8

analyzing specific school and classroom practices during PLC implementation, this study

sought to “to guide…school communities from concept to capability—a capability that is

self-sustaining and that will institutionalize reform” (Huffman & Hipp, 2003, p. 49).

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to explore educators’ perceptions of the

effects of professional learning communities as defined by five universal dimensions. The

researcher assessed progress along a continuum of the operationally defined criteria of a

PLC by analyzing specific school and classroom practices. In addition, educator

perceptions of the overall quality of the professional learning they have experienced as a

member of a PLC were explored, along with the perceived impact PLCs may offer

toward improving educator effectiveness and student learning.

Research Questions

This case study addressed two questions related to educator perspectives of

professional learning communities:

1. How do educators perceive professional learning communities as defined by

the five universal dimensions?

2. What are educators’ perceptions of the overall quality of professional learning

experienced through participation in a professional learning community?

Significance of the Study

The significance of this study relates to the role teacher quality has on improving

student achievement when linked to the impact of professional development through

PLCs. The educational community broadly accepts the claim that PLCs are the most
 9

promising form of teacher professional development, (Hord, 1997, 2004; Hord &

Sommers, 2008; Lomos et al., 2011; Louis et al. 1996; Mc Laughlin & Talbert, 2006;

Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Olivier & Hipp, 2006; Rosenholtz, 1989; Sackney,

Mitchell, & Walker, 2005; Schmoker, 2006, Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). However,

there is a lack of research regarding how teachers learn by engaging in professional

learning communities, despite the significant body of evidence defining the dimensions

of professional learning communities (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hord, 1997; Huffman and

Hipp, 2003; Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995).

Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace and Thomas (2006) acknowledge the need for

further research by asserting, “Understanding effective PLCs in schools and research into

their existence, operation, and effectiveness are at a relatively early stage of

development” (p.222). DuFour, Eaker and DuFour (2005) concur, stating, “Many schools

and districts proudly proclaiming they are professional learning communities have shown

little evidence of either understanding the core concepts or implementing the practices of

PLCs” (p. 9). Similarly, Hord (2004) concedes, “Much more research is necessary to

illuminate the experience of PLCs in a greater variety of schools, and to raise the

cumulative worth of qualitative studies through the infusion of abundant data” (p.4).

Karen Seashore -Louis (2011), a prominent researcher of professional learning

communities, asserts that the concept of professional learning communities has reached a

point of “cacophony and refocusing”; she calls for researchers to develop a consensus

around PLCs by refocusing efforts aimed toward defining and measuring the concept of

PLCs (as cited in Lomos, 2012, p.132).

 10

Thus, it appears that researchers have indicated a need for further study of the

status of the dimensions and practices of professional learning communities. The

perceptions of educators in this research study provided the context for illuminating

where the dimensions of a professional learning community are evident and where they

are not. The resulting quantitative and qualitative data collected during the study can add

to the field by contributing “a clear vision of what a learning community looks like and

how people operate in such an organization” (Hipp & Huffman, 2010, p. 29).

Definition of Terms

The following terms are operationally defined to provide clarity for the reader and

reduce any ambiguity of the concepts addressed in this study.

Building Capacity – Providing educators with training, professional learning

opportunities, and resources to engage in the complex work of teaching in an

environment of supportive accountability (Fullan, 2007).

Collaboration – Promoting change in teaching culture that moves from isolated

practice to open practices of sharing, reflecting, observing one another’s practice with

feedback, and taking individual and collective risks necessary for change in practice with

the goal of improving student learning (Vescio, Ross & Adams, 2008).

College and Career Preparedness – Graduating with the literacy and math

knowledge and skills needed to qualify for and succeed in postsecondary job training

and/or education (i.e., community college, university, technical/vocational program,

apprenticeship, or significant on-the-job training) necessary for a chosen career,

(Achieve, 2013).
 11

Educational Reform – Deliberate efforts to alter schools in order to correct

perceived social and educational problems (Tyack & Cuban, 2003).

Educator – This term refers to teachers, educational specialists, and principals

(Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2012).

Formative Assessment – Assessment carried out during the instructional process

for the purpose of improving teaching and learning (Shepard, 2008).

Learning Organization – Organizations in which people continually expand their

capacity to create the results they truly desire. For educators engaged in professional

learning communities, the desired result is student learning (Senge, 1990).

Mission – A public declaration a school uses to define its purpose and major

organizational commitments. Mission defines what a school does and why it does it. The

mission for school systems of today is “to prepare all students to meet high standards of

education and to provide them with a lifelong education that equips them to be lifelong

learners” (Fullan, 2007, p. 1).

Organizational Capacity – A school organization’s ability to learn collectively; a

school in which students, educators, and community members learn and support one

another toward a common goal—i.e. student learning (Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas,

Smith, Dutton, Kleiner, 2000).

Professional Development/Professional Learning – A comprehensive, sustained,

and intensive approach of improving educator effectiveness for the purpose of raising

student achievement (Learning Forward, 2008).

 12

Professional Learning Community (PLC) – A community with the capacity to

promote and sustain the learning of all professionals in the school community with the

collective purpose of enhancing student learning. A PLC rests on the premise of

improving student learning by improving educator practice (Stoll et al., 2006; Vescio,

Ross & Adams, 2008).

Student Learning – Increases in student knowledge and skill as a result of

interaction with content and designed learning experiences with educators, peers, and

community members. “High-quality intellectual work for students that includes

intellectually challenging learning tasks and clear goals for high-quality learning” (Hord,

2004, p. 13).

Teacher Quality – Overall teacher quality is defined in terms of the outcome of

quality teaching which is student learning. Teacher quality is impacted by the practices

teachers engage in both in the classroom and outside the classroom, as they must

continuously learn to improve their practice. Darling-Hammond (2012) defined teacher

quality as “instruction that enables a wide range of students to learn” (p. 1).

Vision – A public declaration a school uses to describe its high-level goals for the

future. Vision defines what a school hopes to achieve if it successfully fulfills its purpose

or mission. Vision answers the question, “What do we hope to become?” (DuFour,

DuFour, & Eaker, 2008).

Summary

As educators face ever-increasing challenges and accountability toward preparing

all students for college and career, they look to research indicating that teacher quality is
 13

the most important in-school determinant for meeting this goal. Teacher quality and

resulting student success are dependent upon improving the continuous professional

learning of teachers (Hirsh, 2009a). Professional learning communities are touted as the

“best hope” for teachers' professional learning and growth (Huffman & Hipp, 2003.

p.xv). This study sought to assess educators’ perceptions of their professional learning

and growth as they implement a PLC, as defined by Hord’s five dimensions.

Chapter One provided context for the study through a presentation of background

information and a discussion of emerging issues related to professional learning

communities. A description of the use of professional learning communities to increase

teacher knowledge—and improve student learning—was described, followed by a

statement of the problem and the related questions that this research will address. The

chapter concluded with a glossary of operationally defined terms that guided this

investigation. Chapter Two offers a literature review of the relevant research aligned to

the study presented.

 14

Chapter Two

This study explored professional learning communities as a form of professional

development to increase educators’ knowledge and skills as they progress through a

continuum of operational criteria aligned to Hord’s (1997) five universal dimensions of a

professional learning community. Before exploring educator perceptions of the impact of

professional learning communities on professional learning, it is helpful to investigate

relevant literature and gain a deeper understanding of the existing research that supports

this study.

The literature review presented in this chapter takes a problem-centered approach

to the investigation of school reform efforts aimed at improving student learning.

Specifically, the goal of this study is to gain an understanding of teachers’ perceptions of

PLCs as vehicles for professional learning and growth during implementation of the five

universal dimensions of effective PLCs. This is an important problem of practice because

past school reform efforts (e.g., standards-based reform, equity reform, and market-

driven reform) have not fulfilled the mission of public education, which is for all students

to achieve high levels of learning and preparedness for college and/or career (Jennings,

2012). Research and school reform efforts increasingly look to educators to fulfill this

mission through participation in effective professional learning structures and

processes—such as PLCs (Hargreaves & Goodson, 2004; Hipp & Huffman, 2003;

Pankake & Huffman, 2010; Stranhan, 2003).

The literature review will begin with an historical overview of school reform

initiatives focused on educational improvement. This will be followed by a discussion of

 15

related research on teacher professional development and its association to professional

learning communities. The historical emergence of PLCs from research and theories

within and beyond the field of education that focus specifically on learning organizations

will follow. This background information will lay the foundation for the argument that

PLCs evolved from research and theory as a viable means of addressing needed school

reform when implemented with fidelity and integrity. The work of Shirely Hord (1997,

1998, 2008) and her colleagues at the Southwest Educational Development Lab (SEDL)

will provide the theoretical framework for the study. The review of literature concludes

with an overview of the existing research documenting the interdependence of PLCs,

teacher quality, and student achievement. Understanding educators’ perceptions as they

relate to the development of knowledge and skills toward more effective practices is

essential to identifying how and under what professional learning conditions educators

believe their practice can and does improve (Joyce & Showers, 2002).

Historical Background of School Reform

Until recently, oversight of public education was left to each state and its local

school districts without significant public federal involvement. However, increasingly

public schools are facing reform efforts calling for intensifying measures of

accountability from the national level all the way to the individual classroom teacher

(Rothstein, Jacobsen, & Wilder, 2008). Although educational reform movements have

been ongoing for several decades, most point to the seminal and dire 1983 report on

public education in the United States by the National Commission on Excellence, A

Nation at Risk, as a prominent catalyst for change. An often-quoted statement from this
 16

report that “the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a

rising tide of mediocrity” (p. 5) resonated with politicians and the public alike, creating

the perception of a crisis in public education that remains to this day.

Response to A Nation at Risk was swift, catapulting the issue of school reform

onto the national political agenda and opening a public debate concerning the state of

public education (Cohen & Hill, 2001; DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008; Hord, 1997).

DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker (2008) note that “within 2 years of the report, more than 300

state and national task forces had investigated the condition of public education in

America” (p. 34). This intense, collective focus on public education came to be known as

the “excellence movement” (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008, p. 34).

The excellence movement paved the way for an organized course of action toward

“excellence” in education by advancing more rigorous academic standards for students

and tighter requirements for teacher certification (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). However,

educators in the field perceived the movement to be a heavy-handed, top-down approach

that intensified existing practices while offering no new ideas or support (DuFour et al.,

2008). Moreover, the excellence movement failed to address a number of the suggested

recommendations from A Nation at Risk. For example, the recommendation that all

teachers work under an 11-month contract, allowing adequate preparation for each new

school year and a call for more in-service time, both failed to come to fruition (A Nation

at Risk, 1983). However, it is important to note these recommendations recognize the

vital role ongoing and sustained professional development plays in improving educators’

practices.
 17

Despite the fact that a number of suggested recommendations from A Nation at

Risk remain unrealized even to today, one focus area has endured and flourished. The

Commission’s recommendation “that schools, colleges, and universities adopt more

rigorous and measurable standards and higher expectations for academic performance”

(p. 73) has been woven into the very fabric of nearly all subsequent school reform efforts.

The challenge put forth in 1983 to embark upon more demanding academic standards

would prove to be a harbinger of states’ efforts— and eventually a national effort—at

creating demanding academic standards. As such, A Nation at Risk continues to

influence the educational landscape.

School Reform

School reform efforts have been ongoing since the earliest inception of public

education (Ravitch, 2010; Tyack & Cuban, 2003). However, A Nation at Risk (1983)

brought the issue of preparing students for citizenry and post-secondary success to the

national forefront in governmental policies, legislation, the media, and in public

discourse. This increased scrutiny led the educational community to explore ways to

improve learning for all students (Eaker, DuFour & DuFour 2002; Fullan, 2003;

Sergiovanni, 2005). The history of the various school reform movements undertaken to

improve student learning are detailed below.

The restructuring movement. Following A Nation at Risk and the ensuing

excellence movement there was a call for fundamental change in the structure of public

education. This change effort, which came to be called the Restructuring Movement,
 18

rested on three criticisms of public education and two fundamental strategies to address

them.

The first criticism was a lack of faith in the capacity of public schools to meet the

educational needs of students (Elmore, 2004). Next, the business community was

concerned about an eroding educated work force. Finally, the quality of the teaching

force was called into question (Papagiannis, Easton, & Owens, 1992).

The restructuring movement sought to address these criticisms in two ways. The

first way was a shift from centralized to de-centralized control of schools. This structural

shift to decentralization reflected a belief that local schools were best equipped to manage

their own decisions regarding policies, procedures, and strategies that would effectively

impact student learning (Pancake & Moller, 2003).

Second, the movement called for educational goals and standards at the national

level. In response to this strategy, then President, George Herbert Walker Bush,

convened an educational summit known as Goals 2000.

Goals 2000. National education goals were first posited by President George

Herbert Walker Bush and the nation’s governors at an educational summit convened by

Bush in 1989. Federal guidance would later be sought from Congress. The resulting

collaboration at this educational summit paved the way for the passage of Public Law

103-22, commonly known as Goals 2000: The Educate America Act (1994). This

legislation advocated eight national education goals be met by the year 2000:

1. All children in America will start school ready to learn.

2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.

 19

3. All students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency

over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science,

foreign languages, civics an government, economics, the arts, history, and

geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to

use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship,

further learning, and productive employment in our nation's modern economy.

4. United States students will be first in the world in mathematics and science

achievement.

5. Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and

skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and

responsibilities of citizenship.

6. Every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the

unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined

environment conducive to learning.

7. The nation’s teaching force will have access to programs for the continued

improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the

knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for

the next century.

8. Every school will promote partnerships that will increase parental

involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and

academic growth of children. (Goals 2000: Educate America Act, Public Law

103-227, Section 102).

 20

However, despite the best intentions undergirding the restructuring movement and

substantial funding in the amount of 105 million dollars, substantive improvements in

student learning were not realized (Lieberman, 1995).

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Following the restructuring movement

and with continued and increasing attention toward less than ideal academic outcomes,

President George W. Bush came to office in 2001. Bush had stewarded substantive and

tangible state education reform in his home state of Texas and sought to do so at the

national level. In his domestic agenda, President Bush voiced a strong desire to expand

the federal role in public education beyond its traditional parameters. He also sought to

build on the work of Goals 2000, overseen by his father President George H.W. Bush, by

expanding the federal role in public education, specifically through the reauthorization of

the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA).

President George W. Bush was successful in his efforts. He gained bipartisan

support for his educational reform initiatives and, on January 8, 2002, reauthorized ESEA

with a legislative act commonly known as The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

NCLB is considered by many as “the most ambitious educational initiative in American

history” (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008, p. 37). Fullan (2007) describes NCLB as a

call to accountability on a national scale.

Equity reform. NCLB has four main guiding principles: a focus on research-

based programs and practices; increased accountability for student achievement;

expanded choice for parents and students in low performing schools; and a reduction in

bureaucracy to increase flexibility and local control (United States Department of

 21

Education, 2007). NCLB focused on measurable accountability for improving student

learning for all students in reading and mathematics with escalating proficiency outcomes

and sanctions for schools that did not meet yearly targets, known as Adequately Yearly

Progress (AYP).

In particular, NCLB drew attention to inequitable learning outcomes for students

of color, students who are economically disadvantaged, and students identified with

special education needs. Hoff and Manzo (2007) note that “the big success of NCLB so

far is to galvanize attention to the challenges we face, particularly the challenges of

inequity” (p.27). In addition, for the first time, NCLB ushered in a federal focus on

teacher-quality standards by requiring that all teachers in core academic subjects be

“highly qualified” by passing a certification exam or by majoring in the core academic

subject area in college.

According to the United States Department of Education (2008), reducing

inequity in student learning outcomes is fostered by the opportunity for every child to be

taught by a highly qualified teacher. This study, which focused on ongoing, job-

embedded professional development, aligns with the overarching goals of school reform

efforts overviewed in this historical background—goals grounded in the belief that

educators’ knowledge and skills are essential to prepare students for citizenship and work

in a global economy.

Market-driven reform. In addition to the aforementioned reform movements,

market-driven reform approaches that promote educational choice have flourished.

Market-driven approaches to education advance solutions to the criticisms of public

 22

education through charter schools, school choice, and vouchers. Market-driven

approaches operate under the premise that increasing competitive pressure on traditional

public schools will drive improvement (Diedrich, 2012). Yet, a recent research brief

(2009) by Research and Development (RAND) on the effect of market-driven

approaches—specifically charter schools—found that “on average, across varying

communities and policy environment, charter middle and high schools produce

achievement gains that are about the same as those in traditional public schools” (p. 2).

The three overarching reform movements reviewed provide a chronology of the

reform efforts following A Nation at Risk. While not lacking in effort and, in many cases,

funding, these triumvirate, tandem, school reform efforts resulted in merely modest

academic gains (Bohrnstedt, 2013; O’Day, 2013). This literature review now turns from

a brief history of school reform efforts to a deeper exploration of the standards movement

and its ultimate influence on professional development for educators.

The Standards-Based Movement

Historically, reform efforts aimed at addressing poor student achievement have

invested heavily in the belief that raising academic standards will result in improved

student learning. This belief in standards has spurred policy decisions, funding dollars,

and public attention toward academic standards meant to ensure all students achieve high

academic levels commensurate with their global peers. Expecting high achievement for

all students is a recent concept (Schlechty, 1990). Previously, students could choose any

number of academic “tracks” with varying degrees of rigor. However, educators today

are tasked with “making challenging learning available to a much broader segment of
 23

students than they have in the past” (Elmore, 2004, p.12). This means the job of an

educator today is to ensure all students are “college and career ready” (Achieve, 2013).

In addition to a focus on rigorous academic standards, the standards movement

has concentrated on closing the achievement gap between white students and students of

color, more affluent students and poor students, and students with disabilities and those

who do not have disabilities to ensure all students have equitable post-secondary

opportunities.

Unfortunately, raising academic standards alone has not led to significant gains in

student learning. This is evident in the 2012 results from the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP). NAEP is a nationally representative assessment of what

the nation’s students know and can do in various academic content areas (National Center

for Education Statistics, 2013). NAEP assessments are conducted every four years. In the

most recent NAEP (2012) reading and mathematics assessments given to nine, thirteen

and seventeen year-old students, only thirteen year-old students made gains from the

previous administration in 2008; they did so in reading and mathematics(National Center

for Education Statistics, 2013). The average reading and math scores for seventeen year-

olds in 2012 is not significantly different from the scores from the first year of the NAEP

assessments conducted in 1971(National Center for Education Statistics, 2013). These

results affirm Fullan’s (2006) statement that even reform movements with “millions of

dollars and political will behind them have failed to make much of an impact in the

classroom” (p. 2).

 24

One possible reason for less than significant gains on the NAEP assessments may

be the inconsistent rigor of academic standards across the nation. The No Child Left

Behind Act (2001) allowed each state to create their own academic standards. The result

was fifty different versions of what students should know and be able to do in core

academic content areas.

Overall, the academic standards of the state of Massachusetts are regarded as

among the most rigorous in the nation if not the world (Peterson & Hess, 2008). Student

academic outcomes in Massachusetts are among the best, even by international standards

(Massachusetts Department of Education, 2013). This cannot be stated for all fifty states

(Loveless, 2012; Whitehurst, 2009). For example, in the 2007 Trends in International

Mathematics and Science Study (TIMMS), which surveys fourth and eighth grade

students around the world, eighth grade students in Massachusetts ranked number two in

the world, behind Singapore (Chang, 2013). Conversely, in 2007, the state of Georgia

declared 88% of its eighth grade students proficient in reading even though just 26%

scored at or above proficient on the NAEP assessment (Peterson & Hess, 2008). The high

variability of rigor in state-to-state academic standards means a student deemed

academically proficient in one state is not necessarily proficient, or even likely to be

judged proficient, in another state (Peterson & Hess, 2008). This makes the very notion

of what it means to be an academically proficient student in the United States

inconsequential.

Acknowledging and addressing the variation of rigor among states’ academic

standards is one overarching goal of the recently developed Common Core State
 25

Standards (CCSS). The details of this effort to create national core academic standards is

expanded upon in the next section of this literature review.

Common Core State Standards. Building on the eight national goals established

in Goals 2000 and states’ efforts at establishing academic standards in line with NCLB,

the National Governor’s Association (NGA) partnered with the Council of Chief State

School Offices (CCSSO) in 2009 to develop national academic standards. The goal was

to create world-class, rigorous national standards that would prepare all students for

citizenship and work in a global economy.

The resulting Common Core State Standards (2009) are a voluntary set of

academic standards that are potentially common to all fifty states. The name Common

Core State Standards (CCSS) is meant to convey a common set of national academic

standards for all U.S. students. The CCSS, often referred to as a national curriculum,

have been adopted by 45 states (National Governor’s Association Center for Best

Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

However, despite their apparent widespread adoption, the CCSS have come

under increasing political and public scrutiny (Hess, 2014). The reason for the increased

scrutiny of the CCSS surrounds a dichotomous argument as old as the United States

itself: states’ rights versus federal rights. The U.S. Constitution does not speak to federal

responsibilities and rights to public education, but defers this obligation to individual

states. Some argue that it is the states’ right to educate students as they see fit, based on

“state” academic standards. Others argue for federal input on standards to ensure

consistent rigor and an equal chance for all students to be exposed to demanding
 26

academic standards. Nonetheless, the CCSS remain a voluntary option for states to

consider.

Despite the current standards debate, past history points to evidence that academic

standards alone will not result in significant gains in student achievement. (National

Center on Education Statistics, 2013). Erick Hanushek (2012), a noted Stanford

University researcher states “experience provides little support for the argument that just

more clearly declaring what we want children to learn will have much impact”(p.1).

Hanushek goes on to highlight the need for academic standards to work in tandem with

effective instruction by stating “what really matters is what is actually taught in the

classroom” (p.1). The CCSS do call for fundamental shifts in instructional practices

considered by some to be “monolithic in scope” by some (Achieve, 2013, p. 5). Such

massive shifts provide a strong rationale for ongoing, job-embedded professional

development that will support teachers in adjusting their practice to achieve these

significant pedagogical shifts.

Even with inconsistent results from school reform efforts over the last three

decades, the mantra of school reform that all students can learn has quickly morphed into

an even higher standard that all students must and will learn. Researchers and

practitioners alike have come to realize that current and future school reform efforts must

focus simultaneously on the macro and the micro level, on systems-level and classroom-

level change. To make a true difference in student achievement, reform-based change

must address systemic structures and supports while simultaneously focusing on

 27

instruction with laser-like precision on what actually happens in classrooms between

teachers and students. Tyack and Cuban (2003) provide an apt synopsis of this challenge:

Change where it counts the most—in the daily interaction of teacher and

students—is the hardest to achieve and the most important….We think it is

difficult and essential, above all, for the educationally dispossessed. To do this

requires not only political will and commitment, but also an accurate

understanding of schools as institutions. (p.7).

Changing outcomes begins with systemic and systematic opportunities for

educators to improve their knowledge and skills, rather than in isolated and disjointed

attempts at professional learning. As Capers (2004) notes, there is a need to focus on

“teacher learning in order to increase student learning” (p. 151). However, not all

professional development is equally effective, and changing classroom practice,

especially in a systemic manner, is challenging. As Elmore (1996) asserts, “Innovations

that require the large changes in the core of educational practice, which is teachers

teaching and students learning, seldom penetrate more than a small fraction of U.S.

schools and seldom last very long when they do” (pp.1-2). This challenge provided the

impetus for this study, which was to investigate a phenomena which has a growing

evidence base proclaiming its potential to improve the pedagogical skills of educators,

the professional learning community (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Hipp & Huffman, 2003;

Hord, 1997, 1998, 2008; Kruse, Louis & Bryk, 1995; Newmann & Wehlage, 1995; Stoll

et. al, 2006; Stoll & Louis, 2007).

 28

In preparing an extensive review of the literature that revolves around the

concepts of a professional learning community, it is critical to examine the role of

professional development and the processes of professional change toward effective

practices that may result.

The Role of Professional Development in School Reform

A preponderance of evidence suggests that in order to make considerable

advances in school reform aimed at increasing student learning, effective teaching will be

essential (Birman, LeFloch, Klekotka, Ludwig, Taylor, Walters, Wayne, & Yoon, 2007;

Desimone, 2009, 2011; DuFour, 2011; Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001;

National Commission of Teaching and America’s Future, 1996; Yoon, Duncan, Lee,

Scarloss, & Shapley 2007). In essence, an effective school is a collection of effective

teachers. Exactly how school reform efforts could ensure an effective teacher in every

classroom is a question that remains unanswered. Morrissey (2000) describes past reform

attempts as “piecemeal,” noting they “lacked the fundamental supportive cultures and

conditions necessary for achieving significant gains in teaching and learning” (p. 3).

Morrissey (2000) further advances the concept that professional development delivered

through structures that support teachers learning in communities offers the best avenue

for professional growth and mastery. Little (2003) concurred, emphasizing that student

learning is predicated on teacher learning.

Developing effective teachers requires substantive change to school reform

initiatives, especially those dedicated to professional development. The long-established

professional learning opportunities afforded most teachers are characterized by one-day

 29

workshops and episodic professional learning opportunities, loosely coupled to the

realities and day-to-day practice of teachers. Professional development opportunities for

teachers have ultimately been described as “intellectually superficial, disconnected from

deep issues of curriculum and learning, fragmented, and non-cumulative” (Ball & Cohen,

1999, pp.3-4).

Given the state of professional learning offered teachers, it appears essential that

new structures and processes are in order if the goal is to substantively increase teacher

quality. Traditional methods of professional development have been largely ineffective

(Garet et al., 2001). To illustrate this point in uncompromising terms, Stephanie Hirsh

(2009), Executive Director of Learning Forward, asserts:

For many years Title I, or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, has

required low-performing schools to set aside ten percent of their allocations for

school-wide professional development. Title II funding has resulted in the

allocation of more than three billion dollars to professional development. More

than 40 States have adopted standards calling for effective professional

development for all educators accountable for results in student learning, and

several national studies on what distinguishes high-performing, high-poverty

schools from their lower-performing counterparts consistently identify effective

school-wide collaborative professional learning as crucial to the school’s success.

And yet, as a nation, we have failed to leverage this support and these examples to

ensure every educator and every student benefits from highly professional

learning (p.3).
 30

The failure of school reform movements to significantly improve student

learning appears in part to be a result of inattention given to what actually happens in

classrooms between teachers and students. Knowing that professional development is

necessary to sustain school improvement and teacher growth is an essential first step in

advancing effective strategies; however, in isolation it is insufficient. It is also essential to

understand the specific attributes of professional development that lead to more effective

teacher practice. Moreover, it is critical to know under what conditions these practices are

initiated, established, and sustained (Darling-Hammond, 1997).

Judith Little (1993), in her research around teacher professional development,

suggests:

The most promising form of professional development engages teachers in the

pursuit of genuine questions, problems, and curiosities, over time and in ways that

leave mark on perspective, policy, and practice. They communicate a view of

teachers not only as classroom experts, but also as productive and responsible

members of a broader professional community and as persons embarked on a

career that may span 30 years or more. (p.133).

Darling-Hammond et al., (2009) affirm Little’s work. In a report that isolates

promising practices and identifies attributes of effective professional learning Darling-

Hammond et al. (2009), found that meaningful professional development is intensive,

ongoing, related to practice, and focused on student learning. Additionally, it should offer

opportunities for teachers to build substantive and sustained professional relationships.

 31

The response to changing and improving teacher professional development

practices has been slow. Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2008) found this shortcoming to be

“fueled by the complexities of teaching and learning within a climate of increasing

accountability,” adding that reforms in professional development must move “beyond

merely supporting the acquisition of new knowledge and skills for teachers” (p.81).

In writing about policies and practices that support professional development,

Darling-Hammond &McLaughlin (1995) state that a vision of teacher professional

development is fundamental to the nation’s reform agenda and requires

Most teachers to rethink their own practice, to construct new classroom roles and

expectations about student outcomes, and to teach in ways they have never taught

before. The success of this agenda ultimately turns on teachers’ success in

accomplishing the serious and difficult task of learning the skills and perspectives

assumed by new visions of practice and unlearning the practices and beliefs about

students and instruction that have dominated their professional lives to date

(p.597).

In later research, Darling-Hammond (2014) makes a strong argument for

reforming schools by developing and increasing the number of effective teachers while

acknowledging that doing so will be no easy task. Nevertheless, improving teacher

quality is essential to an educational system committed to the advancement of student

learning. A 2007 McKinsey Report about the world’s best performing education systems

acknowledged the vital connection between quality teaching and student learning by

bluntly stating, “The quality of an education system cannot exceed the quality of its
 32

teachers” (p.16). Moreover, a status report on teacher professional development in the

United States and abroad, conducted by Darling-Hammond et al. (2009), found that

teacher learning and student learning were highly interdependent. Hunt (2009) agrees that

effective teaching in the 21st century will require professional development that is

substantively more intense than has been traditionally offered.

Students’ postsecondary learning opportunities and workforce options are largely

dependent upon the quality of their school experiences, most of which are mediated by

their teachers. When students graduate underprepared for postsecondary learning

opportunities or the workforce, the blame tends to fall to the school, and, more directly,

to the quality of instruction that students have experienced. Research affirms a link

between effective professional development, quality teaching, and student learning

outcomes (Cohen & Hill, 1998; Kannapel & Clements, 2005; Weglinsky, 2000; 2002).

This makes a strong case for the importance of implementing professional development

strategies that offer promise for increasing teacher quality. The preponderance of research

suggests that professional development can play a central role in improving teacher

quality when it is “sustained over time, focused on important content, and embedded in

the work of professional learning communities that support ongoing improvements in

teachers’ practice” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009, p. 7).

The Impact of Professional Development on Teacher Quality

While many school-based factors influence student learning, the consensus of the

research points to two factors that are relevant to this study: teacher quality and

professional learning. While school-based factors do play a prominent role in student

 33

learning, other variables play a significant role and must be acknowledged. An

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD, 2005) review of

policies that contribute to attracting, developing, and retaining effective educators

revealed that the largest source of variation in student learning is attributable to factors

that the student brings to school. These factors encompass “abilities and attitudes, and

family and community backgrounds” (p.2) — elements over which schools have minimal

influence or control. Nonetheless, while acknowledging these outside factors schools

must focus their efforts on the factors they do have influence and control over and of

those school-based factors teacher quality is paramount (OECD, 2005).

The OECD (2005) report concedes that a consensus of the available research

points to the teacher quality as playing a dominant role in student learning, arguing it is

the “single most important school variable influencing student achievement” (OECD, p.

2). The research of Borman and Kimball, (2005), Darling-Hammond (2000), Hanushek,

Kain, O’Brien, and Rivkin (2005) and Sanders & Rivers (1996) agree, finding that

teacher quality is the determinant school variable impacting student learning in all

educational circumstances. Aaronson, Barrow, and Sander (2007) find that teacher effects

are reasonably stable over time and resistant to a variety of conditioning variables.

Hanushek (2010) concurs, stating “the key element defining a school’s impact on student

achievement is teacher quality” (p.1).

Conversely, ineffective teaching matters as well. Mendro et al. (1998) found that

a two-year impact of an effective teacher, defined as a teacher operating at the 75th

percentile, could not remediate the achievement loss caused by one year of poor teaching
 34

with an ineffective teacher, defined as operating at the 25th percentile. Put simply,

effective teaching has a significant and long-lasting impact on student learning. However,

another important finding from the research is that teacher quality varies greatly across

classrooms, even within the same school (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010). Stronge (2013)

argues, “If we want to improve the quality of our schools and positively affect the lives of

our students, then we must change the quality of our teaching. And this is our best hope

to systematically and dramatically improve education” (p.3). Thus, the goal then is to

reduce the variation of teaching in our schools toward more effective teaching in a

systemic manner and one significant avenue for accomplishing this is through ongoing

professional learning for educators.

A number of past and recent research studies point to a flawed approach toward

educators’ professional learning, which many claim is plagued by single answer solutions

to the very systemic and complex issue of continuous improvement of teachers’

pedagogical practice (DuFour & Eaker, 1998; Guskey, 2003; Hirsch & Killion, 2009).

Traditional professional development is often a one-time workshop or presentation during

which all teachers receive the same content or pedagogical focus. This kind of

professional learning is often delivered in a lecture format, with little opportunity for

follow-up, feedback, coaching, or implementation support (Darling-Hammond, 1996;

Guskey, 2000). Professional learning of this type has been found to have minimal impact

on teacher quality (Schmoker, 2004).

A seminal study conducted by Joyce and Showers (2002) on professional

development outcomes found that a mere five percent of effective practice transfers into
 35

classroom practice when professional learning is comprised of theory, demonstration, and

practice, without the addition of ongoing support, feedback and coaching. However,

when provided with ongoing support, feedback and coaching there is evidence to suggest

that “professional development can lead to improvements in instructional practices and

student learning” (Borko, 2004, p.3).

A growing consensus of research points to the attributes of effective professional

development. They include long-term, job-embedded learning opportunities, integrated

into the daily practice of teachers in a systemic and systematic manner. Additionally,

effective professional development is characterized by a mutual pursuit of improvement

in practice, with the goal of yielding better results in student achievement (Yoon et al.,

2007).

In order for students to learn at high levels, students will need teachers who also

have opportunities to learn at high levels and who take an active and continuous role as

both teacher and learner. Consequently, supporting teachers in the quality of their

teaching through professional development is a logical fulcrum for improving student

learning. King and Newman (2001) agree, noting “Since teachers have the most direct,

sustained contact with students and considerable control over what is taught and the

climate for learning, improving teachers’ knowledge, skill and dispositions through

professional development is a critical step in improving student achievement ” (p. 86).

Professional learning communities have risen to the forefront as a viable answer

for professional development that impacts teacher quality. PLCs are a means for

advancing the professional learning of teachers in a more effective, substantive, and

 36

sustained manner. The evidence shows that when PLCs are implemented and sustained

with fidelity, they result in increases in student learning (Belenardo, 2001; DuFour &

Eaker, 1998, Lomos et al., 2011; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008).

The Emergence and Evolution of Professional Learning Communities

Professional learning communities emerged from theories both within and outside

the educational community. This review will examine and expand on these supporting

the idea that professional learning communities are a “viable means of reforming a school

from within” (Angelle &Teague, 2011, p. 5).

Theoretical connections to professional learning communities. The

implementation of PLCs as a powerful process for professional development is founded

on the principles embedded in theoretical frameworks that take into account how humans

and, in particular, adults learn (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000; Knowles, 1980).

Epistemology aligned to socially developed constructs is central to the theories that

influence PLCs. At their foundation, PLCs are grounded in the theory of knowledge that

is based on a constructivist perspective. A constructive perspective conceives learning as

a social construction through which people build or construct knowledge via experiences

with the world and others, then reflect on these experiences to form new understandings.

Evidence of constructivist theory can be found in the embedded components of

PLCs, characterized by teachers building collective knowledge and skill within the social

context of the school. This occurs through discourse, the sharing of practices, reflection,

and application of knowledge to improve individual and organizational capacity focused

on a common goal. Likewise, the principal’s orientation toward leadership in schools that
 37

are advancing PLCs is democratic in nature, emphasizing shared and distributed

leadership to advance student learning.

The heart of a PLC aligns with the educational theory of John Dewey,

“considered by many to be the most influential educational theorist of the twentieth

century” (Finnan, 2006, p. 83). Dewey’s theory of education provides an underlying

construct for PLCs, as both emanate from the epistemology that individual learning is, at

best, a flawed approach for developing knowledge. For Dewey, knowledge is not

developed individually or in isolation, but as part of a dynamic processes influenced by

the social environment. Learning flourishes best when all are encouraged to participate

and where all are valued. Thus, learning thrives in an atmosphere of democracy in which

both teachers and students contribute to the process (Dewey, 1938).

PLCs embody the features of knowledge developed within a situated and social

context, where reciprocity exists between teachers and students. For example, a common

practice of teachers who participate in PLCs is shared analysis of student work mitigated

through professional dialogue and reflection aimed at improving practice and student

outcomes. Subsequently, social participation serves as a vehicle to improve both

individual and collective practice toward continuous improvement (Elmore, 2000).

Additionally, in PLCs, teacher teams engage in collaborative structures based

upon an underlying belief that working in isolation is an ineffective approach to solving

the complex issues educators face today. Similarly, teachers learn that by working

together, they can better solve common problems within their school context. This aligns

with Dewey’s belief that effective teaching and learning is a result of process-based
 38

problem solving (1938). Moreover, in PLCs, teachers seek meaning and understanding

within the context of their shared day-to-day work experiences. Dewey emphasizes the

importance of common experiences when he states, “Things gain meaning by being used

in a shared experience or joint action” (1938, p. 20). With attention to joint action, PLCs

focus primarily on a shared goal of learning for both teachers and students. As an

example, PLCs operate based upon a conceptual understanding that in order to increase

learning for all students, an environment that supports learning for all teachers is

necessary.

PLCs closely embody the tenets of learning as a social and cultural process. These

tenets are the basis of socio-cultural theory and, in particular, the theories held by

Vygotsky (1978), Bruner (1996) and Wenger (2000). Socio-cultural learning

epistemology suggests that knowledge is fundamentally a result of our experiences with

our culture and our social interactions mediated through language. The culture, in this

case, is the school culture. Theoretical statements about the social construction of cultural

knowledge attempt to help us understand how people learn in social contexts and

emphasize that “rather than individuals and individuals’ minds, the basic locus of human

learning is social interactions, cultural practices, and reciprocal personal and social

transformations” (Hakkarainen, Paavola, Kangas, & Seitamma-Hakkarainen, 2013, p.

58).

Vygotsky (1987), considered to be the father of contemporary constructivist

learning theory and a socio-cultural learning theorist, expands on the concept of

knowledge development as a social process by stating that “human learning, presupposes

 39

a social nature by which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them”

(p.88). Vygotsky’s theory casts a light on how teachers learn in social contexts influenced

by language. His theory emphasizes that “knowledge is constructed in the midst of our

interactions with others and is shaped by the skills and abilities valued in a particular

culture” (Darling-Hammond, Austin, Orcutt, & Martin, D., 2001, p.126). Vygotsky’s

theory of how we develop knowledge by interacting with others has frequently been used

to support the value of PLCs. Effective PLCs embed structured social interaction and

professional discourse within collaborative efforts to solve real-life problems

(Wenger,2000). PLCs offer both a structure and process for teachers to problem solve

and learn within the confines of their own particular context, operating from the belief

that “learning is inherently social in nature” (Hansman, 2001, p. 45).

Bruner’s (1996) theory on communities of practice have also been used to explain

the benefits of democratic practices and the interdependent nature of teachers teaching

teachers which are embedded structures of PLCs. Bruner compels schools to “operate as

mutual communities of learners, involved jointly in solving problems with all

contributing to the process of educating one another” (p.82). Thus, PLCs are grounded in

a problem-solving model focused on developing better solutions for increasing student

learning through teaching one another.

Wenger’s (2000) theory on communities of practice supports the assertion that

learning is conditional to social participation, and “the success of organizations depends

on their ability to design themselves as social learning systems” (p.225). PLCs are not

mere opportunities for teachers to interact; they are intentional structures that capitalize
 40

on the social learning system. Schools that advance PLCs operate from a fundamental

belief that knowledge is a critical asset that needs strategic and purposeful structures,

enabling teachers to learn with and from one another (Wenger, 2002).

Sergiovanni and Staratt (2007) stress the social nature of communities of practice

and their reciprocity in advancing both teacher and student learning by stating that

“communities of practice are formed as teachers come together in a community effort to

help each other teach and learn, to care for each other, and to work together in advancing

student achievement” (p. 5). PLCs encourage teachers’ engagement in social

relationships and interactions to build collective knowledge and skill by observing and

comparing their practices, providing one another with critical feedback, and acting on this

feedback to improve. Teachers typically practice privately and in isolation, but PLCs shift

the culture from one which values isolation to one which values shared practice––practice

that is public and open to feedback and critical analysis from colleagues.

In the final analysis, the theories held by Dewey (1938), Vygotsky (1978), Bruner

(1996), and Wenger (2000), synthesize around a common precept. The common precept

of these theories is that teachers can improve their practice and student learning when

they work collectively and collaboratively. The consensus of their joint argument, that

social participation decreases the isolation felt by an individual teacher, has facilitated the

emergence of PLCs and its related practices. Practices designed to improve learning for

teachers and students through collaborative, social interaction.

The evolution of professional learning communities. To understand the

evolution of PLCs as viable means for improving teacher quality, one must look to the
 41

research both within and beyond the field of education. The conceptual framework for

PLCs evolves from research on workplace factors impacting teacher quality conducted by

Rosenholtz (1989) and from research on learning organizations by Senge (1990). Their

collective body of work forms the fundamental concepts from which PLCs have evolved.

Rosenholtz (1989a, 1989b) was among the first to associate the idea of teacher

workplace factors with teacher quality. From a study of 78 elementary schools

Rosenholtz (1989a) found that teachers were more effective and committed when they

were engaged in workplaces that fostered their learning, growth, and development toward

improving their current skills and learning new ones. Rosenholtz described these types of

schools as high consensus schools and noted their marked difference from low consensus

schools. High consensus schools fostered collaborative teacher networks that promoted

and expanded teacher leadership, resulting in teachers who felt competent and valued for

their competence. As a result, teachers were more willing to expend additional effort and

commitment toward their work. Rosenholtz’s (1989a) research emphasized the

importance of collaboration and shared commitment among educators.

She noted this sense of shared commitment created a culture of working together—rather

than in isolation—toward a shared common vision of improving student learning. In

reflecting on the importance of collaboration, Rosenholtz (1989a) found that

collaboration facilitated collective commitments to student learning. In such an

environment, improvement in teaching is a collective rather than individual endeavor.

Additionally, analysis, evaluation, and experimentation—in concert with colleagues—are

understood as conditions which promote improved practices. Rosenholtz’s (1989a)

 42

findings suggest that when the workplace fosters interdependency, teachers are more

effective. Furthermore, her research shows that an environment in which teachers learn

with and from one another encourages ongoing refinement of effective practices that

offer benefits to students.

Senge (1990) brought many of these ideas to the forefront and expanded

upon them to include the construct of a learning organization. Senge describes a learning

organization as a place “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” (Senge, 1990, p. 3). Senge’s reasoning for organizations to move toward a

learning orientation is the relentless pace of change and complexity organization’s

experience. Additionally, Senge (1990) asserted that survival in an interdependent global

economy compelled changes in the traditional, autocratic, and hierarchical structures that

attempt to control people.

Senge (1990) advocates for organizations to engage in a dynamic learning

orientation that encourages flexibility and adaptability. To do this, it is necessary to

leverage and amplify the learning of individuals and the learning of the organization itself

through five key disciplines:

(a) personal mastery or the capacity to commit to lifelong growth and learning;

(b) a shared vision guided by principles and practices that bond individuals and

the organization together in a common commitment toward a mutual purpose; (c)

mental models of the organization that allow for open and honest conversations
 43

around dissonant issues to deeply analyze the organization through dialogue,

inquiry, and reflection; (d) system thinking to maximize the interdependent nature

of organizations through ongoing feedback loops; understanding that all actions

are interrelated; and (e) team learning through dialogue and group interactions

toward common goals (1990, pp.6-11).

This team learning is guided by the expressed belief that the ability and

intelligence of the team is greater than the sum of its individual members. These five

disciplines serve as a framework to guide the learning disciplines and processes that

people adopt as individuals and teams to become successful organizations that can

perform optimally when faced with complex issues and pressures.

Senge’s work was initially applied to the business world, but it gained momentum

in education as a model to support organizational change and improvement in a rapidly

evolving, interdependent environment. The field of education has a history of adopting

and adapting systems from other professions (Feldman, 2009). As the educational

community shaped its theory of action, an awareness began to develop. If schools—and

the teachers within them—could apply the tenets of Senge’s learning organization, the

vision of all students learning could be realized. Senge’s applied theory of schools as

learning organizations continues to gain prominence in the literature and in the field.

Senge views schools and society at large as inextricably linked, defining them as “a

fulcrum point for educational and societal change” (Senge et al. 2000, p. 6).
 44

As a result of the influence of Senge’s work, schools began to look to the concept

of a learning organization as having the potential to change the culture of professional

learning. The crux of Senge’s work called for a fundamental reculturing of schools —

moving them from a culture focused on teaching to one focused on learning. In effect,

this meant “advancing teacher learning in order to increase student learning,” essentially

shifting improvement efforts from teaching to learning (Capers, 2004, p. 151). At the

time, this was a radical shift in thinking from a focus on inputs to one on outcomes e.g.,

altering the focus from teaching to learning. Schools, functioning as learning

organizations, improved by focusing on the five key disciplines (Butler,Lauscher, Jarvis-

Sellinger, & Beckingham, 2004; Senge,1990; Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008). The

disciplines of personal mastery, shared vision, mental models, team learning, and systems

thinking enable schools to be “the meeting ground for learning—dedicated to the idea

that all those involved with it, individually and together, will be continually enhancing

and expanding their awareness and capabilities” (Senge et al., 2000, p. 6).

Organizations learn from individuals that learn. However, there is no guarantee

that individual learning will result in organizational learning, but without it,

organizational learning is not possible. For that reason, it is critical for learning

organizations, such as schools, to assess individual teacher perceptions as they engage in

nascent professional development models, such as PLCs, and to analyze them both

individually and collectively. These perceptions can be used to make informed formative

decisions that offer opportunities for advancing system coherence and alignment to vision

and mission. Affecting change in teacher behavior toward more effective practice
 45

requires substantive instruments and tools to provide feedback on professional

development. As professional development opportunities evolve, data is an essential tool

to determine educators’ professional growth and inform next steps.

Hord’s (1997) framework for professional learning communities is a substantive

tool providing data that will assist teachers in moving along a continuum of increasingly

effective school-based practices within a PLC. Hord’s conceptual framework of five

interdependent dimensions in the development of an effective PLC is detailed in the

following sections of this literature review.

Defining PLCs. Although PLCs do not have a universal definition, Hord (1997)

defines them as an on-going professional learning process through which teachers and

administrators work collaboratively to seek new learning, share their learning with

colleagues, act upon it, and enhance their effectiveness for their students’ benefit. A

number of other definitions of PLCs have emerged from the literature. Stoll and

Seashore-Louis (2007) define a PLC as a way to “keep all eyes on teaching and learning”

(p. 115). Huffman and Hipp (2003) define PLCs as “a school’s professional staff

members who continuously seek to find answers through inquiry and act on their learning

to improve student learning” (p.4). DuFour (2005) describes PLCs as a “powerful new

way of working together that profoundly affects the practices of schooling” (p. 43).

Burnette (2002) defines a professional learning community as:

A school where people are united by a common purpose, shared vision, and

collective commitments, and specific, measurable goals; where collaborative

teams engage in action research and collective inquiry into the big questions of
 46

teaching and learning; where continuous improvement cycles are built into the

routine practices of the school and where gathering evidence of student learning is

the constant focus (p.52).

The term professional learning community has been widely used in the

educational community with various implications for successful implementation. If

schools are to reap the promised benefits of a professional learning community they must

begin with a conceptual framework, which grounds their implementation and

sustainability. Du Four and Eaker (1998) offer a conceptual framework for PLC

implementation clustering around six characteristics, which include:

shared mission, vision and values; collective inquiry; collaborative teams; action

orientation and experimentation; continuous improvement; and a results

orientation (pp.25-29).

From her work in the field and an extensive literature, Shirley Hord offers a

complementary conceptual framework. It is to this framework the literature review now

turns.

The Five Universal Dimensions of PLCs: A Conceptual Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning this study is the result of Shirley Hord

(1997) and colleagues’ work with schools through the Southwest Educational

Developmental Laboratory (SEDL). In this endeavor, Hord and colleagues had the

opportunity to work with schools acting as learning organizations. To better understand

these learning organizations, they engaged in a substantive study from 1995-2000. This

study revealed a “new model of school culture and organization that actively supported
 47

change and improvement” (Hord, 1997, p.4). This model is a professional learning

community.

The study, Creating Communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement

(CCCII) led to substantive understandings about the characteristics and dimensions of

professional learning community (Cowan & Capers, 2000; Hipp & Huffman, 2003, 2010;

Hord, 1997, 1998, 2000). Hord’s work began with an extensive literature review of

professional learning communities. The literature review confirmed earlier work

conducted by Louis, Kruse, and Bryk (1995) and Newmann and Wehlage (1995)

corroborating findings that professional learning communities “must be grounded in the

culture of the school and normative behavior of its staff” (Hord, 2000, p.1). As Hord

continued her literature review, the attributes and dimensions of a conceptual model of

professional learning community emerged.

Hord’s review of the literature points to five universal and interdependent

dimensions of an effective PLC: (a) shared and supportive leadership; (b) shared values

and vision; (c) collective learning and application; (d) shared personal practice; and (e)

supportive conditions (Hipp & Huffman, 2003; 2010; Hord, 1997,1998, 2008; Hord &

Sommers, 2008). These five universal dimensions of PLCs serve as the Conceptual

Framework for this study and guide the research. Each of these dimensions will be

described in the following sections.

Shared and supportive leadership. PLCs alter traditional leadership hierarchy in

schools where the principal is viewed as having positional and authoritative leadership.

Supportive leadership is essential to effective implementation of PLCs and has been

 48

found throughout the literature (Hord, 1997, 2004; Little, 2006). As school leaders

embrace the tenets of PLCs, they elect to operate from a different conceptual framework

that believes in and acts upon the idea of sharing and distributing leadership throughout

the school (Hord & Sommers, 2008, p. 10). The behaviors that principals adopt establish

clear communication, capacity building, and monitoring and reviewing behaviors among

school staff enabling power, authority, and responsibility to be shared by the school

community (Cowan, 2010). There is a “spirit of shared commitment and accountability”

among educational stakeholders for a range of school-based decisions (Huffman & Hipp,

2003, p. 20).

Foundational to an effective PLC is the concept that leadership should be

extensively distributed throughout the school. This approach develops the leadership

potential of all school members, with the principal regarded as a “leader of leaders rather

than leaders of followers” (DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 23). Schools shift from a

leader-driven paradigm to a learner-driven paradigm. Learner-driven schools focus on

building both individual and organizational capacity for improved learning for both

teachers and students. Fullan (2001) advised that the leadership role should “cause

greater capacity in the organization in order to get better results” (p. 65). Supportive and

shared leaders promote an environment in which PLCs foster shared decision-making,

collegiality and collaboration, and, most importantly, results (i.e. improved student

learning).

Schools that embrace PLCs operate democratically. The interdependent nature of

the five universal dimensions of PLCs can be seen, not only in the principal’s
 49

sharing of power, authority, and decision making, but also through the decisions school

leaders make to remove structural and process barriers to PLCs (e.g., scheduling, time to

meet, teacher substitutes). Likewise, the members of a PLC mirror this sharing and

support of one another’s leadership role so that no one member consistently leads the

structures and processes of the learning community. Roles and functions are distributed

and varied throughout the process, enabling leadership skills to be developed among all

members.

Shared values and vision. Behavior is guided by the values and beliefs of

individuals and groups in any organization, including schools. A foundational attribute of

PLCS is a vision “characterized by an undeviating focus on student learning” (Pankake &

Moller, 2003, p. 8). All members share values and vision that focus on ensuring all

students learn. PLC team members act both individually and collectively to implement

this vision. The PLC serves as an actionable structure for the implementation of values

and vision through collaboration on changes and improvements needed to bolster student

learning.

Collective learning and application of learning. If the desired outcome of

schooling is for all students to meet more rigorous standards, then new ways of learning

are essential for both teachers and students. This learning should acknowledge the

development of both individual and collective knowledge construction and a belief in

effort-based learning (Resnick & Hall, 1998). Unfortunately, a common and long held

practice is for teachers to work in isolation.

 50

Longstanding studies conducted by Lortie (1975, 2002), Goodlad (1984, 2004),

Firth and Mims (1985), Davis (1986), Lieberman, (1985, 1995) and Flinders (1988)

collectively describe teacher isolation as a primary structural obstacle to improving

instruction. Lortie (1975) described schools as places “organized around teacher

separation rather than teacher interdependence” where each teacher is expected “to teach

students the stipulated knowledge and skills without any assistance from others” (p. 15).

Lortie (1975) further asserts that this isolation results in an “egg-crate” approach to

schooling where teachers are isolated from one another for a large portion of the day,

teaching in their individual classrooms, with little opportunity for collective learning and

collaboration.

More than thirty years ago, John Goodlad’s (1984) research found that teachers

predominantly work in isolated privacy with little interaction to share ideas and practices

with others teachers. Davis’ (1986) research affirmed Goodlad’s finding that “although

teaching is of a highly interpersonal nature, teachers are isolated from their colleagues for

most of the working day, and professional interaction among teachers is often limited”

(p.72). Working in isolation not only limits the potential for teachers to work

collaboratively and share best practice but it can also lead to a culture of mistrust.

Lieberman (1985) notes that “teacher isolation is incredibly important, because if people

are isolated from each other they not only don’t know what everybody else is doing, there

is not very much trust” (p10). If we expect students to be able to work in an

interdependent manner in a new global economy, then teachers must be given the same

learning opportunities.
 51

A survey conducted in 2013 of more than 20,000 public school teachers by

Scholastic and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation revealed that isolated teaching

practices are still prevalent. Fifty-one percent of teachers surveyed reported that they do

not have enough time to collaborate with peers, making this the second most cited

challenge faced by teachers in their daily work (Scholastic, 2013).

As an answer to reducing these isolated experiences teachers feel in the

workplace, PLCs offer the opportunity to work collaboratively, using evidence of student

learning to guide instruction and intervention for students who demonstrate academic

needs. Increasing the capacity for collective learning and application is vital to the

ongoing learning evident in PLCs. Evidence of student learning is also used to inform

and improve professional practice at a systems-level and classroom level. Du Four’s

(2004) work in professional learning communities is grounded in educators’ collective

learning toward answering questions about what students should learn, how teachers will

know when it is learned, and how they will collectively respond when a student

experiences difficulty or deepen it if they have mastered the content and skills. As Eaker

and Keating (2008) note, there is a fundamental shift in PLCs focusing on “inputs to

outcomes and from intentions to results” (p. 15).

Teaching is complex. It requires career-long learning. Effective teachers are not

born; they are developed through a continuous cycle of learning and unlearning. Effective

teachers continuously try new practices and seek specific feedback on these practices to

refine them. They look to the results of student learning to inform how they will continue

the cycle of improvement. This professional learning cycle will occur repeatedly
 52

throughout a teaching career, but for the most part, teachers have engaged in this cycle in

isolation while working toward a level of individual excellence. While individual

excellence is necessary for ensuring student learning, it is insufficient in the 21st century

quest to guarantee high levels of learning for all students. Realizing the goal of high

levels of learning for all students means “moving beyond islands of excellence to systems

of success that will require that all those involved in education better understand what

they must do to help students’ succeed”(Learning First Alliance, 2003, p.1). To ensure

learning for all students, we must ensure learning for all teachers—using fundamentally

different professional learning approaches than those that are currently in place.

PLCs offer this opportunity to move beyond the “egg-crate” model of isolated

teacher practice and move toward professional learning structures that allow for more

effective collaborative practices to flourish (Johnson, 2010). Mishook (2011) notes the

importance of collaborative practice when he states, “It is not just the individual skill of a

teacher that raises student outcomes, rather, teachers become better at their craft when

they have the space to collaborate with and learn from one another” (p.1).

In defining and operationalizing the term “professional learning community” the

consensus is that “you will know one [PLC] exists when you can see a group of teachers

sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative,

inclusive, learning-oriented, growth-promoting way” (Stoll & Louis, 2007, p.2).

Supportive conditions. Supportive conditions are both structural and relational.

Principals have direct control over decisions regarding resources, structures and

schedules, policies and procedures. Supportive structural conditions provide a context in

 53

which PLCs can flourish and set the stage for a reculturing of the school. Relational

supports may take the form of setting group norms for PLC meetings and for interactions

in the school. The goal is to develop trust among all staff members. Trust is integral to

developing relationships and a critical intangible to collegial discourse focused on student

learning.

Shared personal practice. Teachers working in isolation in their individual

classrooms is a longstanding practice in schools. When schools function as effective

PLCs, they shed isolating practices, embedding peer observation and review of one

another’s instructional practices as a behavioral norm (Hord, 2008). If there is to be

systematic change in schools that leads to increases in student learning, teachers will need

opportunities to lead and learn from one another. PLCs provide a collaborative structure

that allows for systematic examination of practice and its impact on student learning.

(Hord & Tobia, 2012). Only through shared analysis and examination of practice can

teachers determine the best strategies that will improve student learning in their particular

context. Peer support focuses on honest formative feedback that coaches and guides

continuous and collaborative professional learning. Sharing teaching practices enriches

and informs instructional decisions by shifting learning from an isolated event to a

practice of continuous refinements, ever focused on the most critical result of teaching:

student learning.

The five universal dimensions of PLCs as detailed in this section of the literature

review were critical to the investigation of this study. They served as the guideposts and

the markers for assessing progress along a defined continuum of operational criteria. The
 54

Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R) served as a tool to

diagnostically analyze specific school and classroom practices aligned to the five

universal dimensions of a PLC.

The Relationship between PLCs, Teacher Quality and Student Achievement

As a means for advancing both teacher and student learning, Bolman, McMahon,

Stoll, Thomas and Wallace (2005) find this interrelationship an “idea well-worth

pursuing as a means of promoting school and system-wide capacity building for

sustainable improvement and pupil learning”(p. i). PLCs are increasingly seen as a

process for professional learning that has the potential to increase individual teacher and

organizational capacity, as well as advance student learning (Newmann & Wehlage,

1995).

Newmann and Wehlage (1995) point to the interdependent nature of teacher

professional learning in PLCs and subsequent increases in student learning by stating that

“if schools want to enhance their organizational capacity to boost student learning, they

should work on building a professional community that is characterized by shared

purpose, collaborative activity, and collective responsibility among staff”(p. 37).

Moreover, Newmannn and Wehlage’s wide-ranging study of 1,500 elementary, middle,

and high schools involved in school reform found that schools experiencing significant

increases in student learning formed professional learning communities that looked to

evidence of student work, collaborative learning, and shared personal practice to inform

and change instructional practices.

 55

Student success depends on teachers’ continuous learning, both individually and

collectively. PLCs hold the promise of systemically increasing teacher quality and

improving student learning in tandem. PLCs represent both a structure and a process for

sustained and intensive professional learning of teachers with a results oriented focus

toward improving student achievement. Student success depends on teachers’ continued

professional learning. In that regard, a focus on and accountability for individual learning

through collective and collaborative processes that are directed toward ensuring all

students learn at high levels is foundational to the PLC process. Individual responsibility

with a simultaneous commitment by all educators to a vision of increasing learning for all

students is a hallmark indicator of effective PLCs.

Professional learning that is, “sustained over time, focused on important

content, and embedded in the work of professional learning communities that support

ongoing improvements in teachers’ practice” has been shown to have prevailing positive

effects on teachers’ expertise and knowledge, as well as resulting increases in student

learning (Darling-Hammond et al., 2009, p. 7). Moreover, Hunt (2009) pointed to the

power of PLCs as a professional development vehicle for both increasing student

achievement and building teacher capacity when he stated, “We need to place a greater

priority on strengthening the capacity of educators and building learning communities to

deliver higher standards for every child” (p.2). Hord’s (1997) research supports the

structure of PLCs as a tool and catalyst for improvements in teacher and student learning

when she declared, “As an organizational arrangement, the professional learning

 56

community is seen as a powerful staff development approach and a potent strategy for

school change and improvement” (p.5).

The relationship between professional learning communities, teacher quality, and

student achievement is well-documented and has been found to have a positive impact on

learning for teachers and students (Bryk, Camburn, & Louis, 1999; Darling-Hammond,

2006; Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995; Lee, Smith, & Croninger, 1995;

Leiberman, 1995; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2006; Shannon & Bylsma, 2004; Wood, 1995).

Studies like these shed light on the necessity of a professional development feedback

system aligned to the tenets of PLCs and their foundational dimensions. Such a system

can effectively facilitate the initiation, implementation, and institutionalization of PLC

structures and processes in a substantive manner (Fullan, 2001). This study sought to add

to the literature base and provide data regarding the application of the practices educators

engage in to initiate, implement, and sustain PLCS. The resulting data may serve as a

guide and a tool to deepen fidelity of implementation.

Summary

This literature review sought to develop a comprehensive understanding of the

various elements that influence PLCs as a potential source for increasing the knowledge

and skills of teachers to benefit student learning. In order to do so, and to place this study

in context, the literature review began with an historical overview of school reform

initiatives focused on educational improvement. A summary of related research followed,

detailing teacher professional development and its association to professional learning

communities. An overview of the historical emergence and subsequent evolution of

 57

professional learning communities was then presented. Connections to research and

theory on learning organizations within the field of education and beyond related to PLCs

were then detailed.

Following this background information, the evolution of PLCs was discussed and

research was presented to illustrate how the PLC strategy can address needed school

reform when implemented with fidelity and integrity. Hord’s (1997) theoretical

framework of five interdependent dimensions of an effective PLC was described to

provide the foundation for an operational definition of PLCs. Furthermore, Hord’s

framework supported a deeper examination of the attributes of a PLC in this study. The

five dimensions of a PLC were significant to the study because they provided the central

frame for the research investigation. The literature review concluded with an overview of

existing research documenting the interdependence of PLCs, teacher quality, and student

achievement.

While much research related to professional learning communities does exist, a

more systematic examination of the specific interaction between educators and the impact

PLCs may offer toward professional growth and student learning was needed. This study

sought to understand educators’ perceptions as they relate to the development of

knowledge and skills toward more effective practices as they engage in a professional

learning community. Through this study, the researcher is making an argument that it is

essential to identify how and under what conditions of professional learning teachers

believe their practice can and does improve (Joyce & Showers, 2002).
 58

Chapter Three

This study addressed a need identified in the literature and the field for deeper

understanding and clarity of the PLC experience. It investigated educators’ perceptions of

professional learning communities as a means to enhance professional growth and

student learning.

Chapter Three provides an overview of the research methodology, detailing the

design, setting and participants, sampling procedures, instrumentation, data collection

and analysis, delimitations, limitations, and assumptions of this mixed-methods study.

Purpose of the Study

The primary purpose of this study was to examine how educators perceive

professional learning communities as defined by the five universal dimensions.

Additionally, it examined educator perceptions of the overall quality of professional

learning gained through participation in a PLC. The researcher assessed progress along a

continuum of the operationally defined criteria of a professional learning community by

analyzing specific school and classroom practices. In addition, educator perceptions of

the overall quality of the professional learning experience through participating in a PLC

were explored.

To address the stated purpose, the study focused on two questions related to

professional learning communities:

1. How do educators perceive professional learning communities as defined by

the five universal dimensions?

 59

2. What are educators’ perceptions of the overall quality of professional learning

experienced through participation in a professional learning community?

Research Design

In undertaking this study, the researcher acknowledged the complexity which

exists around the structure, processes, and implementation of professional learning

communities. This complexity was verified in the literature review, making necessary

further empirical exploration and validation of the PLC process (Eaker & Keating, 2008;

Giles& Hargreaves, 2006). Angelle and Teague (2011) assert that translating the work of

PLCs into changes in practice in the field is “both essential and complex” (p.20).

Heeding this assertion, the researcher selected a mixed methods methodology for the

study because of the potential it offers to gain deeper clarity of a complex phenomenon.

Mixed method research methodology associates both quantitative and qualitative

methods in order to enhance the overall strength of a study. Employing quantitative and

qualitative data collection and analysis to a research problem enables “multiple ways of

seeing and hearing” a complex phenomenon (Greene, 2007, p. 20). Moreover, a mixed

method approach lends itself to the revelation of diverse viewpoints and inferences.

Further, Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, and Turner (2007) claim mixed methods design may

increase the “breadth and depth of understanding and corroboration” of collected data

sources (p.123).

Ultimately, the decision to utilize a mixed method design was based on the

alignment between this methodology and the research questions under study. The

researcher considered one data source insufficient to explain the phenomenon under
 60

study. Johnson and Onwuegbuzie (2004) argue that “research methods should follow

research questions in a way that offers the best chance to obtain useful answers” (pp.17-

18) providing a solid rationale for this decision.

This study took a three-phase approach. The specifics of each phase are detailed

in the following section.

In phase one of the study, concurrent quantitative and qualitative data were

collected. Quantitative data collection were captured through likert-style questions in

survey instruments. The first quantitative data collection gathered data on the statistical

relationships between educator perceptions of PLCs as measured by a survey instrument

aligned to Hord’s (1997) five dimensions. Concurrent qualitative data embedded within

the survey instrument were collected from optional open-ended responses at the

conclusion of statements aligned to each of the five dimensions.

In phase two of the study, an additional collection of quantitative data were

gathered. In this step, data were collected on the statistical relationships between educator

perceptions of PLCs as a means for professional growth and learning through a survey

instrument aligned to the Standards for Professional Learning.

In phase three of the study, additional qualitative data collection procedures were

implemented through semi-structured interviews. These interviews were conducted to

gain a better understanding of the dynamic between educators’ professional growth and

learning from PLC membership and Hord’s (1997) five dimensions. Capturing educator

perceptions through interviews provided greater depth and range than a single measure

could have offered.

 61

Concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection. In phase one of the

study, the researcher invited educators to complete a research-validated survey

instrument: the Professional Learning Community Assessment- Revised (PLCA-R). The

PLCA-R provided quantitative data on the study’s first research question, aligned to the

five dimensions of a PLC. Additionally, the PLCA-R offered an optional area for open-

ended responses aligned to each of the five dimensions.

Quantitative data collection. In phase two of the study, the researcher invited

educators to complete a research-validated survey instrument: the Standard Assessment

Inventory-2 (SAI2). The SAI2 aligns to the second research question in the study. The

SAI2 provided quantitative data on the overall quality of professional learning gained

through participation in a PLC.

Qualitative data. In phase three of the study, the researcher conducted semi-

structured interviews of a stratified random sample of participants to gain a multi-layered

understanding of educators’ perceptions of PLCs. Specifically, the purpose of the

interviews was to inquire more deeply into educator perceptions aligned to the five

dimensions of a PLC and discern the overall quality of professional learning from PLC

membership. Including participant interviews permitted the researcher to triangulate data.

Patton (2002) asserted that employing data triangulation allows the researcher to cross-

check data from multiple sources and also facilitates a “test for consistency,” which may

lead to “illuminative” findings (Patton, 2002, p. 248).

 62

Case Selection

The school district and participants for this study were purposively selected. The

case study site was specifically chosen because the district had been recognized by the

Pennsylvania Training and Technical Assistance Network (PaTTAN) as a model for PLC

implementation. PaTTAN is a state-level system of support serving local education

agencies. Moreover, the district and school leadership actively support the PLC structure

through ongoing professional development. Because of these factors, this site offered a

potentially rich source of data aligned to the purpose of this study.

Schools which met specific criteria were chosen through purposive sampling. The

following selection criteria were applied:

1. Schools in the population that are engaging in professional learning

communities.

2. Schools willing to participate in the study.

3. Educators who are actively participating in professional learning communities

in the identified schools.

Rationale for selection of criteria. The rationale for the first and second criteria

is based on alignment to the objective of this research study, which is to assess school

PLC teams’ progress along a continuum of the operationally defined criteria of a

professional learning community. In order to do so, a strategic choice was made to

sample those schools that were engaged in PLC structures and processes and, upon

meeting this criteria, were willing to participate in the study.

 63

The rationale for the third criteria listed is grounded in the need to better

understand the phenomenon under study—PLCs. In order to do so, it was necessary to

study educators who were actively engaged in PLCs. Thus, a purposive sampling was

essential. Purposeful sampling is the most viable method of sampling because educators

engaged in PLCs have the capacity, willingness, and specialized knowledge most likely

to contribute appropriate data, both in terms of relevance and depth. Purposive sampling

offers answers as to why individuals (or groups) feel certain ways, the processes by

which these perceptions are developed, and the dynamic role they play within an

organization or a group such as a PLC (Palys, 2008).

Permission to conduct the research was requested and granted from the

Institutional Review Board of Widener University (Appendix A). The superintendent of

schools of the study site granted permission for the researcher to conduct this study

(Appendix B). Additionally, a recruitment letter was utilized to invite educators to

participate in the study (Appendix C). Signed informed consent forms were collected

from all participants prior to commencement of the study (Appendix D). All participants

were over the age of 18. A description of the participants is presented in the following

section.

Research Setting and Participants

To pursue the research questions of this study, permission to conduct research

was granted by a superintendent of schools of a public school district located in a

northeastern state (Appendix B). This large suburban school district encompasses 19

square miles within the district boundaries and serves two townships. The district serves a
 64

resident population of 26,147 and two townships (2010 Census). The district’s student

population, as of the 2014-2015 school year, is 4,808. Students are educated in a K-12

setting comprised of six elementary schools that serve students in kindergarten through

fifth grade, one middle school that serves students in sixth through eighth grade, and one

senior high school that serves students in ninth through twelfth grade. The district’s

student demographics are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Study Site Demographics

Ethnicity Percentage of Population

White/Caucasian 81%
Asian 6%
Black/African American 6%
Hispanic 5%
Multi-Racial 2%
Gender
Male 49%
Female 51%
Students receiving free or reduced breakfast and lunch 17%
Students identified with specialized learning needs
English language learners 1%
Students with individualized education plans (IEPs) 16%
Students who have been identified as gifted 6%
Attendance rate 96%
Dropout Rate 0.37%
Graduation Rate 98%

(Source: Pennsylvania School Performance Profile, 2013-2014; Phone conversation with

Assistant to the Superintendent, 11-3-14).
 65

The school district has a reputation for academic excellence, with several schools

receiving Blue Ribbon Recognition. Blue Ribbon Recognition acknowledges overall

academic excellence and success in closing achievement gaps among student subgroups.

Eighty-eight percent of the district’s students are proficient and/or advanced in

mathematics, and 85% scored proficient and/or advanced in reading on the most current

annual state assessment (2013-2014). The district offers 17 Advanced Placement (AP)

courses at the high school level, with a reported 63 students achieving the AP Scholar

award for the 2013-2014 school year.

The district employs 477 teachers, and 100% of these educators are defined as

Highly Qualified. The average years of service for teachers in the district is fourteen.

Participants. Five PLC teams from the school district participated in the study.

Participants in the study included teachers, educational specialists, and principals who

were members of a PLC at either an elementary school, the middle school, or the high

school at the study district. Participants were comprised of PLC team members from

three of the district’s six elementary schools and the district’s middle school and senior

high school. The total number of potential participants was 51, with 34 PLC team

members agreeing to be part of the study. This equates to an overall participation rate of

66.66%.

Instrumentation

Three data collection instruments were used during the course of the study: the

Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R); the Standards

Assessment Inventory-2 (SAI2); and semi-structured interviews with selected subjects.

 66

Descriptions of each tool are provided in the order in which they were utilized by the

researcher. Information related to the reliability and validity of the instruments is also

included to establish trustworthiness of the data collection tools. In order to draw

inferences from the data, there must be “appropriate and credible evidence” of the

instruments employed (Frankel & Wallen, 2009, p.161).

The Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised. The PLCA-R

was selected as a survey instrument for this study because it allowed the researcher to

determine the fidelity and implementation strength of the five dimensions of a PLC with

the teams under study. The PLCA- R directly aligns to the first research question of this

study which is How do educators perceive professional learning communities as defined

by the five universal dimensions? Data from the PLCA-R clarify the school and

classroom level practices aligned to the five dimensions of a PLC as perceived by the

teachers engaged in them.

The PLCA-R survey questionnaire is the revised addition of the Professional

Learning Community Assessment (PLCA) developed by Olivier, Hipp, and Huffman in

2003. The PLCA was revised and extended in 2008 in “recognition of a need to more

inclusively assess levels of practice relating to utilization and analyses of data” (Olivier,

Antoine, Cormier, Lewis, Minckler,& Stadalis, 2009, p. 4). The questionnaire serves as a

formal diagnostic tool “to gauge the level at which schools function along a continuum of

the levels of effectiveness of PLC characteristics” (Olivier et al., 2009, p. 4). Moreover,

the PLCA-R was developed to aid school staff in distinguishing practices that effectively

contribute to initiating, implementing, and institutionalizing a PLC.

 67

The PLCA-R measures educators’ perceptions of the five critical attributes of a

PLC within the school learning organization: shared and supportive leadership; shared

values and vision; collective learning and application; shared personal practice; and

supportive conditions, including both relationships and structures (Hipp & Huffman,

2010). The PLCA-R is a 52 item online survey offered through the Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). Permission to use the PLCA-R in the

current study (Appendix E) and publish it as an item (Appendix F) in the dissertation was

obtained by the researcher from the primary developer of the PLCA-R.

The survey consists of a four-point, forced Likert scale ranging from 1=Strongly

Disagree to 4=Strongly Agree. The revised addition added seven new statements directly

related to the use of data as a school level practice. Survey item statements as represented

in the PLCA- R are presented in Table 2.

Table 2

Professional Learning Community Assessment - Revised Dimension Statements

Element Items
Shared and Supportive Leadership 1-11
Shared Vision and Values 12-20
Collective Learning and Application 21-30
Shared Personal Practice 31-37
Supportive Conditions – Relationships 38-42
Supportive Conditions – Structures 43-52
Used with permission Olivier, D. F., Hipp, K. K., & Huffman, J. B. (2010). Assessing
and analyzing schools. In K. K. Hipp & J. B. Huffman (Eds.). Demystifying professional
learning communities: School leadership at its Best. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
 68

The PLCA-R has been administered widely in numerous school districts and in

varying grade levels throughout the United States. The widespread use of the PLCA-R

has provided ample opportunity to review the dimensions for internal consistency.

According to Oliver et al. (2009) “initial and subsequent studies have provided ongoing

validation” (p. 5).

The developers of the PLCA-R verified the relevance of these new items related

to data through an Expert Opinion Questionnaire (EOQ). Feedback was solicited from a

panel of experts consisting of school administrators and teachers, district and regional

supervisory personnel, university faculty and staff, educational consultants, and doctoral

students studying PLCs. Findings from the EOQ “resulted in the inclusion of all seven

proposed items added to the revised PLCA (Hipp & Huffman, 2010, p. 31). In addition,

one variation in formatting resulted from feedback provided by the panel of experts. This

variation allows respondents to express their viewpoint at the conclusion of each of the

dimension sections. Permitting respondents to comment “provides an avenue for

professional staff to offer more comprehensive feedback on critical attributes within each

dimension, thus allowing insight through qualitative means to guide further direction”

(Olivier et al., 2009, p.9).

Cronbach alpha was utilized to assess the degree to which the PLCA-R possesses

internal consistency (Olivier et al., 2009). Hipp and Huffman (2010), in their analyses of

PLCA-R, confirm internal consistency resulting in the following Cronbach alpha

reliability coefficients for factored subscales (n=1029):

Shared and Supportive Leadership (.94); Shared Values and Vision (.92);
 69

Collective Learning and Application (.91); Shared Personal Practice (.87);

Supportive Conditions - Relationships (.82); Supportive Conditions - Structures

(.88); and a one-factor solution (.97). (p.30).

Frankel and Wallen (2009) define reliability as “the degree to which scores

obtained with an instrument are consistent measures of whatever the instrument

measures” (p. G-7) and further note that “a useful rule of thumb is that reliability should

be at least .70 and preferably higher” (p. 157). Given the results of the Cronbah alpha

correlations, the PLCA-R meets the established criteria for a sound, trustworthy, and

reliable instrument.

In addition, the PLCA-R offers an optional area for the collection of qualitative

data through optional open-ended responses following statements aligned to each of the

five dimensions. This allows for potential concurrent quantitative and qualitative data

collection through the PLCA-R.

The Standards Assessment Inventory-2 (SAI2). The SAI2 was selected for this

study because of its alignment to the second research question under study: What are

educators’ perceptions as to the overall quality of professional learning gained through

participation in a professional learning community?

Data collected from the SAI2 recognizes the interdependence of educators’

professional learning and subsequent improvement in learning outcomes for students

(Jacquith, Mindlich, Wei, & Darling-Hammond, 2010). This inventory provides data on

the construct of overall quality of professional development learning programs and thus

aligns with the second research question in this study:

 70

The SAI2, the 2011 revision of the 2003 Standards Assessment Inventory (SAI),

aligns to the newly revised Standards for Professional Learning (SfPL) as defined by

Learning Forward. Learning Forward is a national professional organization which seeks

to advance the professional learning of educators to improve student success. In

collaboration with SEDL, Learning Forward (formerly the National Staff Development

Council) developed the SAI to assess the degree to which schools’ professional

development programs adhere to standards representing best practices for professional

learning.

The SfPL emerged due to the long-standing recognition of the interdependency of

educators’ professional learning and improved learning outcomes for students (Denmark

& Weaver, 2012). This is the third iteration of SfPL, which were initially offered in

2001. The SfPL have evolved to reflect the existing “best practice research with an

emphasis on the importance of educators- individually and collectively- taking an active

role in the continuous development of their professional learning to ensure student

achievement” (Denmark & Weaver, 2012, p. 3).

A listing and brief description of the current Standards for Professional Learning

are provided below:

1. Learning communities: Professional learning that increases educator

effectiveness and results for all students occurs within learning communities

committed to continuous improvement, collective responsibility, and goal

alignment.
 71

2. Leadership: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and

results for all students requires skillful leaders who develop capacity,

advocate, and create support systems for professional learning.

3. Resources: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and

results for all students requires prioritizing, monitoring, and coordinating

resources for educator learning.

4. Data: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results

for all students uses a variety of sources and types of data to plan, assess, and

evaluate professional learning.

5. Learning Designs: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness

and results for all students integrates theories, research, and models of human

learning to achieve its intended outcomes.

6. Implementation: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness

and results for all students applies research on change and sustains support for

implementation of professional learning for long-term change.

7. Outcomes: Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and

results for all students aligns its outcomes with educator performance and

student curriculum standards. (Learning Forward, 2011, p. 23).

The SfPL describe the context, process, and content for effective professional

development (Learning Forward, 2011). The SfPL aligned to context are Learning

Communities, Leadership, and Resources; the SfPL aligned to process are Data, Learning

Designs, and Implementation; and the SfPL aligned to content is Outcomes.

 72

The SAI reflects the evolution of the SfPL. It is an instrument targeted at

“measuring a school’s professional development program and new Standards for

Professional Learning” (Denmark & Weaver, p. 3). First established in 2003, the SAI has

been redesigned to reflect the 2011 SfPL.

The redesigning of the SAI was initiated with a crosswalk between existing SAI

items and the 2011 SfPL, along with a factor analysis of the SAI to determine which

items on the SAI could remain, with possible revision on the SAI2 (Denmark & Weaver

2012).

Based on the crosswalk and factor analysis of the SAI, items were adapted for the

SAI or constructed for a draft SAI2 to broadly represent the construct domain

articulated by each of the Standards for Professional Learning. A small pilot

sample of 82 educators completed the draft SAI2 and provided feedback on the

face validity of the instrument, its administration, and the clarity of the items and

instructions. (Denmark and Weaver, 2012, p.1).

This small pilot was followed by feedback on content and administration provided

by three professional learning experts. Feedback from the small pilot and the professional

learning experts guided revisions to the items and instruction. Subsequently, a larger-

scale psychometric study was undertaken “to evaluate the reliability and factorial validity

of the SAI2” (p. 1). Participating educators in this larger study numbered 2,325 and

represented 121 geographically diverse schools. According to Denmark and Weaver

Multi-level, ordinal factor analyses were conducted to examine the validity and

reliability of the SAI2. These analyses sought to elucidate the number and
 73

patterns of factors being measured by the SAI2, including the congruence of this

structure to the seven Standards for Professional Learning. Based on the results of

these analyses, the SAI2 appears to measure a single construct or factor reflecting

the overall quality of professional development learning in schools. All items

were supported as valid and reliable indicators of a general professional learning

quality, and reliability estimates of a composite score of school professional

learning quality computed by averaging over respondents and items within the

same school indicated exceptionally high reliability (pp. 1-2).

Based on these results of the large-scale study, “strong, albeit preliminary, results

support the construct validity and reliability of the SAI2” (Denmark & Weaver, 2012,

p.5).

The SAI2 is a 50 item web-based survey that takes approximately 20 minutes to

complete and assesses the presence of behaviors at the school level that are associated

with the seven SfPL. The survey is designed to collect data on teacher perceptions of

their experiences with professional learning. Specifically the SAI2 provides the following

data:

1. Information to systems that need to understand teachers’ perceptions of

professional learning;

2. The degree of success or challenges systems face with professional learning

practices and implementation; and

3. Data on the quality of professional learning as defined by the Standards for

Professional Learning, a system’s alignment of professional learning to the

 74

standards, and the relationship of the standards to improvements in educator

effectiveness and student achievement.

Semi-structured interviews. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the

research problem under study, the researcher employed the use of quantitative and

qualitative data. The use of a mixed methods approach was explicitly selected for this

research problem to expand the scope of the study and come to a more complete

understanding of the phenomena under study (Cresswell, 2009).

The inclusion of qualitative data is embedded within the PLCA-R. Following

statements aligned to each of the five dimensions an optional area is offered for educators

to make qualitative comments. Therefore, the possibility for richer data aligned to the

five dimensions is conceivable but not ensured. As a result, and in an effort to provide an

even deeper understanding of the PLC experience, the researcher elected to conduct

semi-structured interviews.

The interview questions selected by the researcher align with the quantitative data

collection survey tools and the research questions under study. The first five interview

questions were developed by Anfara & Teague (2012) to engage educators in

conversations about professional learning communities. These five questions correspond

to the five dimensions of professional learning communities and the PLCA-R. The sixth

interview question, written by the researcher, was designed to engage educators in

conversation about the overall quality of professional development. It is aligned to the

SAI2. The seventh question, also written by the researcher, allowed the participant being
 75

interviewed an opportunity to offer further details if desired. The interview questions are

listed below:

1. What evidence in your school exists for shared and supportive leadership?

2. What evidence in your school points to a shared vision and values that are

focused on students?

3. In what ways are teachers at your school sharing their practice with

colleagues?

4. What structures are in place at your school to support collaboration among

teachers, administration and the staff?

5. How would you describe the relationships that exist in your school among

teachers, administrators, and other staff?

6. How would you describe the overall quality of professional development in

your school?

7. Is there anything else you would like to add or discuss about your experience

as a member of a professional learning community?

Data Collection

Data collection took place during the spring 2015 semester. The following section

will provide explanations of the procedures used to solicit input from the participants

using the tools described earlier in this chapter.

PLCA-R data collection. The first phase of the study focused on concurrent

quantitative and qualitative data collection. A recruitment letter was sent to educators at
 76

the five schools in the district taking part in this study to invite participation (Appendix

C). Agreement to participate in the study was indicated by the signing of the Informed

Consent form (Appendix D). Once informed consent was given, an e-mail was sent to

each participant asking him or her to complete the PLCA-R online survey within one

week from receiving the e-mail. The e-mail also provided specific instructions and details

as to how to complete the survey online (Appendix G). A secure, hyperlinked internet

address for the survey was provided. All collected survey data were anonymous. In fact,

anonymity of the participants was maintained for the reporting of all findings. All survey

responses, audio files, and interview transcripts are stored on a password protected

server.

SAI2 data collection. The second survey instrument, the Standards Assessment

Inventory- 2 (SAI2) sought to answer the question: What are educators’ perceptions of

the overall quality of professional learning gained through participation in a professional

learning community? This question assesses educators’ perceptions of professional

learning communities as a mechanism for professional learning; reveals the degree of

success or challenges systems face with professional development practices and

implementation; and provides data on the quality of professional development as defined

by the seven Standards for Professional Learning. The SAI 2 provides data regarding the

relationship of the standards to improvements in educator effectiveness and student

achievement.

One week following the e-mail inviting participants to take the PLCA- R, a

second e-mail was sent to the participating educators at the five schools in the district
 77

taking part in this study. The e-mail asked participants to complete the SAI2 online

survey within one week from receiving the e-mail. Additionally, it provided specific

instructions and details as to how to complete the survey online (Appendix G). A secure,

hyperlinked internet address for the survey was provided. All collected survey data were

anonymous. Anonymity of the participants was maintained for the reporting of all

findings. All survey responses, audio files, and interview transcripts are stored on a

password protected server.

The researcher received permission to use the SAI2 from Learning Forward and

paid three hundred dollars for participants to take this survey.

Interview data collection. Following survey data collection, the researcher

conducted semi-structured interviews. This additional collection of qualitative data was

meant to better understand the lived experience of the educators engaged in professional

learning communities.

Sampling procedure. In conducting interviews, the researcher sought equitable

representation of the overall sample. In order to do so, the researcher utilized a stratified

random sampling of educators who had consented to participate in the study to conduct

interviews. Stratified random sampling permitted the researcher to interview a

representative group of the overall sample. The researcher divided the overall sample of

educators into smaller groups or strata—specifically educators at the elementary, middle

school, and high school level who have all engaged in professional learning communities.

A random sample from each stratum was taken in a number proportional to the stratum’s
 78

size compared to the overall sample size. From these subsets of strata, the researcher then

selected a random sample of educators to interview.

Interview procedures. Interviews were approximately 30 minutes in duration

and conducted individually. Interviewees were invited to ask the researcher any questions

about the study—and how the results of the study will be reported—for clarification.

Each interview followed a standardized open-ended format and took place at the

interviewees’ school site .The precise wording and sequence of questions were pre-

determined. All interviewees were asked the same questions in the same sequence, and a

conversational tone was maintained. By asking questions in a standardized manner, the

researcher increased comparability of responses, decreased confounding variables, and

facilitated the organization and analysis of the data (Patton, 2002). The researcher

utilized a conversational tone in order to probe for greater clarity and depth (Patton,

2002). Doing so increased the range, complexity, and richness of the responses. All

interviews were audio recorded for later verbatim transcription by the researcher. All

audio files and interview transcripts, were stored on a password protected server.

Transcripts of the interview were sent back to the interviewed participants as part

of the member-checking process (Appendix H). Member checking is a way of

“reassuring the credibility of constructions of participants” (Cho& Trent, 2006).

Participants were asked to check the narrative for “accuracy and completeness” (Frankel

and Wallen, 2009, p, 504). Participants were encouraged to edit, delete, clarify, or

elaborate on any words in the narrative so that the researcher could make the suggested
 79

revisions (Carlson, 2010). The following section describes the planned methods to

analyze the data collected through these processes.

Data Analysis Procedures

This study used a mixed methods approach; therefore, data analyses aligned to the

procedure(s) used in each were conducted. The data analyses also reflected the questions

guiding this research. Data were analyzed in order to address the research questions.

Survey data were analyzed and summarized using descriptive statistics. Interview data

along with data from the open-ended comments submitted via the PLCA-R followed an

established eight step analysis and coding protocol to determine emerging themes,

patterns, and trends related to the research questions.

Quantitative Data Analyses.

PLCA-R Quantitative Data Analysis. This study utilized the PLCA-R to gather

the perceptions of educators regarding the alignment of their professional development

through a PLC with Hord’s (1997) five dimensions. A quantitative analysis of descriptive

statistics was conducted. This included frequencies, mean, median, and standard

deviation calculated for each of the five dimensions for the overall sample of participants

as well as for each individual item. Hipp and Huffman (2010) advocate analysis of

individual items stating, “Given that the PLCA-R items illustrate actual school-level

practices, analysis of the measure should incorporate a review of individual items to

determine the strength and weaknesses of practices deemed essential within a PLC”

(p.35). Hipp and Huffman (2010) further extol the benefits of descriptive statistical

analysis by asserting, “When analyzing PLCA-R results, descriptive statistics are

 80

beneficial in determining the strengths of the dimensions, as well as reviewing teacher

responses for each individual item” (p.35).

SAI2 Quantitative Data Analysis. This study utilized the SAI2 to gather the

perceptions of educators regarding the alignment of their professional development

through a PLC with Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning.

Descriptive statistics including frequencies, mean, median, and standard deviation were

calculated for each of the seven Standards for Professional Learning for the overall

sample of participants as well as for each individual item.

Qualitative data analysis. Following data collection from the open-ended

responses from the PLCA-R and the interview process of participants, the researcher

engaged in a process of memoing, coding, and identifying emerging themes from the

related qualitative data. Specifically, the researcher employed a systematic process of

data analysis aligned to coding procedures recommend by Cresswell (2009), Denzin &

Lincoln, (2000); Leech & Onwuegbuzie (2007); and Patton, (2002). The details of the

analysis of the collected qualitative data are described in this section.

The researcher, rather than a transcriptionist, transcribed interviews and open-

ended responses into text. The researcher chose to personally transcribe the qualitative

data because it meant reading through open-ended responses and listening to each

interview numerous times—a process that facilitated an ongoing analysis of the data.

Patton (2002) refers to verbatim transcripts as the “undigested complexity of reality”

(p.463). Thus, by personally transcribing each word of every interview, the researcher

increased the potential for “insight and in-context knowledge about the research overall,
 81

and so being able to establish a variety of important links between the research

questions/aims and the data gathered” (Litosellti, 2003, p. 85). Prior to coding in the next

step, member checking was employed to verify the accuracy and completeness of each

transcript.

Next, the researcher conducted an initial reading of each transcript to gain a

general sense of “what emerges as important” from the text (Seidman, 2008, p. 117). A

second reading of each transcript followed, with the researcher organizing the responses

by research question. The researcher examined the data for emerging themes and

categories and began the process of memoing text by making notes in the margin to

identify emerging patterns and themes. In addition, the researcher highlighted similar

ideas with different colored highlighter pens to color code similar themes. This process

was repeated for each transcript. Initially, this was an iterative process to maintain

flexibility to emerging themes and patterns. The researcher made revisions to themes and

patterns throughout the process in an effort to prioritize the most relevant data and

facilitate a robust capture of the realities of participants’ experiences.

As themes begin to emerge from the list, the researcher began to codify the data

by systematically arranging the data under aligned constructs. Coding is a method that

enabled the researcher to “organize and group similarly coded data into categories or

families, because they share some characteristic—the beginning of a pattern” (Saldana,

2009, p. 8).

Through the coding process, data were placed in an organizational framework

with specific themes and established categories. After the coding process was completed,
 82

the data from the open-ended responses on the PLCA-R and semi-structured interviews

were analyzed using constant comparative analyses. Constant comparative analyses

“assures that all data are systematically compared to all other data in the data set” (Fram,

2013, p. 8). By comparing and cross-checking the stability of information collected at

different times and by different means, the opportunity exists for deeper explanations of

the phenomena under study (Patton, 2002). This inductive process of critically examining

data to draw new meaning led to the research findings of the study (Glaser, 1965).

Delimitations

The researcher identified delimitations that bind this study, based on the strengths

and weakness of a mixed method approach to data collection and analysis (Cresswell,

2009; Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2004; Johnson, Onwuegbuzie, & Turner, 2007). The

quantitative and qualitative phases of the research were limited to the educators of the

study site engaged in professional learning communities. The quantitative phase of the

study was limited to a purposeful sample of three elementary schools, one middle school,

and one high school in a northeastern state. These school were actively engaged in

implementing professional learning communities.

Participants in the qualitative phase of data collection were a subset of the

quantitative data sample and consisted of a stratified random sample of educators who

had completed the PLCA-R and SAI2.

Limitations of the Study

Every research study has limitations, no matter how well it is organized and

implemented (Simon & Goes, 2013). The researcher sought to lessen inherent limitations
 83

and increase internal validity by employing a mixed methods research design, which

involved collection of data from multiple sources to support triangulation.

Self-Reporting. This study utilized self-reported data gathered during the

quantitative phase from the PLCA-R and SAI2 and during the qualitative phase of the

study in the open-ended optional comment areas of the PLCA-R and when interviews

were conducted. The primary limitation of self-reported data is validity and bias (Brutus,

Aguinis, & Wassmer, 2013). By employing both quantitative and qualitative data

collection tools, the researcher sought to address issues of validity and bias to answer the

research questions.

Representativeness. Data collected in this study was limited to a large suburban

school district in the northeastern United States. It was further limited to the schools and

educators within the district who were engaged in professional learning communities.

The schools and participants represented in this study do not necessarily represent the

population as a whole. The findings from the educators’ perceptions of professional

learning communities cannot be generalized to other schools engaged in the PLC process.

Credibility. Researcher bias is another potential limitation that may have affected

the open-ended responses on the PLCA-R and the semi-structured interview. The

researcher selected a mixed methods research design and triangulation of data from

multiple sources to improve the credibility of the findings. Patton (2002) asserts that data

collected from multiple sources result in “either consistency in overall patterns of data

from different sources or reasonable explanations for differences in data from divergent

sources” (p. 560). The use of research methods that recognize and proactively respond to
 84

potential researcher bias, data collection, and analyses increase the validity and

trustworthiness of study findings (Lincoln & Guba, 1995).

Assumptions

This mixed-methods study investigated how educators perceive professional

learning communities as defined by the five universal dimensions. In addition, educators’

perceptions as to the overall quality of professional learning experienced through

participation in a professional learning community were examined. This study was

conducted with the following assumptions:

1. The strength of implementation of a professional learning community can be

determined by the school level practices related to the five dimensions of a

professional learning community as defined by Hord (1997).

2. The Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R) is a

valid and reliable measure of educators’ perceptions regarding the

implementation of the five dimensions of a professional learning community

(Hipp & Huffman, 2010).

3. Participants will respond to the PLCA-R instrument with fidelity and

integrity.

4. The overall quality of professional learning can be determined by the seven

Standards for Professional Learning as defined by Learning Forward (2011).

5. The Standards Assessment Inventory-2 is a valid and reliable measure of

educators’ perception of the overall quality of professional learning as defined

the Standards for Professional Learning.

 85

6. Participants will respond to the SAI2 instrument with fidelity and integrity.

7. The strength of implementation of a professional learning community can be

determined by the school level practices related to the five dimensions of a

professional learning community as defined by Hord (1997) through semi-

structured interviews of educators.

8. The overall quality of professional learning through a PLCs can be determined

through semi-structured interviews of educators aligned to the Standards for

Professional Learning.

Summary

In order to investigate educators’ perceptions of professional learning

communities as defined by the five universal dimensions and the overall quality of

professional learning experienced through participation in a professional learning

community, a mixed methods approach was determined to be the best method to serve

the purpose of this study. The research process began with concurrent quantitative and

qualitative data collection and analyses using two valid and reliable survey instruments,

the PLCA-R and the SAI2. Additional qualitative data were collected using a semi-

structured interview format and subsequently analyzed.

Chapter Three provided an overview of the study, detailing the research design,

research setting and participants, sampling procedures, instrumentation, data collection

and analysis, delimitations, limitations, and assumptions of this mixed-methods study.

Chapter Four will present a detailed report of the data collected in the investigation of

educators’ perceptions of professional learning communities.

 86

Chapter Four

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate educators’ perceptions of

their progress toward becoming a professional learning community and the perceived

impact PLC participation may have on professional learning. The status of the five

dimensions of a PLC was determined in relation to Hord’s (1997) theoretical framework.

The status of professional learning resulting from PLC participation was determined in

relation to the Standards for Professional Learning (Learning Forward, 2011). Chapter

four is organized by research question and presents a detailed account of this study’s

findings and data analyses.

This research study addressed the following two questions about professional

learning communities:

1. How do educators perceive professional learning communities as defined by

the five universal dimensions?

2. What are educators’ perceptions of the overall quality of professional learning

experienced through participation in a professional learning community?

Setting

The setting of the study was a suburban school district located in the northeastern

United States with a reputation for academic excellence, as evidenced by a district

aggregate score that was above 90% on the state’s 2013-2014 academic performance

measure. Each of the five elementary schools in the district has received Blue Ribbon
 87

Honors from the state department of education and three elementary schools have

received the prestigious National Blue Ribbon School Award from the United States

Department of Education.

In addition to its focus on academic excellence, the school district prides itself on

providing a supportive school climate, which develops highly competent educators who

care deeply for their students. The district’s educators have multiple avenues open to

them for pursuing professional excellence, including continuing education at the master’s

and/or doctoral level, conferences and workshops, and ongoing school district

professional learning offerings. Many of the educators in the school district have elected

to participate in professional growth opportunities that are team-based, long-term, and

job-embedded. Overall, the main objective for professional learning at the study setting is

to develop a culture that fosters continuous improvement leading to effective teaching

practices that result in increased student learning.

The study setting and schools were purposefully selected to meet criteria aligned

to the research under study. The school district has been implementing professional

learning communities in cohort-based teams focused on formative assessment practices

for four years. The five school-based teams included in the study were in the process of

actively implementing professional learning communities, focusing on formative

assessment in cohort-based teams. The study teams have been engaged in professional

learning communities for two years and were willing to participate in the study.
 88

Participants

Participants in the study were teachers and principals who were active members

of professional learning communities within their respective schools. There was one

PLC team at three elementary schools, one at the middle school team, and one at the high

school team. The total number of potential participants from these five PLC teams was

51. The final response rate to the study was 34 of 51 educators, representing 66.66% of

the total sample. Study participants took part in two online surveys—the Professional

Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R) and the Standards Assessment

Inventory 2 (SAI2)—that generated perceptual data related to the research questions

under study.

Study participants also agreed to the possibility of random selection for a follow-

up interview after participation in the two surveys as indicated on the Informed Consent

Form (Appendix C). In order to ensure representativeness, the researcher used a

stratified random sample and a table of random numbers to select five potential

participants for follow-up, semi-structured interviews. Three elementary participants,

one middle school participant, and one high school participant were initially selected and

invited to take part in the interview process. All study participants in the initial round of

random selection agreed to be interviewed with the exception of one elementary study

participant. The researcher then used a table of random numbers to select one additional

elementary study participant who accepted the invitation for an interview. Interviewed

participants will be referred to as Subject A, Subject B, Subject C, Subject D, and Subject

E.
 89

Data Collection and Analysis

Qualitative Data. Qualitative data was collected from semi-structured interviews

with a stratified random sample of study participants and from the open-ended comments

submitted via the PLCA-R. The researcher followed an eight-step analysis and coding

protocol to determine emerging themes, patterns, and trends related to the research

questions.

The semi-structured interviews with the five participating PLC team members

yielded qualitative data centered on a seven-question interview guide (Appendix J). The

researcher transcribed the qualitative interview data and provided the transcript to each

interviewed participant for member checking to ensure accuracy and completeness. The

researcher then conducted an initial reading of each transcript to gain a general sense of

the information provided and reflect on its overall meaning.

A second reading of the transcripts followed, at which time the researcher

organized the responses by research question. Specifically, the first five interview

questions and responses aligned to the five universal dimensions of a PLC and research

question number one. Interview question number six aligned to research question number

two. Interview question number seven was open-ended and allowed study participants to

expand on and explain their PLC experiences, adding to the richness of the data.

The researcher examined the data for emerging themes and patterns and began the

process of memoing text, making notes in the margins. As themes emerged, the

researcher began an open coding process in which code names were assigned to

meaningful segments of text within each interview transcript. The researcher read each
 90

transcript, line by line, and identified words, phrases, or segments relevant to the research

questions. Initially, the researcher used different colored highlighter pens to color code

similar themes and then marked each by assigning it a code or name to denote its

significance within the context of the study.

After open coding, the data were pieced together by making comparisons and

relating sub categories to categories using an axial coding method, which allowed for the

selection of core categories that matched specific aspects of each research question

(Corbin & Strauss, 2014). The researcher used this organizational process to group topics

that related to each other until all of the relevant analytical units within each of the five

transcripts were identified, highlighted, and coded. Final codes were based on what

emerged during the data analysis and grouped into descriptive categories that matched

significant components of the research questions under study and the literature base. For

example, the first research question focuses on educator perceptions of the five universal

dimensions of a PLC. The interview question What evidence in your school exists for

shared and supportive leadership? aligns to the first of the five universal dimensions,

shared and supportive leadership. In this example, for the purpose of organizing codes,

two descriptive categories emerged from responses to this question: open communication

and trust, and shared knowledge and leadership with colleagues.

Results for Research Question One

The PLCA-R online survey, conducted with all study participants, answered

research question number one: “How do educators perceive professional learning

communities as defined by the five universal dimensions?” The five universal dimensions
 91

of a PLC are shared and supportive leadership, shared values and vision, collective

learning and application, supportive conditions for relationships, and supportive

conditions for structures (Hipp & Huffman, 2010). A copy of the survey is included in

Appendix H.

The PLCA-R is a 52 item online survey consisting of statements that define the

behaviors and practices of effective professional learning communities for each of the

five PLC dimensions. The types of data available from the PLCA-R are both quantitative

and qualitative. Quantitative data is collected when participants respond to statements

aligned to each dimension by indicating that they strongly disagree (SD), disagree (D),

agree (A), or strongly agree (SA) with each statement. A forced Likert scale assigns a

value to each rating to quantify the perceptions: 1=Strongly Disagree; 2= Disagree; 3=

Agree; 4=Strongly Agree. The PLCA-R item statements by dimension are located in

Appendix H. Quantitative data results, in the form of subscales for each of the five PLC

dimensions and item statements, are reported as frequencies, means, and standard

deviations. Qualitative responses on the PLCA-R are optional. Participants may elect to

include narrative feedback in an open-ended comment section at the conclusion of each

dimension. The characteristics of the five PLC dimensions, total number of statements

per dimension, and related descriptions for the PLCA-R are summarized in Table 3.

Table 4 provides the results, including mean scores and standard deviations, for

each of the five dimensions collected from the PLCA-R. The overall mean score in each

dimension was slightly below or slightly above a mean score of 3.00. A mean score of

3.00 by dimension would indicate, on average, perceived agreement with the statements
 92

on the PLCA-R that describe effective practices and behaviors of a PLC. The mean score

results suggest an overall agreement with the statements aligned to each of the five PLC

dimensions. In other words, on average, the educators who were engaged in professional

learning communities at the study site agreed with the statements on the PLCA-R aligned

with each of the five PLC dimensions and perceived the development of the PLC model

to be established.

Table 3

Characteristics of the PLCA-R

Number of
Dimensions Description
Statements
Shared and supportive Administrators share power, authority, and decision-making, while
11
leadership promoting and nurturing leadership.
The staff share visions that have an undeviating focus on student learning,
Shared values and
9 and support norms of behavior that guide decisions about teaching and
vision
learning.
Collective learning and The staff share information and work collaboratively to plan, solve
10
application problems, and improve learning opportunities.
Shared personal Peers meet and observe one another to provide feedback on instructional
7
practice practices, to assist in student learning, and to increase human capacity.

Supportive conditions Collegial and caring relationships based in trust and respect within a context
5
– relationships of improvement and critical inquiry.
School structures (e.g., time, proximity to staff, and communication
Supportive conditions systems) and respect, trust, norms of critical inquiry and improvement, and
10
– structures positive caring relationships among the entire school community support
collective and collaborative school improvement.
Adapted from Huffman, J.B., & Kipp, K.A. (2003). Reculturing Schools as Professional Learning
Communities.

Table 4

PLCA-R Dimensions

Shared and Shared Collective Shared Supportive Supportive

Supportive Values and Learning and Personal Conditions - Conditions –
Leadership Visions Application Practice Relationships Structures

Mean 2.88 2.88 3.09 2.88 2.97 2.89

Standard
0.64 0.51 0.54 0.61 0.67 0.63
Deviation
 93

Results for Each of the Dimensions of a PLC

Shared and supportive leadership. This dimension examines how

administrators share power, authority, and decision-making, while promoting and

nurturing distributed leadership (Hipp, Hord, Huffman, Pankake, & Olivier, 2008).

Specifically, the statements in this dimension focus on how the principal shares

leadership with teachers as it relates to change, school-based decision-making, and a

commitment to student learning. The PLCA-R survey includes 11 statements relating to

this dimension. The overall mean score for this dimension was 2.88 (SD=.64). An overall

mean score of 3.00 would indicate, on average, an agreement with the 11 statements

related to shared and supportive leadership. A mean score of 2.88 indicates that the

educators who were engaged in professional learning communities at the study site

perceived shared and supportive leadership as slightly below average. The quantitative

data from this dimension suggest there is opportunity for the titled school leaders at the

study site to offer more opportunities for shared decision-making in both formal and

informal leadership roles. These opportunities would allow for further voice and choice

and foster professional learning community team members’ feelings of efficacy (Hord,

2015).

Raw scores, frequencies, mean, and standard deviation were calculated for each of

the eleven item statements aligned to this dimension. Table 5 provides the results for each

item statement in this dimension.

 94

The data indicate areas of strength and areas for improvement as perceived by the

PLC team members in this study. Raw score data for this dimension ranged from a total

score of 91 to an overall score of 104 with 100 as the median score. The total score

potential for each item statement ranges from 34 to 136. The lowest raw score of 91 was

reflected in statement 10: Stakeholders assume shared responsibility and accountability

for student learning without evidence of imposed power and authority. The highest raw

score of 104 was reflected in statement 11: Staff members use multiple sources of data to

make decisions about teaching and learning.

Frequency data for the 11 statements in this dimension indicate PLC team

members agreed or strongly agreed with 62% to 85% of the statements. Conversely,

within this dimension, team members disagreed or strongly disagreed with 15% to 38%

of the statements.

Mean score data for this dimension ranged from 2.68 (SD= .59) for statement ten:

Stakeholders assume shared responsibility and accountability for student learning

without evidence of imposed power and authority to 3.06 (SD= .60) for statement 11:

Staff members use multiple sources of data to make decisions about teaching and

learning.

Standard deviation data for this dimension was as follows. The least variance

(SD= .52) was reflected in statement number two: The principal incorporates advice

from staff members to make decisions. The greatest variance (SD=.84) was reflected in

statement four: The principal is proactive and addresses areas where support is needed.

Table 5 provides the results for each item statement in this dimension.
 95

Table 5

PLCA-R Shared and Supportive Leadership

Sum of
Raw Score SD D A SA
Dimension Statement n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean SD
1. Staff members are
consistently involved in
12 20 2
discussing and making 92 2.71 .58
(35.3%) (58.8%) (5.9%)
decisions about most school
issues.

2. The principal incorporates

5 25 4
advice from staff members to 101 2.97 .52
(14.7 %) (73.5%) (11.8 %)
make decisions.

3. Staff members have

7 22 5
accessibility to key 100 2.94 .60
(20.6%) (64.7%) (14.7%)
information.

4. The principal is proactive

1 11 13 9
and addresses areas where 98 2.88 .84
(2.9%) (32.4%) (38.2%) (26.5%)
support is needed.

5. Opportunities are provided

6 22 6
for staff members to initiate 102 3.00 .60
(17.6%) (64.7%) (17.6%)
change.

6. The principal shares

8 20 6
responsibility and rewards for 100 2.94 .65
(23.5%) (58.8%) (17.6%)
innovative actions.

7. The principal participates

11 18 5
democratically with staff 96 2.82 .67
(32.4%) (52.9%) (14.7%)
sharing power and authority.

8. Leadership is promoted and

7 22 5
nurtured among staff 100 2.94 .60
(20.6%) (64.7 %) (14.7%)
members.
9. Decision-making takes
place through committees and 1 11 18 4
93 2.74 .71
communication across grade (2.9%) (32.4 %) (52.9%) (11.8%)
and subject areas.

10. Stakeholders assume

shared responsibility and
13 19 2
accountability for student 91 2.68 .59
(38.2 %) (55.9%) (5.9%)
learning without evidence of
imposed power and authority.

11. Staff members use

multiple sources of data to 5 22 7
104 3.06 .60
make decisions about teaching (14.7%) (64.7%) (20.6%)
and learning.
 96

Qualitative data aligned to this dimension from the PLCA-R. Qualitative data

aligned to this dimension were collected through an open-ended response area at the

conclusion of the dimension. One qualitative comment was collected “Leadership has

been less supportive this year. Democracy has seemed to fall by the way side.”

Qualitative Data from Interview Responses. Qualitative data from semi-

structured interviews are included in this analysis. The combination of both quantitative

and qualitative data has the potential to provide a deeper insight from study participants

than either in isolation may offer (Cresswell, 2009). The following interview question

aligned to research question number one and the shared and supportive leadership PLC

dimension: What evidence exists in your school for shared and supportive leadership?

Participant responses not only addressed statements aligned to the PLCA-R but also went

beyond the scope of statements to address the shared and supportive leadership

dimension.

Common patterns and themes that emerged from analysis and coding were open

communication and trust between teachers and administrators and opportunities to share

knowledge and leadership with colleagues both within and outside of the PLC structure.

Participants expanded on these themes by providing specific examples.

Four of the five study participants interviewed (80%) noted open communication

and trust in response to the question focused on shared and supportive leadership. Subject

A and Subject E both spoke of a culture of trust and open communication between school

leaders and teachers. Specific examples provided by Subject A and E cite an open door

policy between administrators and teachers. Subject A said, “Our leadership is very good
 97

and has an open door policy. So I feel, and I think everyone feels, pretty comfortable

being able to talk with them.” Subject E indicated that

There is an open door policy here so if there is any concern you have—

anything—not even just problems, maybe there is something you want to

celebrate, it’s not just a forum for complaining or changing things but also for

thinking that may help in an area where things may not be working as well.

Subject C cited shared leadership at faculty meetings as a means to facilitate open

communication through the lens of shared practice both within the school building and

across district school buildings:

We have faculty meetings where we share good things that are going on.

Throughout the district, we also have grade level meetings so we can hear what’s

going on. We get to hear what other people are doing, share our ideas, and use

other colleagues’ ideas, too.

Subject B also noted the open communication between PLC team members,

administrators, and the broader school community:

With our PLC, we were asked to do an hour-and-a-half in-service on formative

assessment; that, for me, felt like one of the first times that I was asked to do

something like that with my colleagues. We have talked about it, and we think

some of the best professional development times we have had were when teachers

volunteered to do a workshop. Everybody rotates all day, everybody learns

something, and you really get to see what your colleagues are doing. I mean, it is

an awesome way for teachers to become teacher leaders for one another, to share
 98

our knowledge, and a wonderful way to bond together as a staff and to get to

know what other teachers are doing.

The statements given in response to the PLC dimension on shared and supportive

leadership reflected an interdependence between shared and supportive leadership and

shared personal practice and collective learning and application.

Specific examples of shared and supportive leadership were provided by Subject

A “We have a leadership committee here made up of teachers and parents.” Subject C

provided examples of how shared and supportive leadership extended to the students at

the study site as well:

Our students are leaders too. We have the ‘Safeties.’ The Safeties make sure the

kids are being safe. They are around at lunchtime and at the end of the day. They

help the children get on the bus and make sure they are behaving correctly. They

take a responsible role to ensure the rest of the kids are being safe.

Subject D spoke about leadership support for PLCs and other vehicles for professional

learning and growth:

There is an expectation—a desire—to have teachers involved in various PLCs or

other committees share out what they are learning with their peers and their

colleagues. We frequently have faculty meetings or in-service days and break-out

sessions where teachers are the leaders for that information. It is very well

received. So having teachers from the district who have implemented these

strategies and have used them and have experience with them—that seems to be

pretty supported.
 99

While the pattern of interview responses suggest a strong evidence base for shared

and supportive leadership at the study site, Subject B indicated a desire for even more

opportunities for shared and supportive leadership:

I have offered to do things in the past and indicated that I really wanted to share

what I have learned with others, and then they say, ‘I’m sorry. We already have

somebody who can do that’. I have been told ‘no’ a couple of times, and it makes

you discouraged. So is there shared leadership? I don’t know. I feel not as much

as there could be.

Shared values and vision. The shared values and vision dimension focuses on a

professional learning community’s shared mental image for school improvement, which

is grounded in a laser-like focus on student learning. Specifically, the statements in this

dimension focus on a vision guided by individual and collective norms and behaviors that

value the connection between teaching and learning as a means to achieve higher levels

of learning for educators and students alike. The PLCA-R survey includes nine

statements relating to this dimension.

The overall mean score and standard deviation was 2.88 (SD = .51).

An overall mean score of 3.00 would indicate, on average, an agreement with the nine

statements related to shared values and vision. A mean score of 2.88 indicates that the

educators’ who were engaged in professional learning communities at the study site

perceived shared values and vision as slightly below average. The quantitative data from

this dimension suggest a slightly below average agreement that the PLC teams are
 100

developing shared norms and behaviors that value a vision for continuous learning for

educators and students.

Raw scores, frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each

of the nine item statements aligned to this dimension. Table 6 provides the results for

each item statement for this dimension. The data indicates areas of strength and areas for

improvement as perceived by the PLC team members in this study.

Raw score data for this dimension ranged from a total score of 91 to an overall

score of 105, with 98 as the median score. The total score potential for each item

statement ranges from 34 to136. The lowest raw score of 91 was reflected in statement

16: A collaborative process exists for developing a shared vision among staff. The

highest raw score of 105 was reflected in statement 20: Data are used to prioritize

actions to reach a shared vision.

Frequency data for the nine statements in this dimension indicate that PLC team

members agreed or strongly agreed with 65% to 94% of the statements. Conversely,

within this dimension, team members disagreed or strongly disagreed with 6% to 35%

of the statements.

Mean score data for this dimension ranged from 2.68 (SD=.53) for statement 16:

A collaborative process exists for developing a shared vision among staff to 3.09 (SD=

.45) for statement 20: Data are used to prioritize actions to reach a shared vision.

Standard deviation data for this dimension were as follows. The least variance

(SD=.39) was reflected in statement number 18: Policies and programs aligned to the

school’s vision. The greatest variance (SD=.57) was reflected in statement 17: School
 101

goals focus on student learning beyond test scores and grades and statement 19 (SD=

.57): Stakeholders are actively involved in creating high expectations that serve to

increase student achievement. Table 6 provides the results for each item statement in this

dimension.

Table 6

PLCA-R Shared Values and Vision

Sum of
raw score SD D A SA
Dimension Statement n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean SD
12. A collaborative process exists
8 24 2
for developing a shared sense of 96 2.82 .52
(23.5%) (70.6%) (5.9%)
values among staff.

13. Shared values support norms of

7 24 3
behavior that guide decisions about 98 2.88 .54
(20.6%) (70.6%) (8.8%)
teaching and learning.
14. Staff members share visions for
school improvement that have an 1 4 28 1
97 2.85 .50
undeviating focus on student (2.9%) (11.8%) (82.4%) (2.9%)
learning.
4
15. Decisions are made in alignment 28 2
100 (11.8%) 2.94 .42
with the school’s values and vision. (82.4%) (5.9%)

16. A collaborative process exists

12 21 1
for developing a shared vision 91 2.68 .53
(35.3%) (61.8%) (2.9%)
among staff.

17. School goals focus on student

7 23 4
learning beyond test scores and 99 2.91 .57
(20.6%) (67.6%) (11.8%)
grades.

18. Policies and programs are 3 29 2

101 2.97 .39
aligned to the school’s vision. (8.8%) (85.3%) (5.9%)

19. Stakeholders are actively

involved in creating high 11 21 2
93 2.74 .57
expectations that serve to increase (32.4%) (61.8%) (5.9%)
student achievement.

20. Data area used to prioritize 2 27 5

105 3.09 .45
actions to reach a shared vision. (5.9%) (79.4%) (14.7%)
 102

Qualitative data aligned to this dimension from the PLCA-R. Qualitative data

aligned to the shared values and vision dimension were collected through an open-ended

response comment section at the conclusion of the dimension. No qualitative data for this

dimension were offered by study participants.

Qualitative Data from Interview Responses. Qualitative data were collected for

the shared values and vision dimension through semi-structured interviews. The

following interview question was aligned to research question number one and the shared

values and vision PLC dimension: What evidence in your school points to a shared vision

and values that are focused on students? Participant responses addressed statements

aligned to shared and supportive leadership and went beyond the scope of statements to

address the shared values and vision dimension. Common patterns and themes that

emerged from analysis and coding included a shared vision to increase student learning

and a shared vision for professional development.

A shared vision to increase student learning was a common theme that emerged

in all interview responses (100%). Subject A stated, “All the teachers in the school want

the same things for our children. We want them to do well. I feel like we have the

children’s back.” Subject B shared a similar view, explaining, “The school’s vision is to

increase student learning for all and to bring everybody up and of course that is what we

want as teachers too.” Subject C further explained this sense of shared vision:

We all share the same end point, the same end goal. We know what we want at

the end, and we all want the children to have learned. So we all have a vision in

our head of how we want to get there.

 103

Subject D provided a specific example involving RtII and shared vision:

We are very much centered on the students’ needs, individual needs. I am

actually on the Response to Instruction and Intervention (RtII) team, and we look

[collectively] at student test scores and their performance in school, and they are

moved around in their RtII groups based on their scores and teacher feedback

throughout the year.

Finally, Subject E explained,

I would say that it’s pretty clearly stated: the roles that the educators, the parents,

the classroom teachers, and we—as the special teachers—have. We all kind of

have a shared vision as to what the expectations are, [and what] the goals are. I

think we have an overall goal and feel that we push the kids to do their best but

still have fun.

Examples of a shared vision that values continual professional learning also

emerged from interview responses. Subject responses represented specific ways in which

PLC team members persevered to become more effective in their practice to increase

student learning. Each of the interviewed subjects (100%) provided specific examples of

shared vision and values at the study site. Subject A stated, “I think we are all dedicated

to our profession. We have a lot of different committees that different teachers are on to

make the school run smoothly.”

Subject B spoke of a broader vision to meet the needs of the whole child,

supported by a vision for professional learning:

 104

The last two years, I feel like the professional development is much more

focused; there is a vision for it; there is a focus. Almost always, we want the focus

to be students—either their academic or their emotional well-being, student

connectedness to other people, the community, those sort of things. I feel like the

last two years, there has actually been more of a focus on professional

development.

Subject C discussed teaming structures and technologies that support a vision for

professional learning:

Working as teams across, for example all ___ grades across the district makes

sure we are all going in the same direction so the children will learn. We put

things in shared folders so we can share things and learn from one another so we

have an end result that is the same.

Similarly, Subject D addressed how the structure of a professional learning community is

used to support a vision for professional development:

Well, for the past several years, we have had a vision for professional

development through professional learning communities, focusing on two

different [topics]: formative assessment and RtII. We also do in-service activities

with other teachers who are not involved in the PLCs.

Subject E spoke of a school vision for learning that provides a model for students:

“It [the school] is not only a place where children learn but where teachers, professionals,

and educators are also dedicated to having fun and being lifelong learners.”
 105

While the interview responses in this dimension align with the discrete

characteristics particular to the dimension, they also comingle with the attributes of the

shared personal practice and collective learning and application dimensions.

Collective learning and application; shared personal practice.

These two dimensions have been analyzed separately, with quantitative and

qualitative data from the PLCA-R, and interdependently, in relation to the interview

question posed to participants. The rationale guiding this decision is that the conceptual

underpinnings and actions undertaken in the dimensions are mutually dependent and

supporting, and this led to one aligned interview question for study participants.

Collective learning and application. The collective learning and application

dimension examines how educators’ collectively problem solve to engage in approaches

that will increase student learning through active participation in cooperative and

collaborative practices. Specifically, the statements in this dimension focus on how

educators work collegially through processes and structures that support teaching and

learning. The PLCA-R survey includes 10 statements related to this dimension.

The overall mean score for this dimension was 3.09 (SD=.54). An overall mean

score of 3.00 would indicate, on average, an agreement with the 10 statements related to

collective learning and application. A mean score of 3.09 indicates that the educators

who were engaged in professional learning communities at the study site, on average,

agreed with the statements aligned to this dimension. The quantitative data from this

dimension suggest a perceived agreement among educators at the study site who are

engaged in workplace practices that support the development of collective pedagogical

 106

knowledge through collegial relationships that enhance their learning and student

learning.

Raw scores, frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each

of the ten item statements aligned to this dimension. The data indicate areas of strength

and areas for improvement as perceived by the PLC team members in this study.

Raw score data for this dimension ranged from a total score of 98 to an overall

score of 112 with 106 as the median score. The total score potential for each item

statement ranges from 34 to136. The lowest raw score of 98 was reflected in statement

24: A variety of opportunities and structures exist for collective learning through open

dialogue and statement 27: School staff members and stakeholders learn together and

apply new knowledge to solve problems. The highest raw score of 112 was reflected in

statement 21: Staff members work together to seek knowledge, skills, and strategies and

apply this new learning to their work.

Frequency data for the ten statements in this dimension indicate PLC team

members agreed or strongly agreed with 73% to 100% of the statements. Conversely,

within this dimension, team members disagreed to strongly disagreed with 0% to 27%

of the statements.

Mean score data for this dimension ranged from 2.88 (SD=.64) for statement 24:

A variety of opportunities and structures exist for collective learning through open

dialogue and 2.88 (SD=.64) for statement 27: School staff members and stakeholders

learn together and apply new knowledge to solve problems to 3.29 (SD= .52) for
 107

statement 21: Staff members work together to seek knowledge, skills, and strategies and

apply this new learning to their work.

Standard deviation data for this dimension was as follows. The least variance

(SD=.42) was reflected in statement number 25: Staff members engage in dialogue that

reflects a respect for diverse ideas that lead to continued inquiry. The greatest variance

(SD=.59) was reflected in statement 22: Collegial relationships exist among staff

members that reflect commitment to school improvement efforts. Table 7 provides the

results for each item statement in this dimension.

Qualitative data aligned to this dimension from the PLCA-R. Qualitative data

aligned to collective learning and application dimension were collected through an open-

ended response comment section at the conclusion of the dimension. The statement “We

make a great team!” was the only comment given for this dimension.

Shared personal practice. This dimension examines how educators deprivatize

practice by observing one another. Shared personal practice decreases the isolation in

which a majority of educators currently practice and offers opportunities for meaningful

feedback from peers that is aimed at improving knowledge and skills to benefit student

learning. The PLCA-R survey includes seven statements relating to this dimension.

Specifically, the statements for this dimension focus on peer observation, peer feedback,

and collaborative review of student work, all in an effort to improve student learning.

The overall mean score for this dimension was 2.88 (SD=.61). An overall mean

score of 3.00 would indicate an overall average agreement with the 11 statements related

to shared personal practice. A mean score of 2.88 indicates that the educators’ who were
 108

Table 7

PLCA-R Collective learning and application

Sum
of raw
score SD D A SA
Dimension Statement n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean SD
21. Staff members work together to
1
seek knowledge, skills, and strategies 22 11
112 (2.9%) 3.29 .52
and apply this new learning to their (64.7%) (32.4%)
work.

22. Collegial relationships exist

among staff members that reflect 3 21 10
109 3.21 .59
commitment to school improvement (8.8%) (61.8%) (29.4%
efforts.

23. Staff members plan and work

1 26 7
together to search for solutions to 108 3.18 .46
(2.9%) (76.5%) (20.6%)
address diverse student needs.

24. A variety of opportunities and

9 20 5
structures exist for collective learning 98 2.88 .64
(26.5%) (58.8%) (14.7%)
through open dialogue.

25. Staff members engage in dialogue

2 28 4
that reflects a respect for diverse 104 3.06 .42
(5.9%) (82.4%) (14.7%)
ideas that lead to continued inquiry.

26. Professional development focuses 2 26 6

106 3.12 .48
on teaching and learning. (5.9%) (76.5%) (17.6%)
27. School staff members and
7 24 3
stakeholders learn together and apply 98 2.88 .54
(20.6%) (70.6%) (8.8%)
new knowledge to solve problems.
28. School staff members are
25 9
committed to programs that enhance 111 3.26 .45
(73.5%) (26.5%)
learning.

29. Staff members collaboratively

analyze multiple sources of data to 4 23 7
105 3.09 .57
assess the effectiveness of (11.8%) (67.6%) (20.6%)
instructional practices.
30. Staff members collaboratively
6 25 3
analyze student work to improve 99 2.91 .51
(17.6%) (73.5%) (8.8%)
teaching and learning.

engaged in professional learning communities at the study site had a slightly below

average perceived agreement with the statements describing shared personal practice.

The quantitative data from this dimension suggest a perception that opportunities for peer
 109

observation, peer feedback, and collaborative review of student work aimed at increasing

student learning could be improved upon at the study site.

Raw scores, frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each

of the seven item statements aligned to this dimension. Table 8 provides the results for

each item statement in this dimension. The data indicates areas of strength and areas for

improvement as perceived by the PLC team members in this study.

Raw score data for this dimension ranged from a total score of 92 to an overall

score of 108, with 94 as the median score. The total score potential for each item

statement ranges from 34 to136. The lowest raw score of 92 was reflected in statement

31: Opportunities exist for staff members to observe peers and offer encouragement and

statement 34; Staff members collaboratively review student work to share and improve

instructional practices. The highest raw score of 108 was reflected in statement 33: Staff

members informally share ideas and suggestions for improving student learning.

Frequency data for the seven statements in this dimension indicate PLC team

members agreed or strongly agreed with 65% to 97% of the statements. Conversely,

within this dimension, team members disagreed or strongly disagreed with 3 to 35% of

the statements.

Mean score data for this dimension ranged from 2.71 (SD= .72) for statement ten:

Opportunities exist for staff members to observe peers and offer encouragement and 2.71

(SD=.58) for statement 34: Staff members collaboratively review student work to share

and improve instructional practices to 3.18 (SD= .46) for statement 33: Staff members

informally share ideas and suggestions for improving student learning.

 110

Standard deviation data for this dimension was as follows. The least

variance (SD= .42) was reflected in statement number 36: Individuals and teams have the

opportunity to apply learning and share the results of their practices. The greatest

variance (SD=.67) was reflected in statement 32: Staff members provide feedback to

peers related to instructional practices. Table 8 provides the results for each item

statement in this dimension.

Table 8

PLCA-R Shared Personal Practice

Sum
of raw
score SD D A SA
Dimension Statement n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean SD
31. Opportunities exist for
2 9 20 3
staff members to observe peers 92 2.71 .72
(5.9%) (26.5%) (58.8%) (8.8%)
and offer encouragement.

32. Staff members provide

2 7 23 2
feedback to peers related to 93 2.74 .67
(5.9%) (20.6%) (67.6%) (5.9%)
instructional practices.
33. Staff members informally
1 26 7
share ideas and suggestions for 108 3.18 .46
(2.9%) (76.5%) (20.6%)
improving student learning.

34. Staff members

collaboratively review student 12 20 2
92 2.71 .58
work to share and improve (35.3%) (58.8%) (5.9%)
instructional practices.

35. Opportunities exist for 5 24 5

102 3.00 .55
coaching and mentoring. (14.7.%) (70.6%) (14.7.%)

36. Individuals and teams have

the opportunity to apply 2 28 4
104 3.06 .42
learning and share the results (5.9%) (82.4%) (11.8%)
of their practice.

37. Staff members regularly

12 18 4
share student work to guide 94 2.76 .65
(35.3%) (52.9%) (11.8%)
overall school improvement.
 111

Qualitative data aligned to this dimension from the PLCA-R. Qualitative data

aligned to these dimensions were offered through an open-ended response area at the

conclusion of each dimension; however, no participant provided comments for either

dimension.

Qualitative Data from Interview Responses. Qualitative data were collected for

the collective learning and application and shared personal practice dimensions through

semi-structured interviews. The following interview question was aligned to research

question number one and these two PLC dimensions: In what ways are teachers at your

school sharing their practice with colleagues? Participant responses not only addressed

statements aligned to the PLCA-R but also went beyond the scope of statements to

address the collective learning and application dimension.

A common theme and pattern that emerged from teacher responses aligned with

the collective learning and application dimension focused on collaborative planning and

problem solving that advances teacher learning beyond the PLC teams. Similarly, a

common theme and pattern that emerged from teacher responses aligned with shared

personal practice focused on the PLC teams sharing practice with the broader school

community. Little direct evidence was provided for shared personal practice as it relates

to peer observation and feedback on instructional practices.

Two of the five subjects (40%) noted the importance of collaborative planning

and problem solving to advance teacher learning. Subject A focused on formal

opportunities for collective planning: “We meet once a week and plan. We do our

planning together.” Subject C elaborated on the value of collaborative planning by

 112

stating, “I believe that we collaborate well on our team. I would not ask for anyone else

to work with other than my team that I work with.”

In relation to the shared personal practice dimension, incidental sharing of

practice was noted by two out of the five subjects (40%). Subject C explained, “We share

incidentally, for example, in the hallway, during lunch.” Subject A provided an example

of incidental instructional decision-making: “A lot of decisions are made in the hallways,

and we work together, so it’s very equal.”

Additionally, related to shared personal practice, the theme of sharing beyond the

formal PLC structure to the broader school community was a pattern that emerged in

three out of the five interviews (60%). Subject C stated, “We also have faculty meetings

where we share good things. Throughout the district, we have grade-level meetings, so

we hear what other people are doing and share our ideas with other colleagues.” Subject

C also shared how the use of technology supported shared practice: “We have shared

folders on our computer.”

Subject D focused on the PLC teams’ practice of sharing with the larger school

community:

We are teamed here at ___, so there are things I share back with my PLC

team of teachers who are an interdisciplinary team, and (at least in my

department) we share out the stuff we learn with our colleagues who are not

necessarily involved in the PLCs. So you would see a lot of the same things

happening in my classroom happening in other ____classrooms that are not

involved in the PLC specifically.

 113

Subject E elaborated on this concept in relation to peers and students:

We grappled with this [sharing practice] and wanted to make sure that as a part

of the professional learning community focused on formative assessment, these

things would not be learned in vain. So we had the opportunity to teach

some of these things through the faculty meetings. We were able to share those.

This was something that is going to be a lifelong process, and we can share it with

our colleagues and hopefully make it something that is common terminology

throughout the district, not just in little pockets. We catch the kids using the

terminology, and that’s a good thing.

Time was noted as a barrier to both collective learning and application and

shared personal practice by two of the five subjects (40%). Subject A shared, “What gets

in the way is time. That is a big issue. There is just not enough time in the day.” Subject

B statements reflected the same sentiment:

We always try to communicate and plan to help kids, but we don’t have enough

time to work together. You keep telling us how great we are, that we are all such

wonderful teachers; so if we are, give us time to work together.

The interview responses in these dimensions align with the discrete characteristics

particular to each dimension; however, they also comingle with the attributes of the

dimension: supportive conditions, both relational and structural.

Supportive Conditions: Relationships and Structures. The final PLC

dimension is supportive conditions. The supportive conditions dimension is divided into

two broad categories: relationships and structures.

 114

Supportive Conditions – Relationships. This category focuses on caring and

respectful relationships among teachers, administrators, and staff members that contribute

to the development of a culture of trust that supports risk taking.

The PLCA-R survey includes five statements related to this dimension.

The overall mean score for the supportive condition - relationship dimension was

2.97 (SD=.567). An overall mean score of 3.00 would indicate, on average, an agreement

with the five statements related to supportive conditions - relationships. A mean score of

2.97 indicates that the educators’ who were engaged in professional learning

communities at the study site had a slightly below average perceived agreement with the

statements aligned to this dimension. The quantitative data from this dimension suggest a

perception that improvement opportunities exist at the study site for workplace practices

that foster a respectful and caring environment in support of teacher and student learning

and growth.

Raw scores, frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each

of the five item statements aligned to this dimension. Table 9 provides the results for each

item statement in this dimension. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for

improvement as perceived by the PLC team members in this study.

Raw score data for this dimension ranged from a total score of 94 to an overall score of

110 with 100 as the median score. The total score potential for each item statement

ranges from 34 to136. The lowest raw score of 98 was reflected in statement 41: School

staff and stakeholders exhibit a sustained and unified effort to embed change into the
 115

culture of the school. The highest raw score of 110 was reflected in statement 38: Caring

relationships exist among staff and students that are built on trust and respect.

Frequency data for the five statements in this dimension indicate PLC team members

agreed or strongly agreed with 67% to 94% of the statements. Conversely, within this

dimension, team members disagreed to strongly disagreed with 6% to 33% of the

statements.

Mean score data for this dimension ranged from 2.76 (SD=.61) for statement 41:

School staff and stakeholders exhibit a sustained and unified effort to embed change into

the culture of the school and 2.88 (SD=.64) for statement 27: School staff members and

stakeholders learn together and apply new knowledge to solve problems to 3.24 (SD=

.55) for statement 38: Caring relationships exist among staff and students that are built

on trust and respect.

Standard deviation data for this dimension was as follows. The least variance

(SD=.55) was reflected in statement number 38: Caring relationships exist among staff

and students that are built on trust and respect. The greatest variance (SD=.81) was

reflected in statement 40: Outstanding achievement is recognized and celebrated

regularly in the school. Table 9 provides the results for each item statement in this

dimension.

Qualitative data aligned to this dimension from the PLCA-R. Qualitative data

aligned to this dimensions was offered through an open-ended response area at the

conclusion of the dimension; however, no participant provided a comment for this

dimension.
 116

Table 9

PLCA-R Supportive Conditions- Relationships

Sum
of raw
score SD D A SA
Dimension Statement n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean SD
38. Caring relationships exist
2 22 19
among staff and students that are 110 3.24 .55
(5.9%) (64.7%) (29.4%)
built on trust and respect.

39. A culture of trust and respect 8 18 8

102 3.00 .70
exists for taking risks. (23.5%) (52.9%) (23.5%)

40. Outstanding achievement is

1 9 15 9
recognized and celebrated 100 2.94 .81
(2.9%) (26.5%) (44.1%) (26.5%)
regularly in our school.

41. School staff and stakeholders

exhibit a sustained and unified 11 20 3
94 2.76 .61
effort to embed change into the (32.4%) (58.8%) (8.8%)
culture of the school.

42. Relationships among staff

members support honest and 1 5 24 4
99 3.06 .42
respectful examination of data to (2.9%) (14.7%) (70.6%) (11.8%)
enhance teaching and learning.

Qualitative Data from Interview Responses. Qualitative data were collected for

this dimension through semi-structured interviews. The following interview question

aligned to research question number one and this PLC dimension: How would you

describe the relationships that exist in your school among teachers, administrators, and

the staff? Participant responses not only addressed statements aligned to the PLCA-R but

also went beyond the scope of statements to address the supportive conditions -

relationships dimension.

In the case of the supportive conditions - relationships dimension, a singular but

interdependent pattern emerged from the analysis and coding. All five (100%) of the

subjects consistently spoke of respectful, caring relationships and how these relationships
 117

fostered a shared mission to improve teaching and learning. Study subjects provided

details as to how caring relationships promoted consistent pedagogical practices by

drawing on supportive relationships that were developed in the workplace and fostered in

professional learning communities. Subject B said, “I think there is a lot or respect here.

You are always hearing teachers talking to each other and helping each other.” Respectful

leadership was also highlighted as providing a model that supports a respectful climate

and culture in the school building. Subject C shared,

I have to tell you that I think our principal _________ has a lot to do with the

respect in our school. __________ is so respectful of whatever you may need and

whatever you want to do. So if you tell _______, I want to try this or that, ____ is

very respectful. I think ____________ is a great leader for all of us and sets the

tone for all of us.

Subject D also spoke of administrators’ openness and willingness to support

Teachers: “In our building it’s pretty friendly. All our administrators are open to

conversations and meeting with teachers about their concerns. I think it is a very open

relationship here at ______________.”

A number of interviewees focused on caring relationships that lead to sharing

pedagogical practices and resources. Subject B noted,

I know I can ask for help and they will say, ‘Here is what I have done.’ People

are very open to helping, which is nice because I know it is not like that in every

district, and that is critical. No amount of money can help in that type of situation.
 118

Subject C spoke of how caring relationships support collective learning and

application of new knowledge:

We get along so well. We share and plan together. Everyone is willing to share. I

could go and ask anyone—‘Can I borrow this?’ or ‘Do you have this?—and

everyone is willing to share. We are very fortunate. This is a great school; we feel

like we can do this, and we are all in it together, and we do.

Subject E echoed Subject A’s thoughts regarding the importance of caring

relationships and reflected on the value of supporting perseverance through sharing:

A pretty common theme is the fact that the staff is very supportive of each other.

Our team is cohesive. We have each other’s back. [We are] nurturing, very much

common goal oriented, and child-centered. That is huge in any work environment,

but being a teacher, I don’t have to tell you, it takes a lot out of you—physically,

emotionally. Just to feel your battery recharged with the people you work with

rather than that being another drain on you is so important—making deposits

instead of withdrawals.

Finally, while Subject B shared the perception that “I think there is a lot of respect

teacher-to-teacher,” Subject B, in response to this interview question, expressed

frustration at a perceived lack of consistent respect between teachers and administrators

as it connects to administrator decision-making and shared values and vision:

I do think there is typical animosity between teachers and administration. You

know teachers always feel like we are left out of making decisions. We are not
 119

kept in the loop, and communication is poor. You know, they ask your opinion:

for example, ‘We are doing the schedule, and what are your priorities?’ But don’t

ask [us that] if it is going to be completely ignored. That doesn’t show respect for

teachers. Like the priorities for example in making the schedule, it’s about filling

it in, not who is best at teaching what grade level or level within the grades, [that]

is not considered- it’s about who fits in where and not strengths of teachers and

what they want to teach. If someone has been teaching ___ grade and ___ grade

[then] don’t ask them to teach ____ graders. It shows you care more about money

and your numbers and how everything fits in the schedule that is the most

important thing. That shows me that you are not looking at a focus on students,

and it is not aligned with the vision. So that is very frustrating, and I think that is

just one example, looking at the schedule, but when you see those sorts of things

happening over and over again, you start to wonder. What is the administrative

vision—their vision for professionals and their vision for students?

The interview responses in this dimension align with its discrete characteristics

particular to each dimension; however, they also comingle with the attributes of the

dimension; shared personal practice.

Supportive Conditions – Structures. This dimension examines how structures can

support or inhibit the development of a professional learning community. Structures such

as time, scheduling, fiscal resources, proximity, communication systems, human

resources, technology, and multiple source of data are addressed in this dimension. The

PLCA-R survey includes ten statements relating to this dimension.

 120

The overall mean score for this dimension was 2.89 (SD=.63). An overall mean

score of 3.00 would indicate, on average, an agreement with the 10 statements related to

supportive conditions - structures. A mean score of 2.89 indicates that the educators who

were engaged in professional learning communities at the study site had a slightly below

average perceived agreement with the statements described for supportive conditions -

structures. The quantitative data from this dimension suggest a perceived agreement that

structures which support the professional learning community teams at the study site are

generally in place, but could be improved upon.

Raw scores, frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each

of the ten item statements aligned to this dimension. Table 10 provides the results for

each item statement in this dimension. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for

improvement as perceived by the PLC team members in this study.

Raw score data for this dimension ranged from a total score of 89 to an overall

score of 104 with the median score of 100. The total score potential for each item

statement ranged from 34 to136. The lowest raw score of 89 was reflected in statement

44: The school schedule promotes collective learning and shared practice. The highest

raw score of 104 was reflected in Statement 48: The school facility is clean, attractive

and inviting; Statement 49: The proximity of grade level and department personnel

allows for ease in collaborating with colleagues; and Statement 50: Communications

systems promote a flow of information among staff members.

Frequency data for the ten statements in this dimension indicate PLC team

members’ agreed or strongly agreed with 59% to 88% of the statements. Conversely,
 121

within this dimension, team members disagreed or strongly disagreed with 12 to 41% of

the statements.

Mean score data for this dimension ranged from 2.71 (SD= .68) for statement 43

(SD=.68): Time is provided to facilitate collaborative work to 3.06 for statements 48

(SD=.55): The school facility is clean, attractive and inviting; statement 49 (SD=.60):

The proximity of grade level and department personnel allows for ease in collaborating

with colleagues; and statement 50 (SD=.65): Communications systems promote a flow of

information among staff members.

Standard deviation data for this dimension was as follows. The least variance

(SD= .47) was reflected in statement number 36: Resource people provide expertise and

support for continuous learning. The greatest variance (SD=.74) was reflected in

statement 44: The school schedule promotes collective learning and shared practice.

Table 10 provides the results for each item statement in this dimension.

one and this PLC dimension: What structures are in place at your school to support

collaboration among teachers, administrators, and the staff? Participant responses not

only addressed statements aligned to the PLCA-R but also went beyond the scope of

statements to address a common barrier identified earlier: time.

Common themes and patterns that emerged from teacher responses aligned with

supportive conditions - structures were formal structures of professional learning, the

value of supportive human resources, communication systems, and common planning

time. Again, time was perceived as a valued tool to support the development of the

professional learning communities as well as a barrier to growth, when limited.

 122

Table 10

PLCA-R Supportive Conditions - Structures

Sum
of raw
score SD D A SA
Dimension Statement n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) Mean SD
43. Time is provided to 1 11 19 3
92 2.71 .68
facilitate collaborative work. (2.9%) (32.4%) (55.9%) (8.8%)

44. The school schedule

2 12 17 3
promotes collective learning 89 2.62 .74
(5.9%) (35.36%) (50.0%) (8.8%)
and shared practice.

45. Fiscal resources are

10 21 3
available for professional 95 2.79 .59
(29.4%) (61.8%) (8.8%)
development.

46. Appropriate technology

1 11 18 4
and instructional materials are 93 2.74 .71
(2.9) (32.4%) (52.9%) (11.8%)
available to staff.

47. Resource people provide

4 27 3
expertise and support for 101 2.97 .46
(11.8%) (79.4%) (8.8%)
continuous learning.

48. The school facility is clean, 4 24 6

104 3.06 .55
attractive and inviting. (11.8%) (70.6%) (17.6%)

49. The proximity of grade

level and department personnel 5 22 7
104 3.06 .60
allows for ease in collaborating (14.7%) (64.7%) (20.6%)
with colleagues.

50. Communication systems

1 3 23 7
promote a flow of information 104 3.06 .65
(2.9%) (8.8%) (67.6%) (20.6%)
among staff members.

51. Communication systems

support a flow of information
across the entire school 1 5 23 5
100 2.94 .65
community including central (2.9%) (14.7%) (67.6%) (14.7%)
office personnel, parents, and
community members.

52. Data are organized and

6 24 4
made available to provide easy 100 2.94 .55
(17.6%) (70.6%) (11.8%)
access to staff members.

Formal structures supporting the PLC teams at the study site were faculty meetings, in-

service days, team meetings, common planning time, and the PLC structure.
 123

Formal structures to support teacher learning were noted across four of the five subjects

interviewed (80%). Subject A noted, “We have faculty meetings where we share. We are

having one this week where we will share our formative assessment flip book.” Subject

C spoke of the formal structure of district-wide meetings: “Our in-service days will

usually be district-wide meetings where we get to meet with each of the grade levels. We

like to hear what is going on between schools and learn from each other.” Subject D

noted how in-service days are utilized as vehicles to share practice: “This week is all in-

service, and time has been set aside for our formative assessment PLC team to present to

every teacher in our building.” Subject E indicated, “Well, one structure that helps us

collaborate is the professional learning community.”

Human resources, specifically the use of substitute teachers to facilitate

collaborative learning, was another theme that emerged from interviews aligned to this

dimension. Subject B noted,

We have had some days with our PLCs where they have brought substitute

teachers in, and we are out for the day. You know, when they say that, it’s very

exciting. I would love to be able to do that sort of thing a bit more often and have

support: for example, pay for me to go to a conference and then be able to share

out this information.

Subject C also spoke of the value of human resources in the form of substitute

teachers that allowed for meaningful collaboration:

We are getting a new reading series this year and they are going to give us time

for [all] the teachers to get together during the school year. They will get
 124

substitute teachers and get us all together to learn about the new reading series.

We are fortunate to be able to meet together.

Communication was noted by Subject D as a way to build capacity of the entire

school: “I think we have done a pretty good job of spreading the word [about the

formative assessment PLC work]. So you would find most teachers in our building using

formative assessment techniques at this point.”

Time was referenced as a structural component in four of the five interviews

(80%). Reponses focused on the benefits and barriers of time to facilitate or hinder

professional learning. The benefit of time was noted by Subject B: “There is time for use

to meet during professional development/in-service days. These days are dedicated to

working on curriculum, common student learning objectives, common final exams or

analyzing exams.” Subject D noted how time devoted to formal structures such as team

and department meeting support collective learning:

As teachers, we have team meetings, so we utilize some of that time to share ideas

and talk about what we are doing in our classrooms and areas. We have

department meetings as well, so there is time there where we informally share

information.”

Subject E supported the importance of time plan with a co-teacher: “I think the

administration is starting to realize the importance of common planning time. Common

planning time is so valuable and important to the functioning of the classroom, to make

sure there are no gray areas.”

 125

Barriers related to time were detailed by Subject A: “There’s just not enough

time. It is a barrier. We used to have it built in.” Subject D also referred to time as an

issue: “People have a lot on their plate and a lot of things go do.” This theme was also

addressed by Subject B who stated, “There are times when things are flexible on

professional development days, and that is good, but it just feels like that is not often

enough.” Subject D related how the structure and commitment of a PLC supported

learning, explaining that “time is hard to come by; the PLC meetings were great because

you needed to be there, but it is a big time commitment.”

As in all other interviews, the responses from the study participants align with the

discrete characteristics and attributes of the PLC dimension but go beyond the dimension

to provide evidence of the interdependent nature of the five dimensions of a professional

learning community.

Summary: Research Question One

This section of the findings has focused on developing an understanding of the

current status of the five dimensions of a professional learning community at the study

site. The data presented have been based upon the attributes, practices, and behaviors of a

professional learning community as defined by the statements on the PLCA-R and

enhanced by the responses from study participants to interview questions directly aligned

to the five dimensions of a PLC.

The findings from perceptual data and interview responses have revealed overall

strengths at the study setting; foremost is the principals’ skills at building rapport, trust,

and open communication between themselves and professional learning community team
 126

members. However, as evident in the survey results and interview responses PLC team

members would welcome additional opportunities to share leadership and decision

making with principals at the study setting. A shared vision for increasing student

learning bolstered by student data was a consistent finding throughout the PLC

dimensions.

Collegial learning to increase teacher knowledge and skills to improve student

learning was a consistent finding. While shared personal practice is evident at the study

setting based on survey data and interview responses, potential growth exists through

consistent peer observation and feedback. The survey data and interview responses for

the supportive conditions- relationships dimension converge with the collective learning

and application and shared personal practice dimensions by identifying the importance of

“relational trust” which forms “the glue for substantive school improvement (Cranston,

2011,p. 59). This pattern suggests collaborative learning among PLC team members is a

consistent occurrence at the study setting.

Finally, supportive conditions- structures findings suggest structures are in place

to support PLC implementation, structures such as proximity to one another,

communication systems, and resource personnel are perceived to exist but time for

collaborative work and the school schedule are perceived as barriers. The five PLC

dimensions have been purposefully separated in order to analyze each dimension;

however, it is important to note the dimensions are highly interdependent and interrelated

(Huffman & Hipp, 2003).

 127

Results for Research Question Two

The SAI2 online survey was conducted with all study participants to answer

research question number two: “What are educators’ perceptions of the overall quality of

professional learning experienced through participation in a professional learning

community?”

The SAI2 is a measure of how closely school and district professional learning

aligns with the seven national standards for professional learning as developed by

Learning Forward, formerly the National Staff Development Council. The survey is

designed to assess the overall quality of professional development that exists at a given

school or district. A copy of the survey is included in Appendix I. The seven standards

for professional learning are learning communities, leadership, resources, data, learning

designs, implementation, and outcomes (Learning Forward, 2011).

The SAI2 is a 50 item web-based survey designed to collect teacher perceptions

of their professional learning experiences. Quantitative data results are reported as

descriptive statistics: raw scores, frequencies/count, percentages, means, and standard

deviations. Data are collected when participants respond to item statements aligned to

each standard. Participants mark the response that most accurately reflects their

professional learning experience. A forced Likert scale assigns a value to each rating to

quantify the perceptions: 0= Don’t Know; 1= Never; 2=Seldom; 3=Sometimes; 4=

Frequently;5=Always.

The seven standards, related descriptions, and total number of item statements per

standard for the SAI2 are summarized in Table 11.

 128

Table 11

Characteristics of the SAI2

Number of
Standard Statements Description
Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all
Learning Communities 7 students occurs within learning communities committed to continuous
improvement, collective responsibility, and goal alignment.

Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all
Leadership 7 students requires skillful leaders who develop capacity, advocate, and create
support systems for professional learning.
Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all
Resources 7 students requires prioritizing, monitoring, and coordinating resources for
educator learning.
Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all
Data 8 students uses a variety of sources and types of student, educator, and system
data to plan, assess, and evaluate professional learning.

Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all
Learning Designs 7 students integrates theories, research, and models of human learning to
achieve its intended outcomes.

Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all
Implementation 7 students applies research on change and sustains support for implementation
of professional learning for long-term change.
Professional learning that increases educator effectiveness and results for all
Outcomes 7 students aligns its outcomes with educator performance and student
curriculum standards/.
Adapted from: Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Oxford, OH.

Table 12 provides the results including mean scores and standard deviations for

each of the seven standards collected from the SAI2. The overall mean score in each

dimension ranged from slightly below to slightly above and well above a mean score of

3.00. A mean score of 3.00 by standard would indicate that, on average, study

Table 12

Descriptive Statistics for SAI2

Learning Learning
Communities Leadership Resources Data Designs Implementation Outcomes
Mean 3.29 3.70 3.26 3.32 2.97 3.49 3.66

Standard
1.14 0.80 1.09 0.89 0.67 0.78 .85
Deviation
 129

participants agreed that the practices and behaviors described in the item statements

aligned to the standards were sometimes happening at the study site for several standards

(e.g., leadership, implementation, and outcomes) and moving toward frequent

occurrences at the study site. All reported mean scores by standard fell slightly below to

moderately (or more) above 3.00. These results suggest that the professional learning that

study participants experienced through participation in a PLC sometimes aligned with the

standards for professional learning.

The following sections and tables detail the quantitative results aligned to

research question number two as ascertained from the SAI2 by standard.

Results for Each of the Seven Standards for Professional Learning

Learning Communities. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for

improvement related to this standard as perceived by the PLC team members in this

study. Raw scores, frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each

of the seven item statements aligned to this standard.

Raw score data for this standard ranged from a total score of 81 to an overall

score of 130 with 121 as the median score. The total score potential for each item

statement ranged from 34 to170. The lowest raw score of 81 was reflected in statement 2:

Learning communities in my school meet several times per week to collaborate on how to

improve student learning. The highest raw score of 130 was reflected in statement 6: In

my school, learning community members demonstrate effective communication and

relationship skills so that a high level of trust exists among the group. Table 14 provides

the results for each item statement in this standard.

 130

Frequency data for the seven statements aligned to this standard indicate that PLC

team members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the item

statements sometimes, frequently, or always—48% to 94%. Conversely, within this

standard, team members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the

item statements seldom or never—6% to 52%.

Mean score data for this standard ranged from 2.38 (SD= 1.10) for statement two:

The principal incorporates advice from staff members to make decisions to 3.71 (SD=

1.12) for statement three: Learning community members in my school believe the

responsibility to improve student learning is shared by all stakeholders, such as all staff

members, district personnel, families, and community members.

Standard deviation data for this standard was as follows. The least variance (SD=

.93) was reflected in statement number one: My school system has policies and

procedures that support the vision for learning communities in schools, and statement

five: My school’s learning communities are structured for teachers to engage in the

continuous improvement cycle. The greatest variance (SD=1.26) was reflected in

statement four: In my school, some of the learning community members include non-staff

members such as students, parents, community members. Table 13 provides the results

for each item statement for this standard.

Leadership. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for improvement

related to this standard as perceived by the PLC team members in this study. Raw scores,

frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each of the seven item

statements aligned to this standard.

 131

Table 13

Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Learning Communities

Sum of
Raw
Standard Statement Score
Learning Communities n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mean SD
1. My school system has policies
and procedures that support the 1 3 10 16 4
121 3.56 .93
vision for learning communities in (3%) (9%) (29%) (37%) (12%)
schools.

2. Learning communities in my
school meet several times per week 9 9 11 4 1
81 2.38 1.10
to collaborate on how to improve (26%) (26%) (32%) (12%) (3%)
student learning.

3. Learning community members in

my school believe the responsibility
to improve student learning is 2 13 12 7
126 0 3.71 1.12
shared by all stakeholders, such as (6%) (38%) (35%) (21%)
all staff members, district personnel,
families, and community members.

4. In my school, some of the

learning community members
10 4 12 6 2
include non-staff members, such as 88 2.59 1.26
(29%) (12%) (35%) (18%) (6%)
students, parents, community
members.

5. My school's learning communities

are structured for teachers to engage
in the continuous improvement 1 1 11 14 7
127 3.74 .93
cycle (i.e., data analysis, planning, (3%) (3%) (32%) (41%) (21%)
implementation, reflection, and
evaluation).

6. In my school, learning
community members demonstrate
effective communication and 4 6 16 8
130 3.67 .94
relationship skills so that a high (12%) (18%) (47%) (24%)
level of trust exists among the
group.

7. All members of the learning

communities in my school hold each 1 3 15 13 2
114 3.35 .85
other accountable to achieve the (3%) (9%) (44%) (38%) (6%)
school's goals.
Key: 1) Never; 2) Seldom; 3) Sometimes; 4) Frequently; 5) Always

Raw score data for this standard ranged from a total score of 122 to an overall

score of 133 with 125 as the median score. The total score potential for each item
 132

statement ranged from 34 to170. The lowest raw score of 122 was reflected in statement

nine: My school’s leaders are active participants with other staff members in the school’s

professional learning and statement 11: My school’s leaders regard professional learning

as a top priority for all staff. The highest raw score of 133 was reflected in statement 10:

My school’s leaders advocate for resources to fully support professional learning.

Frequency data for the seven statements aligned to this standard indicate PLC

team members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the item

statements sometimes, frequently, or always—80% to 100%. Conversely, within this

standard, team members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the

item statements seldom or never—0% to 20%.

Mean score data for this standard ranged from 3.59 (SD=.89) for statement nine:

My school’s leaders are active participants with other staff members in the school’s

professional learning to 3.91 (SD= 1.12) for statement ten: My school’s leaders advocate

for resources to fully support professional learning.

Standard deviation data for this standard was as follows. The least variance (SD=

.71) was reflected in statement number 10: My school’s leaders advocate for resources to

fully support professional learning, and statement 13: My school’s leaders speak about

the important relationship between improved student achievement and professional

learning. The greatest variance (SD=.89) was reflected in statement nine: My school’s

leaders are active participants with other staff members in the school’s professional

learning. Table 14 provides the results for each item statement in this standard.
 133

Table 14

Standards Assessment Inventory-2: Leadership

Sum of
Raw
Standard Statement Score
Leadership n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mean SD
8. My school's leaders provide
teachers with equitable resources to
4 7 19 4
support our individual and 125 3.68 .84
(12%) (21%) (56%) (12%)
collaborative goals for professional
learning.

9. My school's leaders are active

participants with other staff 1 2 11 16 4
122 3.59 .89
members in the school's (3%) (6%) (32%) (47%) (12%)
professional learning.

10. My school's leaders advocate

10 17 7
for resources to fully support 133 3.91 .71
(29%) (50%) (21%)
professional learning.

11. My school's leaders regard

3 11 17 3
professional learning as a top 122 3.59 .78
(9%) (32%) (50%) (9%)
priority for all staff.

12. My school's leaders cultivate a

positive culture that embraces
characteristics such as, 4 8 18 4
124 3.65 .85
collaboration, high expectations, (12%) (24%) (53%) (12%)
respect, trust, and constructive
feedback.

13. My school's leaders speak

about the important relationship
14 15 5
between improved student 127 3.74 .71
(41%) (44%) (15%)
achievement and professional
learning.

14. My school's leaders consider

1 12 15 6
all staff members capable of being 128 3.76 .78
(3%) (35%) (44%) (18%)
professional learning leaders.

Key: 1) Never; 2) Seldom; 3) Sometimes; 4) Frequently; 5) Always

Resources. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for improvement related

to this standard as perceived by the PLC team members in this study. Raw scores,

frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each of the seven item

statements aligned to this standard.

 134

Mean score data for this standard ranged from 2.68 (SD=1.12) for statement 17:

Professional learning expenses, such as registration and consultant fees, staff and

materials, are openly discussed in my school to 4.29 (SD= .63) for statement 15:

Practicing and applying new skills with students in my classroom are regarded as

important learning experiences in my school.

Standard deviation data for this standard was as follows. The least variance (SD=

.53) was reflected in statement number 15: Practicing and applying new skills with

students in my classroom are regarded as important learning experiences in my school.

The greatest variance (SD=1.12) was reflected in statement 17: Professional learning

expenses, such as registration and consultant fees, staff and materials, are openly

discussed in my school. Table 15 provides the results for each item statement in this

standard.

Data. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for improvement related to this

standard as perceived by PLC team members in this study. Raw scores, frequencies,

means, and standard deviation were calculated for each of the eight statements aligned to

this standard.

Raw score data for this standard ranged from a total score of 100 to an overall score of

122, with 113 as the median score. The total score potential for each item statement

ranged from 34 to170. The lowest raw score of 100 was reflected in statement 29: In my

school, how to assess the effectiveness of the professional learning experience is

determined before the professional learning plan is implemented. The highest

 135

Table 15

Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Resources

Sum of
Raw
Standard Statement Score
Resources n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mean SD
15. Practicing and applying
new skills with students in my
3 18 13
classroom are regarded as 146 4.29 .63
(9%) (53%) (38%)
important learning experiences
in my school

16. Teachers in my school are

involved with monitoring the 4 14 11 5
119 3.50 .90
effectiveness of the (12%) (41%) (32%) (15%)
professional learning resources.

17. Professional learning

expenses, such as registration
5 11 10 6 2
and consultant fees, staff, and 91 2.68 1.12
(15%) (32%) (29%) (18%) (6%)
materials, are openly discussed
in my school.

18. In my school, time is

available for teachers during 3 12 10 7 2
95 2.79 1.07
the school day for professional (9%) (35%) (29%) (21%) (6%)
learning.

19. Teachers in my school are

involved with the decision-
making about how professional 5
12 13 3 1
learning resources are 85 (15%) 2.50 .96
(35%) (38%) (9%) (3%)
allocated.

20. Professional learning is

available to me at various
times, such as job embedded
experiences, before or after- 6 14 11 3
113 3.32 .88
school hours, and summer (18%) (41%) (32%) (9%)
experiences.

21. Teachers in my school have

access to various technology 2 12 13 7
127 3.74 .86
resources for professional (6%) (35%) (38%) (21%)
learning.

Key: 1) Never; 2) Seldom; 3) Sometimes; 4) Frequently; 5) Always

 136

raw score 122 was reflected in statement 26: In my school, teachers use what is learned

from professional learning to adjust and inform teaching practices.

Frequency data for the eight statements aligned to this standard indicate PLC team

members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the item statements

sometimes, frequently, or always—68% to 97%. Conversely, within this standard, team

members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the item statements

seldom or never—3% to 32%.

Mean score data for this standard ranged from 2.94 (SD=.92) for statement 29: In

my school, how to assess the effectiveness of the professional learning experience is

determined before the professional learning plan is implemented to 3.62 (SD= .85) for

statement 26: In my school, teachers use what is learned from professional learning to

adjust and inform teaching practices.

Standard deviation data for this standard was as follows. The least variance (SD=

.85) was reflected in statement number 26: In my school, teachers use what is learned

from professional learning to adjust and inform teaching practices. The greatest variance

(SD=.99) was reflected in statement 23: In my school, teachers have an opportunity to

evaluate each professional learning experience to determine its value and impact on

student learning and statement 24 (SD=.99) In my school, various data such as teacher

performance data, individual professional learning goals, and teacher perception data,

are used to plan professional learning. Table 16 provides the results for each item

statement in this standard.

 137

Table 16

Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Data

Sum of Raw
Standard Statement Score
Data n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mean SD
22. Some professional
learning programs in my
school, such as mentoring 1 5 18 10
108 3.09 .75
or coaching, are (3%) (15%) (53%) (29%)
continuously evaluated to
ensure quality results.
23. In my school, teachers
have an opportunity to
evaluate each professional 9 11 10 4
111 3.26 .99
learning experience to (26%) (32%) (29%) (12%)
determine its value and
impact on student learning.
24. In my school, various
data such as teacher
performance data,
2 3 12 14 3
individual professional 115 3.38 .99
(6%) (9%) (35%) (41%) (9%)
learning goals, and teacher
perception data, are used to
plan professional learning.
25.My school uses a variety
of student achievement data
1 3 14 16
to plan professional 120 3.53 .79
(3%) (9%) (41%) (47%)
learning that focuses on
school improvement.
26. In my school, teachers
use what is learned from
1 15 13 5
professional learning to 122 3.62 .85
(3%) (44%) (38%) (15%)
adjust and inform teaching
practices.
27. My school uses a
variety of data to monitor 1 4 15 12 2
112 3.29 .87
the effectiveness of (3%) (12%) (44%) (35%) (6%)
professional learning.

28. A variety of data are

used to assess the 1 4 14 12 3
114 3.35 .92
effectiveness of my school's (3%) (12%) (41%) (35%) (9%)
professional learning.

29. In my school, how to

assess the effectiveness of
the professional learning
1 10 15 6 2
experience is determined 100 2.94 .92
(3%) (29%) (44%) (18%) (6%)
before the professional
learning plan is
implemented.
Key: 1) Never; 2) Seldom; 3) Sometimes; 4) Frequently; 5) Always
 138

Learning Designs. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for improvement

related to this standard as perceived by the PLC team members in this study. Raw scores,

frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each of the seven item

statements aligned to this standard.

Raw score data for this standard ranged from a total score of 94 to an overall

score of 119 with 104 as the median score. The total score potential for each item

statement ranged from 34 to170. The lowest raw score of 94 was reflected in statement

34: In my school, participation in online professional learning opportunities is

considered as a way to connect with colleagues, and to learn from experts in education.

The highest raw score 119 was reflected in statement 31: The use of technology is evident

in my school’s professional learning.

Frequency data for the eight statements aligned to this standard indicate PLC team

members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the item statements

sometimes, frequently, or always—67% to 94%. Conversely, within this standard, team

members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the item statements

seldom or never—6% to 33%.

Mean score data for this standard ranged from 2.79 (SD=.91) for statement 35: In

my school, teachers have opportunities to observe each other as one type of job-

embedded professional learning to 3.50 (SD= .93) for statement 31: The use of

technology is evident in my school’s professional learning.

Standard deviation data for this standard were as follows. The least variance (SD=

.71) was reflected in statement number 33: Professional learning in my school includes
 139

various forms of support to apply new practices. The greatest variance (SD=.95) was

reflected in statement 30: In my school, teachers’ backgrounds, experience levels and

learning needs are considered when professional learning is planned and designed.

Table 17 provides the results for each item statement in this standard.

Implementation. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for improvement

related to this standard as perceived by the PLC team members in this study. Raw scores,

frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each of the seven item

statements aligned to this standard.

Raw score data for this standard ranged from a total score of 105 to an overall

score of 134, with 121 as the median score. The total score potential for each item

statement ranged from 34 to170. The lowest raw score of 105 was reflected in statement

39: My school has a consistent professional learning plan in place for three to five years.

The highest raw score 134 was reflected in statement 37: A primary goal for professional

learning in my school is to enhance teaching practices to improve student performance.

Frequency data for the seven statements aligned to this standard indicate PLC

team members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the item

statements sometimes, frequently, or always—83% to 100%. Conversely, within this

standard, team members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the

item statements seldom or never—0% to 17%.

Mean score data for this standard ranged from 3.09 (SD=.91) for statement 39:

My school has a consistent professional learning plan in place for three to five years to
 140

Table 17

Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Learning Designs

Sum of
Raw
Standard Statement Score
Learning Designs n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mean SD
30. In my school,
teachers' backgrounds,
experience levels, and
3 3 19 7 2
learning needs are 104 3.06 .95
(9%) (9%) (56%) (21%) (6%)
considered when
professional learning is
planned and designed.

31. The use of

technology is evident in 1 3 12 14 4
119 3.50 .93
my school's (3%) (9%) (35%) (41%) (12%)
professional learning.

32. Teachers in my
school are responsible
for selecting
2 5 14 12 1
professional learning to 107 3.15 .93
(6%) (15%) (41%) (35%) (3%)
enhance skills that
improve student
learning.
33. Professional
learning in my school
1 1 21 10 1
includes various forms 111 3.29 .71
(3%) (3%) (62%) (29%) (3%)
of support to apply new
practices.
34. In my school,
participation in online
professional learning
opportunities is
3 8 17 6
considered as a way to 94 2.91 .85
(9%) (24%) (50%) (18%)
connect with
colleagues, and to learn
from experts in
education.

35. In my school,
teachers have
opportunities to observe 3 8 17 5 1
95 2.79 .91
each other as one type (9%) (24%) (50%) (15%) (3%)
of job-embedded
professional learning.

36. Teachers' input is

taken into consideration
2 8 17 7
when planning school- 97 2.85 .82
(6%) (24%) (50%) (21%)
wide professional
learning.
Key: 1) Never; 2) Seldom; 3)Sometimes; 4)Frequently; 5) Always
 141

3.94 (SD= .69) for statement 37: A primary goal for professional learning in my school is

to enhance teaching practices to improve student performance.

Standard deviation data for this standard were as follows. The least variance (SD=

.59) was reflected in statement number 42: Professional learning experiences planned at

my school are based on research about effective school change. The greatest variance

(SD=1.07) was reflected in statement 43: In my school, teachers give frequent feedback

to colleagues to refine the implementation of instructional strategies. Table 18 provides

the results for each item statement in this standard.

Outcomes. The data indicate areas of strength and areas for improvement related

to this standard as perceived by the PLC team members in this study. Raw scores,

frequencies, means, and standard deviations were calculated for each of the seven item

statements aligned to this standard.

Raw score data for this standard ranged from a total score of 119 to an overall

score of 137 with 122 as the median score. The total score potential for each item

statement ranged from 34 to170. The lowest raw score of 119 was reflected in statement

46: Professional learning experiences in my school connect with teacher performance

standards (e.g., teacher preparation standards, licensing standards, etc...). The highest

raw score 137 was reflected in statement 47: All profession staff members in my school

are held to high standards to increase student learning.

Frequency data for the seven statements aligned to this standard indicate PLC

team members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the item

statements sometimes, frequently, or always—91% to 97%. Conversely, within this

 142

Table 18

Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Implementation

Sum of
Raw
Standard Statement Score
Implementation n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mean SD
37. A primary goal for
professional learning in
my school is to enhance 1 6 21 6
134 3.94 .69
teaching practices to (3%) (18%) (62%) (18%)
improve student
performance.

38. Teachers in my
school receive on-going 1 14 18 1
121 3.56 .61
support in various ways (3%) (41%) (53%) (3%)
to improve teaching.

39. My school has a

consistent professional 1 4 21 7 1
105 3.09 .75
learning plan in place (3%) (12%) (62%) (21%) (3%)
for three to five years.

40. My school's
professional learning 3 16 13 2
116 3.41 .74
plan is aligned to school (9%) (47%) (38%) (6%)
goals.
41. In my school,
teachers individually 2 15 12 4
121 3.56 .79
reflect about teaching (6%) (44%) (35%) (12%)
practices and strategies.
42. Professional
learning experiences
planned at my school 13 19 2
125 3.68 .59
are based on research (38%) (56%) (6%)
about effective school
change.
43. In my school,
teachers give frequent
feedback to colleagues 1 1 14 13 5
106 3.12 1.07
to refine the (3%) (3%) (41%) (38%) (15%)
implementation of
instructional strategies.

Key: 1) Never; 2) Seldom; 3) Sometimes; 4) Frequently; 5) Always

standard, team members perceived their professional learning experiences reflected the

item statements seldom or never—3% to 9%.

 143

Mean score data for this standard ranged from 3.33 (SD=.89) for statement 44:

Professional learning at my school focuses on the curriculum and how students learn to

4.67 (SD= .87) for statement 47: All profession staff members in my school are held to

high standards to increase student learning.

Standard deviation data for this standard were as follows. The least variance (SD=

.74) was reflected in statement number 45: Professional learning in my school

contributes to increased student achievement. The greatest variance (SD=.95) was

reflected in statement 48: In my school, professional learning supports teachers to

develop new learning and then to expand and deepen that learning over time. Table 19

provides the results for each item statement in this standard.

Qualitative Data from Interview Responses

Qualitative data were collected through semi-structured interviews. The

following interview question aligned to research question number two and the standards

for professional learning: How would you describe the overall quality of professional

development in your school? Participant responses not only addressed statements aligned

to the SAI2 but also went beyond the scope of statements to again address the barrier of

time.

A common pattern and theme that emerged from analysis and coding was the

perception of an improving system of professional learning at the study site. Participants

expanded on this theme by providing specific examples. Four of the five subjects

interviewed (80%) noted improvements in the professional learning opportunities offered

at the study site. Subject A indicated, “Our professional development is good. We are
 144

Table 19

Standards Assessment Inventory 2: Outcomes

Sum of
Raw
Standard Statement Score
Outcomes n=34 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Mean SD
44. Professional
learning at my school
1 1 14 13 5
focuses on the 122 3.33 .89
(3%) (3%) (41%) (38%) (15%)
curriculum and how
students learn.

45. Professional
learning in my school 1 16 13 4
122 3.59 .74
contributes to increased (3%) (47%) (38%) (12%)
student achievement.

46. Professional
learning experiences in
my school connect with
teacher performance 1 1 16 12 4
119 3.50 .86
standards (e.g., teacher (3%) (3%) (47%) (35%) (12%)
preparation standards,
licensing standards,
etc.).

47. All professional

staff members in my
2 6 15 11
school are held to high 137 4.67 .87
(6%) (18%) (44%) (32%)
standards to increase
student learning.

48. In my school,
professional learning
supports teachers to
3 14 9 8
develop new learning 124 3.83 .95
(9%) (41%) (26%) 24%)
and then to expand and
deepen that learning
over time.

49. Student learning

outcomes are used to
1 18 11 4
determine my school's 120 3.67 .75
(3%) (53%) (32%) (12%)
professional learning
plan.
50. My professional
learning this school
2 10 17 5
year is connected to 126 3.83 .80
(6%) (29%) (50%) (15%)
previous professional
learning.
Key: 1) Never; 2) Seldom; 3) Sometimes; 4)Frequently; 5) Always
 145

given professional learning days that are planned, and it is helping us with the day-to-day

teaching.” Teacher B stated, “I would describe it [professional learning] as much

improved, much improved.” This sentiment was echoed by Subject D:

I think our professional development is improving. We now have curriculum and

coaches who are able to give us specific in-service on things we have requested. I

think they are trying very hard to make it relevant to our classrooms and the

things we need to use. The formative assessment stuff has been excellent. I think

we are moving in the right direction. I think it is much more directed, and I think

we are doing a better job with follow through. We’re not just showing it once and

never hearing about it again. We kind of have it over and over again throughout

the year, so that works well for me.

Subject E also expressed positive impressions of the professional learning in the district:

I would say that, overall, it [professional learning] is above average. I think that

the strengths are that they [the administration] do listen to the staff and to what we

need, and they do touch on those things. I think, overall, comparatively speaking,

I am rarely at an in-service where I feel I am not learning or that it is a waste of

my time. That can’t be said for some other districts I have worked at.

Common areas of perceived barriers to professional learning were time and the

need to maintain focused professional learning to achieve coherence. Subjects A and E

(40%) both spoke about the impact of time in professional learning. Subject A stated, “I

would like it if we had more time to work with colleagues from other schools. To be able
 146

to plan for a week, a whole story, and go through that process.” Subject E expanded on

the issue of time to address the concept of coherence:

There is never enough time. It’s finding the time to not only give the staff what

they need to give the kids their best, but also to focus. You know, in education

there are all those buzzwords, things are very cyclical, and there are huge swings.

I think our district, just like other districts, gets involved with the new things and

sometimes [other] things get dropped that maybe shouldn’t, so they don’t come to

fruition as much as they should. I think discerning between those things rather

than just the next hot thing is important, to listen to the staff and value what we

see every day, because we are in the trenches.

The final qualitative data collected for this study was a concluding, open-ended

interview question: Is there anything else you would like to add or discuss about your

experience as a member of a professional learning community?

This question was targeted at revealing study participant perceptions of the PLC

experience that may not have been discovered through perceptual quantitative and

qualitative survey data collection and prior structured interview questions. Common

themes and patterns that emerged from study participant responses were the following: a

perception of improved practice and student learning resulting from collaborating with

colleagues, and a developing culture for continual professional learning.

All interviewed subjects (100%) noted the benefit of collaborating with

colleagues to improve practice and benefit student learning. Subject A noted that the

colleagues at the school site were “amazing” and have “taught me some awesome
 147

things,” elaborating that the study site is “a great community to work in.” Subject B made

a connection between colleagues learning together and student learning: “I feel like one

of the best things about being a part of a PLC is making connections with kids after

making connections with my colleagues and working with them.” Subject C spoke about

“growing along with my colleagues” and the pride the PLC team feels from this growth.

Subject C further stated, “I think we are really proud of ourselves, especially at the end,

because we have come full circle. Just to see each of us as a part of the process and how

we all, as a building and as a professional learning community, grew.” Subject D noted,

“I enjoyed having a math colleague in the PLC with me. This colleague and I shared a lot

of ideas. If ___ did something ___ shared it with me, and if I found something, I shared it

with ____. I found that to most useful.” Subject E also spoke of growth enabled by

colleagues and its impact on relationships: “I was able to grow along with my colleagues

and it helped me cement our relationships as well.”

A strong ethos for continuous learning also emerged for 60% of the subjects

interviewed. Subject A stated, “I feel like after ______ years of teaching, I am still

learning really important things.” Subject B noted, “I feel like I am always in school, in

college, learning forever, because you just get to keep learning and acting and changing

and working with other people.” According to Subject D, “it [being a part of a PLC] was

really good for me as a teacher overall. I learned a lot, changed my ideas and practices. I

think it made me a better educator.”

Summary for Research Question Two. This section of the findings has focused
 148

on developing an understanding of the current status of professional learning at the study

site. The data presented was based upon the characteristics of effective professional

learning as defined by the standards for professional learning and the statements aligned

to the standards in the SAI2. This data was enhanced by the responses from educators to

an interview question directly aligned to educator perceptions of professional learning at

the study site.

The findings from perceptual data and interview response have revealed overall

strengths at the study setting. Aligned with the results from the survey data and interview

responses linked to research question one, strong leadership at the study setting was a

robust finding. In particular, these results added further depth to the attributes and

behaviors of principals at the study setting and converged with the perceptual data

findings by study participants on the PLCA-R of strong principal support for professional

learning communities.

Summary

In this chapter, data collected during this mixed-methods study, conducted at a

suburban school district in the northeastern United States, were analyzed and summarized

to address two research questions:

To address research questions one—How do educators perceive

professional learning communities as defined by the five universal dimensions?—

the findings and data were reported to describe the current status of the five dimensions

of a professional learning community at the study site. Perceptual data were collected

through the Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R), an

 149

instrument designed to measure the perceived fidelity of implementation of the behaviors

and practices of effective professional learning communities for each of the five PLC

dimensions.

To address research question number two—What are educators’ perceptions of

the overall quality of professional learning experienced through participation in a

professional learning community?—the findings and the data were reported to describe

the current status of professional learning at the study site. Perceptual data were collected

through educator responses to the SAI2, which allowed the researcher to investigate the

perceived professional learning resulting from participating in a PLC as it aligns to the

standards for professional learning.

Survey data were enhanced by collecting qualitative data from semi-structured

interviews that were aligned to the research questions under study and conducted with a

stratified random sample of study participants. This allowed the researcher to gain a

multi-layered understanding of educators’ perceptions of PLCs. Specifically, the

researcher was able to inquire more deeply into educator perceptions aligned to the five

dimensions of a PLC, as well as the overall quality of professional learning resulting

from PLC membership.

Chapter Five presents the conclusions, implications, and recommendations based

upon the findings and data analyses of this research study.

 150

Chapter Five

The purpose of this study was to explore educators’ perceptions of professional

learning communities along a continuum of the operationally defined dimensions of a

professional learning community and to explore educators’ perceptions as to the overall

quality of professional learning experienced resulting from participation in a professional

learning community. The study sought to do so by examining educators’ perceptions

against Hord’s (1997) theoretical framework and the standards for professional learning.

To conduct the study the researcher employed two research-validated surveys: The

Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R) and the Standards

Assessment Inventory-2 (SAI2) and semi-structured interviews of a stratified random

sample of study participants.

Chapter Five will explore the research questions under study and the resultant

findings. The implications regarding research question number one will detail educators’

perceptions of their progress toward becoming a professional learning community. The

findings will be analyzed separately by PLC dimension, and a synthesis of the results will

be provided. The implications regarding research question number two will detail

educators’ perceptions of the overall quality of professional learning experienced through

participation in a professional learning community. The findings will be analyzed

separately by each standard for professional learning, and a synthesis of the results will

be provided. Following the findings, the significance of the study and limitations of the

study will be discussed. The chapter will conclude with recommendations for future

research based on the findings.

 151

Discussion of Results

Research Question 1: How do educators perceive professional learning

communities as defined by the five universal dimensions?

Shared and supportive leadership. Professional learning communities operate

from a broad-based power structure in which leadership is distributed throughout the

entire educational community, and stakeholders share collective responsibility for the

learning of all students. The lines between leader and learner are blurred. Opportunities

exist for teachers to assume leadership roles, supported by administrators, and for

administrators and teachers alike to take on reciprocal learning roles, as well as share in

decision-making (Hord, 2015).

As evidenced by the survey results regarding shared and supportive leadership,

the educators at the study setting, in general, perceived the professional learning

communities at the study setting as moving toward the practices and behaviors identified

as effective in the literature. However, they acknowledged that progress could still be

made. Moreover, an analysis of the survey results revealed that educators at the study site

perceived shared responsibility for student learning to be somewhat contingent upon

traditional hierarchies of power and authority. These results suggest that the existing

structure of formal leadership may be exerting greater influence over a commitment to

improve student learning than the PLC team members in collaboration with school

leaders. If so, a “culture of compliance” may serve as an impediment to the reculturing of

schools toward a shared commitment for student learning, which is a hallmark of a

professional learning community (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Karhanek, 2010, p.17).
 152

Nonetheless, within this dimension, practices do exist that hold the promise for

reculturing schools at the study site. The greatest overall agreement among study

participants was an openness on the part of principals to share decision-making with

teachers. Study participants elaborated on this practice in interviews. Several noted that

principals at the study site had “an open door policy between administrators and

teachers.” In order to grow, educators must make themselves vulnerable to one another

and be willing to admit mistakes, areas of weakness, or a need for help; this is only

possible in an environment of trust (Lencionni, 2014). Open communication and trust

between administrators and teachers are foundational components upon which the PLC

teams at the study setting can continue to grow.

Another area of strength to note in this dimension is the use of multiple sources of

data to inform decisions about teaching and learning. The vast majority of study

participants agreed or strongly agreed with the survey items related to data. An open door

policy built on trust supports the sometimes difficult discussions precipitated from the

results of student achievement data. These crucial conversations are essential to informed

leadership actions that will support and sustain teaching practices aimed at improving

student learning.

Shared values and vision. Professional learning communities rest upon a shared

vision which Hord (2004) describes as “a particular mental image of what is important to

an organization; it is a preferred image of the future that compels the staff to work toward

the image” (p. 8-9). The common shared vision a professional learning community holds
 153

is “an undeviating focus on student learning and support for norms of behavior that guide

decisions about teaching and learning” (Hipp & Huffman, 2010, p.13).

Analyzing the survey data regarding shared values and vision finds a perceived

agreement among the educators that professional learning communities at the study

setting were moving toward a shared vision that values student learning. However,

opportunities for continued growth occur in the data as well. As in the shared and

supportive leadership dimension, the use of data to prioritize actions aimed at a vision for

increasing student learning found strong agreement among study participants.

Interview results revealed robust agreement with survey results. Each subject

interviewed elaborated on a vision focused on increasing student learning. Statements by

all interviewed subjects mirrored the following interview response: “The school’s vision

is to increase student learning for all and to bring everybody up, and of course, that is

what we want as teachers, too.”

As noted in Chapter Four, however, some dissonance around this dimension did

exist at the study setting. Survey results for vision development, as a collaborative

process, was the lowest scoring item in this dimension. This means that study

participants, while espousing overall agreement with a vision for increasing student

learning, perceived further need to fully engage in collaborative processes around values

and vision development. Corroborating evidence was found in a portion of Subject B’s

response to the interview question associated with this dimension:

Regarding vision, is it the same values and vision of what the teachers want?

[What] the school wants, like administratively? I don’t know. Sometimes teachers
 154

get frustrated with new initiatives that are starting, and they wonder how long this

is going to last, how it will impact students, [and] is this really what students

need. So there is always this big discussion about those points.

In analyzing this response, it is important to note the continual commitment it

takes on both the part of teachers and administrators to clearly articulate, communicate,

and share in the development of and commitment to the school’s vision for increasing

student learning, as promulgated in the policies, practices, and programs designed to do

so. Of particular note, however, was the final remark in this portion of Subject B’s

response: “So there is always this big discussion about those points.” It seems apparent

that even with the dissonance Subject B perceived around the dimension of shared values

and vision at the study setting, dialogue was welcome, ongoing, and transparent.

Further analysis of interview data identified another area of strength: the

perceived alignment of policies and programs to the school’s vision. In interview

responses, study participants noted policies and programs that are indicative of a shared

vision that values student learning. Specific references were made to Response to

Instruction and Intervention (RtII), School Wide Positive Behavior Supports (SWPBS),

and professional learning communities focused on formative assessment.

The evidence that emerged from survey and interview results suggests that

professional learning communities at the study setting were moving toward a shared

vision that values student learning. Additionally, the district could build on these

strengths and include more collaborative practices to fortify the policies, practices, and

programs currently established.

 155

Collective learning and application, and shared personal practice. As noted in

Chapter Four, the quantitative data for collective learning and application and shared

personal practice were analyzed separately, and qualitative data was joined in a single

interview question. The rationale for joined qualitative data collection was the

interdependent qualities the two dimensions share.

Collective learning and application. Collective learning and application in a

professional learning community focuses on joint engagement in a continuous

improvement process toward effective instructional practices that lead to improvements

in student learning. This dimension found the greatest overall agreement with study

participants of all of the dimensions. This means that the study participants agreed that

there were opportunities for staff to work together in a collegial manner and to learn new

knowledge, skills, and strategies that promoted their own practice and improved student

learning.

Survey results revealed that study participants shared a commitment to student

learning—established through a cycle of inquiry, fortified by data, and sustained through

collective learning, with critical dialogue and feedback from colleagues. Survey results

revealed one particular area for growth; study participants agreed that collaborative

analysis of student work was a potential area for improvement.

From the evidence of the survey results, it appears that study participants valued

opportunities to build not only their individual skills and self-efficacy, but also collective

efficacy and networks of skills to improve student learning. This was a valuable finding.

As Hargraeves and Fullan (2012) espouse, “The most abused educational research
 156

finding these days is this the quality of the teacher is the single most important

determinant in the learning of the student” (p.15). They further note that it is

not the effect of the individual teacher, for better or worse, here and there that

counts but rather how you maximize the cumulative effect of many, many

teachers over time for each and every student. Students do well because they have

a series of very good teachers—not by chance, but by design. (pp.15-16).

Professional learning communities are designed to build both individual and

collective capacity in a culture that promotes continuous learning, thus reducing the

variation of effective teachers so that all students have equitable learning opportunities

for academic success.

Shared Personal Practice. Traditional teacher practice is marked by isolation

(Davis, 1986; Goodlad, 1984; Lieberman, 1985; Lortie, 1975; Mirel & Goldin, 2012). A

2013 Met Life Survey of the American Teacher found that “when asked about limited

resources and what would help them the most in addressing the needs of diverse learners,

majorities of teachers consistently say other teachers” (p.10). Pfeffer and Sutton (2000)

noted that isolated practice is one of the contributing factors between what is known

about effective teaching practices and actual classroom practice (p.4).

Professional learning communities are one answer to decrease the isolation of

teacher practice. In particular, the dimension of shared personal practice addresses

teacher isolation by advocating opportunities for “peers to meet and observe one another

and to provide feedback on instructional practices, to assist in student learning, and to

increase human capacity” (Hipp, Huffman, Pankake,& Olivier, 2008, p. 175).

 157

As evidenced by the survey results regarding shared personal practice the

educators at the study setting, in general, perceived that the professional learning

communities at the study setting were engaging in opportunities for shared practices, as

identified in the literature. Moreover, when analyzing the survey results for this

dimension, the study participants agreed that opportunities for both formal and informal

sharing of practice were occurring at the study setting.

Participants agreed that opportunities for growth existed in the following areas:

opportunities for peer observation; and sharing student work to guide instructional

practice and guide overall school improvement. This is an important finding, since a

hallmark of the dimension of shared personal practice is peer observation, feedback, and

collective problem solving to improve practice. The perceived need to focus on peer

observation can guide their next steps as a district committed to establishing effective

PLCs. Another valuable finding from the survey results was participant agreement that

growth is necessary in the collective analysis of student work to inform and improve

instruction at the classroom and systems level. All item statements aligned to this practice

found agreement among study participants. These findings surfaced for the collective

learning and application dimension and the shared personal practice dimension,

indicating a converging pattern that study participants may want to explore more deeply.

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the dimensions of collective learning

and application, and shared personal practice, a stratified random sample of study

participants responded to the following interview question: In what ways are teachers at

your school sharing their practice with colleagues? Analysis of interview data aligned to
 158

the dimensions of collective learning and application indicated that opportunities to

collaborate—both formally and informally—and plan together were seen as valuable

experiences by study participants.

When analyzing the survey results and interview responses, it became clear that

the PLC teams at the study setting acted as collegial educators working within the PLC

structure to improve their practice and increase student learning. However, the evidence

also pointed to the nascent nature of the practices, which were still in the implementation

stage (Fullan, 1985). At the implementation stage, educators are beginning to

operationalize the innovation practice. They are not yet fully engaged in the practices of a

PLC operating at the institutionalization or sustainability phase, in which “the innovation

is recognized as an ongoing part of the system or the ‘way we do things around here’”

(Hipp et al, 2008, p. 176). This is to be expected, as the empirical literature surrounding

the change process, from exploration to sustainability, is minimally four to seven years

(Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, and Freidman, and Wallace, 2005).

To continue their growth, the next steps for the study site to consider in relation

to these two dimensions should involve sustained opportunities for deeper practices,

identified in the survey data as areas for growth: deep analysis of student work to inform

individual and collective instructional practices, and consistent opportunities for peer

observation and feedback on instructional practices.

Supportive Conditions Relationships and Structures. The supportive conditions

dimension is divided into two broad categories: relationships and structures. As

 159

Morrissey (2000) notes, “Structures that support the vision of a school and learning

community are vital to the effectiveness and innovation of teaching” (p. 6).

Relational structures coalesce around PLC team members’ congenial and collegial

relationships, evident in “respect and regard for each other, their conversation styles and

interactions, and how they confront conflict” (Hord, 2015).

As evidenced by the survey results regarding supportive conditions –

relationships, the educators at the study setting, in general, perceived that the professional

learning communities at the study setting were engaging in supportive relationships that

fostered trust, respect, and honest examination of data to enhance teaching and learning.

Again, a strong emphasis on data to move learning forward for both educators and

students surfaced as an area of strong agreement, as it did for the dimensions of shared

and supportive leadership and shared values and vision. Participants agreed that growth is

needed in the following areas: opportunities for celebrating outstanding achievement; and

sustained and unified efforts to embed cultural change.

Interview responses aligned to supportive conditions - relationships were garnered

by asking a stratified random sample of study participants the following interview

question: How would you describe the relationships that exist in your school among

teachers, administrators, and the staff? Interview responses to the survey question were

strongly supported by the survey data. All five of the study participants interviewed

spoke consistently of respectful, caring relationships, built on trust.

Interviewed study participants also noted the impact of workplace conditions on

fostering supportive relationships and the positive impact those relationships had on their
 160

practice. Supporting statements were evident throughout the interview responses: “I

know I can ask for help, and they [my colleagues] will say, ‘Here is what I have done.’

People are very open to helping;” “Everyone is willing to share;” “A pretty common

theme is the fact that the staff is very supportive of each other. Our team is cohesive. We

have each other’s back.”

The survey data and interview responses reveal strong supportive relational

conditions upon which the PLC teams can continue to improve instructional capacity and

foster professional capital (Hargreaves & Fullan, 2012).

Supportive conditions - structures. Supportive conditions- structures include

“time, communication procedures, size of the school, proximity of teachers, and staff

development process” (Morrissey, 200o, pp. 6-7). Survey item statements aligned with

this dimension also focus on the school schedule, fiscal resources, technology and

instructional materials, access to resource people who provide expertise for continuous

learning, a clean school environment, and accessible data.

As evidenced by the survey results regarding supportive conditions-structure,

educators at the study setting, in general, perceived that the professional learning

communities at the study setting were provided with structural support, but opportunities

to strengthen this dimension exist. Study participants agreed on areas of strength: a clean

and attractive school environment; proximity to colleagues that facilitates collaboration;

and communication systems that promote the flow of information among staff members.

Study participants also expressed agreement on areas of potential growth: time,

the school schedule, fiscal resources, technology and instructional resources, resource
 161

people to provide expertise and support for continuous learning, communication systems

across the entire school community, and organized and accessible data.

A number of opportunities exist to strengthen this dimension. Two were

particularly prominent in the survey data. First, study participants agreed, overall, that the

school schedule was a potential barrier to achieving the vision for increasing learning for

all students, but a great deal of variance was found in the measure. This variance may be

reflective of the span of the PLC team members’ schools, which range from elementary

schools, to a middle school, and a high school. Schedules at the high school level, due to

graduation requirements and departmentalized content instruction, are often considered as

barriers to the promotion of collective learning and shared practice. Second, the study

participants agreed on the need for growth in the organization and accessibility of data.

This suggests that while data is a driving factor in examining teaching practices and

increasing student learning, as seen in the consistent patterns of agreement in other PLC

dimensions, the organization of data and its accessibility is an area to consider

strengthening.

Interview data aligned to this dimension was obtained from a stratified random

sample of study participants in response to the interview question: What structures are in

place at your school to support collaboration among teachers, administrators, and the

staff? Differing from the survey data focusing on time, four of the five subjects

interviewed agreed time is allotted for collaboration and sharing at faculty meetings, in-

service days, and PLC meeting times. However, time appeared to be a factor with duality

as study participants noted repeatedly that time to facilitate collaborative work could also
 162

be a barrier: “There’s just not enough time. It is a barrier. We used to have it built in;”

“There are time when things are flexible on professional development days, and that is

good, but it just feels like that is not enough;” and “Time is hard to come by.”

While the survey data found low agreement with the availability of resource

people to provide expertise and support for continuous learning, interviewed subjects

noted the value and supportive nature of substitute teachers. Substitute teachers, provided

by the school district, allowed PLC teams to meet and facilitated professional

development in a new reading series.

Summary for research question one. Analysis and synthesis of the survey data

and interview responses revealed that the study setting, currently in the implementation

stage, provided evidence for engaging in practices and behaviors of an effective PLC as

described by Hord’s (1997) theoretical framework and the aligned statements on the

PLCA-R. The practices and behaviors range on a continuum of agreement among study

participants, but fell slightly below or slightly above overall agreement for each of the

five dimensions of a professional learning community.

Strengths revealed at the item level included a strong regard for the congenial and

collegial relationships between educators and school leaders at the study site. These

trusting and open relationships supported efforts to improve practice and increase student

learning through the PLC approach. Supportive peer-to-peer relationships were also

highly regarded as a means to deprivatize practice and capitalize on colleagues’ feedback

to improve. An additional finding, revealed at the item level, was a consistent focus on

sources and types of data to meet the learning needs of professionals and students. A
 163

vision for improving student learning, facilitated by a focus on adult learning, also

resonated across survey data and interview responses. Given that the PLC teams at the

study site had been engaged in the PLC approach for just two school years, the study

setting had many foundational strengths to continue implementation, and, if resolute, to

move toward sustainability.

Areas of growth to be considered for the participants at the study site were also

revealed. These included an increased focus on deep analysis of student work beyond the

traditional data sources and types available to them; improved accessibility to data; and

more consistent opportunities for peer observation with feedback.

Finally, it is important for PLC team members to reflect upon the progress made

during their PLC journey and to celebrate both big and small incremental wins resulting

from their efforts. The journey is long and improvement, by necessity, must be continual,

by celebrating along the path, the team can replenish their resolve.

Research Question 2: What are educators’ perceptions of the overall quality

of professional learning experienced through participation in a professional learning

community?

To answer research question number two, all study participants took the online

survey, the Standards Assessment Inventory-2 (SAI2), which is aligned to Learning

Forward’s seven standards for professional learning: professional learning communities,

leadership, resources, data, learning designs, implementation, and outcomes. In addition,

the final question in the interview process for a stratified, random sample of study
 164

participants was open-ended and aligned to research question two: How would you

describe the overall quality of professional development in your school?

Professional learning communities. The first standard for professional learning

is professional learning communities. This standard focuses on continuous professional

learning within learning communities to increase educator effectiveness and student

learning. Seven statements on the SAI2 are related to this standard. Mean scores on 5/7

statements scored above 3.0. Analyzing these results provided evidence for a

commitment to a shared vision for student learning held by educational and community

stakeholders in a trusted environment. The highest mean score (3.74) for statement five

focused on data-driven continuous improvement and mirrored the findings from the

PLCA-R, which had high mean scores for data related statements in three PLC

dimensions. Statements scoring below a mean score of 3.0 (2/7) focused on the frequency

of PLC meeting times (several times a week) and the inclusion of parents and community

members in the meetings. This result is likely due, in part, to the standard PLC protocol

at the study site. This protocol calls for study participants to meet one time per month for

a period of 75-90 minutes. The focus of the PLCs at the study site was on changing

classroom practice supported by administrators and peers, with the addition of peer

observation and feedback. Parents and community members were not included in the

PLC protocol; however, students were invited to provide feedback to educators on the

impact of their changing practices in three of the PLC meetings held during year two.

Leadership. The second standard for professional learning is leadership. The

leadership standard focuses on school leaders who develop educators’ capacities to

 165

improve student learning. Seven item statements align to this standard on the SAI2. The

leadership standard had the highest overall mean score of all the seven standards. All

seven statements related to this standard scored above a mean score of 3.0, indicating that

study participants perceived strong leadership support for their professional learning.

School leaders were perceived to have skills in providing equitable resources for

professional learning, to be active participants in professional learning, to value and

advocate for professional learning, to consider all educators as capable of being

professional learning leaders, and to understand the interdependence of educator

professional learning with student learning. These findings align with the overall PLCA-

R survey data and interview responses for the shared and supportive leadership

dimension. In addition, they provide further insight into the connection between school

leaders and the professional learning of educators. Hord (2015) speaks to the vital link

between school leaders and the development of authentic professional learning

communities in promoting “professional learning community members’ feelings of

efficacy” (p. 39). Hargreaves and Fullan (2012) describe this practice as a “movement

from power over to power with” (p.9).

Resources. The third standard for professional learning is resources. The

resources standard focuses on strategic resource allocation to ensure opportunities for

educators’ professional learning. There are seven statements related to the resource

standard on the SAI2. Overall perceived strengths for this standard were opportunities

for applying new skills, monitoring the effectiveness of professional learning resources,

value in the variety of professional learning offerings, and technology resources.

 166

Consistently low scoring statements focused on the transparency of resource allocation as

it relates to professional learning and the perceived exclusion in the decision-making

process for such.

Data. The fourth standard for professional learning is data. The data standard

focuses on the use of multiple data sources and types at the student, educator, and

systems level to make informed decisions about professional learning. There are eight

statements related to the data standard on the SAI2. As might be expected from the

converging results on the PLCA-R’s data related items, educators at the study setting

perceived that multiple sources and types of data were used to monitor, evaluate, and

inform professional learning. The only caveat to these overall perceptions was reflected

in statement 29, which focused on a proactive plan for assessing professional learning

before the professional learning was implemented. This item scored significantly lower

than the other data statements. Guskey and Yoon (2009) point out the importance of

gathering data on the effectiveness of professional learning and specifically address the

need for data to “become a central focus on the planning process” to yield valid and

reliable evidence (p. 498). This may be a growth area for the educators at the study

setting to consider.

Learning Designs. The fifth standard for professional learning is learning

designs. The learning designs standard focuses on the integration of theories, research,

and effective learning models to achieve the school’s vision. There are seven statements

on the SAI2 related to the learning designs standard. Perceived strengths for this

standard include the following: a differentiated professional learning approach, which is

 167

based on educator needs; a responsibility for educators to select professional learning that

will improve pedagogical skills and increase student learning; and the use of technology

for professional learning. It is important to note that differentiated professional learning

does not mean educators pursue individual interests disconnected from the vision of

improving student achievement. Rather, the focus is on simultaneous efforts of improving

individual performance, supported by collaboration with colleagues aligned to the vision.

Perceived areas of need for this standard included opportunities to have a voice in

the selection of school-wide professional learning offerings, opportunities for peer

observation, and online collaboration. Of particular note is the idea, expressed by

participants at the study site, of having more direct input on professional learning. This

may be a pattern that educators at the study setting may wish to explore.

The outcome related to peer observation is also noteworthy. The PLC protocol at

the study site embeded (minimally) one peer observation with feedback per month. Peer

observation with collegial feedback provides opportunities for educators’ to support one

another “in order to operate at their professional peak in service to students” (Hord, 2015,

p. 39). These findings may suggest that integrity to this portion of the PLC protocol is

challenging and/or that the participants find this practice so valuable that they seek more

opportunities to do so.

Implementation. The sixth standard for professional learning is implementation.

The implementation standard focuses on the application of the research on change and

support for sustained implementation. There are seven statements on the SAI2 related to

the implementation standard. The study participants’ perceived area of strength was an
 168

alignment between a vision for improving student learning and the goals of implemented

professional learning, which were perceived to be based on research about effective

school change. Study participants’ perceived areas of need were a consistent and long-

term plan for professional learning and frequent feedback from colleagues to refine

implementation strategies.

The identified needs indicate that educators and school leaders at the study setting

should consider the development of a cohesive, integrated plan for professional learning

with a sustained focus. Gulamhussien (2013) found that five key components were

necessary for successful implementation: duration, support, exposure, modeling, and

specificity (pp.3-4). In order to bring about second order change, fundamental change

must occur, meaning a reculturing of the school (Huffman & Hipp,2003). Reculturing is

only possible when educators are afforded significant and ongoing time to learn new

strategies; are provided with support, feedback and modeling; and are presented with

content that is grounded in the teacher’s discipline. (Gulamhussien, 2013).

Outcomes. The seventh and final standard for professional learning is outcomes.

The outcomes standard focuses on learning outcomes for educators and students as a

metric to determine the effectiveness of professional learning. There are seven statements

on the SAI2 related to the outcomes standard. Study participants perceived this standard

to be a strength, and the overall mean score is second only to the leadership standard.

Study participants perceived that professional learning was driven by the learning

outcomes of teachers and that all staff members were held to high standards to increase

student learning.
 169

Discussion. A stratified random sample of study participants provided further

detail about the perceptions of professional learning at the study setting by responding to

the following interview question: How would you describe the overall quality of

professional development at your school? A general consensus from interviewed

subjects was that professional learning was improving at the study setting. Subjects

described professional learning as “much improved,” “improving,” and “above average.”

Specific evidence to support the perceptions of improvement included directed and

planned professional learning days, coaches and curriculum to support day-to-day

teaching, and the duration and cyclical nature of professional learning that was revisited

to facilitate sustained implementation. A common barrier to professional learning that

surfaced was time. Study participants noted that time was a commodity always in short

supply.

Summary of research question number two. Analysis and synthesis of the survey

data and interview responses revealed that the study setting had areas of strength

associated with the overall quality of professional learning experienced through

participation in professional learning communities. The leadership, outcomes,

implementation, data, and learning communities’ standards were perceived as particularly

strong at the study setting. The resources and learning designs standards were also

perceived in good stead, although not as strong as the former standards noted. Interview

responses revealed the perception that professional learning was improving at the study

site and opportunities to grow and learn collaboratively were moving toward the
 170

principles, suggested by research, that lead to effective professional learning, as described

by the Standards for Professional Learning and by Gulamhussein (2013).

Interviews were conducted at the end of the school year when, understandably,

teachers were drained and tired from the demands of completing another academic school

year. Despite the timing of the interviews, the researcher was encouraged to hear and feel

the passion, dedication, and commitment embodied by the subjects for improving their

practice to benefit their students.

Significance of the Study

This study serves as a bridge to address the science-to-service gap by adding to

the literature base and providing contextual details of grounded practice in professional

learning communities. Professional learning communities have gained increasing

attention from researchers, school reformers, and educators alike throughout the last

thirty years, and yet a gap still exists between the literature and the practice. One reason

for this gap may be the difficulty researchers and educators alike have had in

operationalizing the concepts and processes of a professional learning community.

Nearly all school districts today attest to the mantra “We do PLCs,” but do they

really? What does it mean to be a professional learning community? The response to this

question is what this study sought to discover through examination of the perceptions of

the educators who were grounded in this work, on a daily basis, in the context of the

study setting. As noted by Roy and Hord (2006), “although there are no blueprints for

change that transfer from one school to the next, strategies are emerging that guide in
 171

fostering collaborative cultures that systematically address school improvement and

student learning.” (p.192).

This study did identify specific strategies that were perceived by the study

participants as having a positive impact on changes to their practice and student learning:

the hallmark of a professional learning community. Chief among them was the

importance of leadership: leadership from principals and leadership from teachers.

Professional learning communities need leadership to thrive and survive, and they need

stewardship from school leaders and from one another. Hord (1997) identified three

abilities that school leaders must apply to the stewardship of professional learning

communities: “the ability to share authority, the ability to facilitate the work of staff, and

the ability to participate without dominating” (p. 16). Survey data and interview

responses revealed the adeptness of the principals at the study setting in exhibiting these

abilities. While these findings contribute to the field in supporting the existing literature

base, they also add context to the conversation. The voices of educators, espousing the

benefits of shared and supportive leadership in their interviews, bring the process of

school change, in all its complexities and nuances, into full view.

Trust was also a contributing factor revealed in this study. Roy and Hord (2006)

refer to the impact trust has on decreasing teacher isolation and contributing to peer-to-

peer observations with feedback— the lifeblood of a professional learning community.

Roy and Hord (2006) refer to this trust as “administrative-to-teacher trust” and “teacher-

to-teacher trust,” noting the importance and interdependence of both (pp. 496-497). This

study bears out that assertion. Survey results and interview responses revealed trust was a
 172

critical component undergirding the progress-to-date of the professional learning

communities at the study setting.

Finally, the importance of using multiple data sources and types to inform change

at the teacher, classroom and systems level was a significant finding of the study that

contributes to the field. Patterns emerged from the survey and interview responses

indicating that PLC team members used data as a catalyst to improve practice, increase

student learning, and, as a result, work toward the established vision of a professional

learning community. The researcher, however, would like to raise a caution in this

regard. Data in and of itself is but a tool; it can be used as a catalyst for reculturing a

school toward collaborative practices and a shared commitment for increasing student

learning. Conversely, it can be used as a catalyst for competition and isolation. One

significant finding from this study stems from how data was used by educators within the

study setting: as a catalyst for progress toward a shared vision for improving student

learning.

The process of becoming a professional learning community is a journey that is

rife with twists and turns, advances and retreats. The researcher hopes the findings from

this study may serve as potential guiding principles to others along this worthy path.

Limitations of the Study

The researcher sought to decrease limitations in the study, but limitations are

inherent in every study. One potential limitation is the sampling method. The researcher

utilized a purposive sampling when choosing the study setting to explore the research

under study. This resulted in data collection at three elementary school teams, one middle
 173

school team, and one high school team, representing five of the seven schools at the study

setting. Therefore, data gathered may not be representative of the population of educators

at the study setting.

In addition, of the total possible sample, 66.66% of educators volunteered to be

part of the study. Those educators who did participate in the study may be more likely to

have more favorable perceptions of professional learning communities than those who

chose not to be a part of the study. Therefore, the self-reported perceptions of

professional learning communities by the study participants may not be generalizable to

educators who participate in professional learning communities in other settings.

The research questions under study did not require the collection of demographic

data. For that reason, the researcher did not collect stratified data beyond the interviewed

subjects. The lack of demographic data potentially limits the study. This is a potential

limitation of additional quantitative data in the study.

Another potential limitation of the study was the time frame in which data

collection took place. Quantitative data collection occurred near the end of the school

year and during the administration of state assessments. This was a very stressful time

period for educators and may have impacted their survey responses. Additionally,

qualitative data was collected through semi-structured interviews of a stratified random

sample of participants at the very end of the school year. Again, this is a stressful time to

interview educators because of the large amount of concluding work that must be

finalized to bring the school year to a close. The researcher sought to diminish the
 174

potential impact of the timing of the interview process by keeping the interviews brief

and conducting them at the school site at the time desired by each interviewee.

A final limitation of this study was the potential for researcher bias. The

researcher attempted to control for any potential bias threats by following a structured

interview guide that aligned with the literature and the conceptual framework of the study

and electing an open-ended question to conclude the interview. This ensured that

participant views on professional learning communities could be fully expressed and

maximized, while researcher assumptions were minimized. Additionally, using

anonymous, online surveys that allowed no interaction with the researcher was an

effective control against researcher bias.

Recommendations for Future Research

In this study, the researcher sought to assess educators’ perceptions of their

progress toward becoming a professional learning community and the overall quality of

professional learning experienced through participation in a professional learning

community. Hord’s (1997) conceptual framework of a professional learning community

and the standards for professional learning provided the structure for the research

questions that were under study. The findings of this study converged in three broad

areas: leadership, trust, and data as a catalyst for advancing the vision of a professional

learning community. The evidence from this study suggests potential areas for future

research as it relates to professional learning communities.

The first area to consider for future research concerns the specific attributes and

behaviors in which leaders must engage to effectively steward professional learning

 175

communities through the stages of implementation identified by Fullan’s (1985) change

process: initiation, implementation, and institutionalization/sustainability. Future

research could build on Hord’s (1997) work in identifying critical leadership abilities,

including “the ability to share authority, the ability to facilitate the work of staff, and the

ability to participate without dominating by identifying” (p.16). By identifying and

operationalizing the specific behaviors and practices leaders’ exhibit through these

abilities, researchers could provide school leaders with discrete strategies that could be

replicated and used to measure their progress. An additional area of study converging

upon leadership as it encompasses Fullan’s (1985) change process and Hord’s (1997)

leadership abilities would be to clarify where specific leadership abilities are most critical

in the change process and which of those abilities may or may not be globally critical to

the change process.

The next area to consider is the concept of trust development: “administrative-to-

teacher-trust” and “teacher-to-teacher trust” (Roy & Hord, 2006, pp. 496-497). Relational

trust has been described as the “glue that binds a professional learning community”

(Cranston, 2011, p.59) Cranston found that trust is critical to substantive school

improvement and effective professional learning communities; therefore, future research

could examine the discrete practices and behaviors of school leaders and teachers that

cultivate trust and provide actionable practices to guide the field.

Finally, the use of data to guide the direction and progress of professional learning

communities could prove a rich area of research to add to the literature base and give

direction to the field. As noted earlier in the chapter, data can be a catalyst for improving
 176

practice and increasing student learning. The researcher would suggest that future studies

examine not only the sources and types of data that may act as positive catalyst for

change, but also the protocols, dialogues, and processes of data collection, analysis, and

actions. Research of this type could provide a rich roadmap for achieving the vision of a

professional learning community.

Researcher Reflections. Since the early 1990’s with the work of Senge (1990),

Little (1993), Newman and Wehlage (1995), Hord (1997), and Du Four and Eaker (1998)

to more recent meta-analyses by Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2008) and Lomos, Hoffman,

and Bosker (2011) professional learning communities have been proclaimed as a means

to bring about sustainable change in teacher practice resulting in increases in student

learning. Despite this proclamation and the ensuing proliferation of PLCs throughout the

educational community, in many respects becoming a true professional learning

community is still shrouded in mystery. So much so that Hargraeves (2007) describes

PLCs as “turning into add-on teams that are driven by data in cultures of fear that demand

instant results rather than being intelligently informed by evidence in deep demanding

cultures of trusted relationships that press for success” (p. 182). It is within this context

that the researcher investigated professional learning communities at the study site guided

by Hord’s (1997) conceptual framework and the Standards for Professional Learning

(2011).

One important finding from this study demonstrates that a focus on data need not

be a barrier to becoming a professional learning community but can act as a catalyst. The

use of data was a consistent and robust finding in this study but it important to note that it
 177

was embedded within a culture of relational trust. The study findings persuasively

suggest that when PLCs operate in a culture of strong, relational trust and open

communication between school leaders and teachers they can make significant progress

toward becoming a professional learning community. Leadership matters and plays a

pivotal role in initiating, implementing, and sustaining a professional learning

community.

While still nascent in their journey toward becoming a true professional learning

community, the findings from this study may serve to elucidate the fundamental

importance of relational trust and shared leadership and its influence on reculturing

schools to become true professional learning communities where learning, growth,

teamwork, and caring is the norm for educators and students alike.
 178

References

Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teaching and student achievement in the

Chicago public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135.

Anfara, V.A., & Teague, G.M. (2012). Professional learning communities create

sustainable change through collaboration. Middle School Journal, 44(2), 58-64.

Angelle, P.S., & Teague, G.M. (2011). Differences in the implementation of learning

Communities: An examination of the elements of collaborative work groups in

two districts. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of

Educational Administrators. Pittsburgh, PA, November18, 2011.

Achieve, Inc. (2004). Ready or not: Creating a high school diploma that counts.

Washington, DC: The Education Trust and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org/files/ReadyorNot.pdf

Achieve, Inc. (2013). Implementing the Common Core State Standards. Retrieved from

http://www.achieve.org/files/RevisedElementaryActionBrief_Final_Feb.pdf

Achieve, Inc. (2014). College and career readiness. Retrieved from

http://www.achieve.org/college-and-career-readiness

Archibald, S., Cogshall, J., Crofts, A., & Goe, L. (2011). High-quality professional

development for all teachers: Effectively allocating revenues. National

Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.

Ball, D.L., & Cohen, D.K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward

a practice-based theory of professional education. Retrieved from http://www.

personal.umich.edu/~dball/chapters/BallCohenDevelopingPractice.pdf.
 179

Belenardo, S.J. (2001). Practices and conditions that lead to a sense of community in

Middle schools. National Association of Secondary School Principals Bulletin,

85, 627. doi: 10.1177/019263650108562704

Birman, B., LeFloch, K.C., Klekotka, A., Ludwig, M., Taylor, J., Walters, K., Wayne, A.,

& Yoon, K.S. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind

Act,Volume II—Teacher quality under NCLB: Interim report. Washington, DC:

United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy

Development,Policy and Program Studies Service. Retrieved from

http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/nclb/execsum.html

Bohrnstedt, G. (2013). Gains and Gaps: Education Performance after A Nation

at Risk. American Institutes for Research. Retrieved from: http://www.air.

org/resource/three-decades-education-reform-are-we-still-nation-risk#Bohrnstedt

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., Wallace, M. (2005). Creating and

sustaining effective professional learning communities. Nottingham, United

Kingdom: Department of Education and Skills. Retrieved from

http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/5622/1/RR637.pdf

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33 (8), 3015.

Borman, G.D., & Kimball, S.M. (2005). Teacher quality and educational equality: Do

teachers with higher standards-based evaluation ratings close the achievement

gaps? The Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 3-20.

 180

Bransford, J., Brown.,A., & Cocking, R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC:

National Academy Press.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Brutus, S., Aguinis, H., & Wassmer, U. (2013). Self-reported limitations and future

directions in scholarly reports: Analysis and recommendations. Journal of

Management, 39(1),48-75

Bryk, A., Camburn, E., Louis, K.S. (1999). Professional community in Chicago

elementary schools: Facilitating factors and organizational consequences.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(5), 751-781.

Burnette, B. (2002). How we formed our community. Journal of Staff Development. 23

(1),51-54.

Butler, D.L., Lauscher, H.N., Jarvis-Sellinger,S., & Beckingham,B. (2004). Collaboration

and self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher

Education, 20(5), 435-455.

Capers, M. (2004). Teaching and shared professional practice: A history of resistance; a

future dependent on its embrace. In S.M. Hord (Ed.). Learning together, leading

together: Changing school through professional learning communities. (pp. 151-

162).Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Carlson, J.A. (2010). Avoiding traps in member checking. The Qualitative Report, 15(5),

1112-1113.
 181

Carnevale, A., Smith, N., & Strohl, J. (2010). Help wanted: Projection of jobs and

education requirements through 2018. The Center on Education and the Work

Force. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED524310.pdf

Chang, K. (2013, September 2). Expecting the best yields results in Massachusetts. The

New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com

Chappuis, S., Chappuis, J., & Stiggins, R. (2009). Supporting teacher learning teams.

Educational Leadership, 66 (5), 56-50.

Cho, J., & Trent, A. (2006). Validity in qualitative research revisited. Qualitative

Research, 6(3), 319-340.

Cochran-Smith, M. & Lytle, S.L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice:

Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education. 24(1), 249-

305.

Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H.C. (1998). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The

Mathematics reform in California. (CPRE Research Report Series, RR-39.

Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium of Policy Research in

Education.

Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H.C. (2000). Instructional policy and classroom performance: The

mathematics reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102 (2), 294-343.

Cohen, D.K. & Hill, H.C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works.

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

 182

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A., (2014). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and

Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications.

Cowan, D., & Capers, M. (2000). Co-Developers: Partners in a study of Professional

Learning Communities. Issues … about Change, 8(2). Austin, TX: Southwest

Educational Development Laboratory.

Cowan, D. (2010). The professional teaching and learning cycle. In K.K. Hipp& J.B.

Huffman (Eds.), Demystifying professional learning communities: School

leadership at its best (pp.57-68). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield

Education.

Cranston, J. (2011, Spring). Relational Trust: The Glue that Binds a Professional

Learning Community. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 57 (1), 59-72.

Cresswell, J.W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development.

Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching.

NY: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of

State policy evidence. Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved

From https://bdgrdemocracy.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/teachereducation1.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary

 183

programs. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Creating a comprehensive system for evaluating and

supporting effective teaching. Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity and

Policy in Education. Retrieved from

https://edpolicy.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/publications/creating-

comprehensive-system-evaluating-and-supporting-effective-teaching.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L. (2014). One piece of the whole. American Educator, pp.4-14.

Darling-Hammond, L., Austin, K., Orcutt, S., & Martin, D. (2001). Learning from others:

Learning in a social context. Stanford University School of Education. Retrieved

from http://www.mtsu.edu/pbsi/files/Learning_From_Others_-_Session_7.pdf

Darling-Hammond, L., & Berry, B. (2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational

Leadership, 64(3), 14-20.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M.W. (1995). Policies that support professional

development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.

Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009).

Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher

development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development

Council and the School Redesign Network at Stanford University. Retrieved

from http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdf

Davis, J.B. (1986). Teacher isolation: Breaking through. The High School Journal, 70(2),

72-76.
 184

Deidrich, M. (2012). False choices: The economic argument against market-driven

education reform. Saint Paul, MN: Minnesota 2020. Retrieved from

http://www.mn2020.org/issues-that-matter/education/false-choices-the-economic-

argument-against-market-driven-education-reform

Demonte, J. (2013). High quality professional development for teachers. Center for

American Progress. Retrieved from: http://www.sheeo.org/sites/default/files

/PD%20Research%20-%20High%20Quality%20PD%20for%20Teachers%2007-

2013.pdf

Denmark, V. & Weaver, S.R. (2012). Technical report: Redesign and psychometric

evaluation of the Standards Assessment Inventory. Oxford, OH: Learning

Forward.

Denzin, N.K., & Lincoln, Y.S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand

Oaks,CA: Sage Publications.

Desimone, L. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development:

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38 (3),

181-199.

Desimone, L.M. (2011). A primer on effective professional development. Phi Delta

Kappan,92(6), 68-71.

Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. Kappa Delta Pi.

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a professional learning community? Educational Leadership,

61(8),6-11.
 185

DuFour, R. (2011). Work together but only if you want to. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 57-

61.

DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best

Practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker,R. (2008) Revisiting professional learning

communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Kaharnek, G. (2010). Raising the bar and closing

the gap: Whatever it Takes. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

DuFour, R, Eaker, R,, &Du Four, R., (Eds.).(2005). On common ground: The power of

professional learning communities. Bloomington, IA: National Educational

Service.

Eaker, R., DuFour, R., & DuFour, R. (2002). Getting started: Reculturing schools to

become professional learning communities. Bloomington, IA: National

Educational Services.

Eaker, R., & Keating, J. (2008). A shift in school culture. Journal of Staff Development,

29 (3).

Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to Scale with Good Education Practice. Harvard

Educational Review. 66(1), 1-26.

Elmore, R. F. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional

Improvement in Community School District #2. New York City, NY: National

Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

 186

Elmore, R.F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. The Albert Shanker

Institute. Retrieved from http://www.shankerinstitute.org/Downloads/building.pdf

Elmore, R. (2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement: the

Imperative of professional development in education. Washington, DC:

Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Finnan, C. (2006). Enacting curriculum and teaching theory in contexts of countervailing

thought: The cases of John Dewey and accelerated schools. Curriculum and

Teaching Dialogue, 8(1&2), 83-98.

Firth, G.H. & Mims, A. (1985). Burnout among special education paraprofessionals.

Teaching Exceptional Children, 17(3), 225-227.

Fixsen, D.L., Naoom, S.F., Blasé, K.A., Friedman, R.M., & Wallace, F. (2005).

Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. Retrieved from

http://ctndisseminationlibrary.org/PDF/nirnmonograph.pdf

Flinders, D.J. (1998). Teacher isolation and the new reform. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 41(1), 17-29.

Fram, S.M. (2013). The constant-comparative analysis method outside of the grounded

theory. The Qualitative Report, 18(1), 1-25.

Frankel, J.R. & Wallen, N.E. (2009). How to Design and Evaluate Research

Education. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

 187

French, V.W. (1997). Teachers must be learners too: Professional development and

national teaching standards. NASSP Bulletin, 81(585), 38-44.

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand

Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Fullan, M. (2006). Turnaround Leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Fullan, M. (2007). The New Meaning of Educational Change. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.

Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W. O., Campbell, A., Crosby, E. A., Foster C. A.,

Jr., et al.(1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. An open

letter to the American people. A report to the nation and the Secretary of

Education. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education.

Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., &Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional

development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.

American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Glaser, B.G. (1965). The Constant-Comparative Method of Qualitative Analysis. Social

Problems, 12(4), 436-445.

Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning

organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124-156.

 188

Goals 2000: Educate America Act: United States Department of Education. Retrieved

From: https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/103/hr1804

Goodlad, J.I. (1984, 2004). A place called school: Twentieth Anniversary Edition.

New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gulamhussein, A. (2013). Teaching the teachers: Effective professional development in

an era of high-stakes accountability. The Center for Public Education.

Guskey, T. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Guskey, T. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan,

48(10), 748-750.

Guskey, T., & Yoon, K.S. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi Delta

Kappan, 90 (7), 495-500.

Hakkarainen, K., Paavola, S., Kangas, K. & Seitamma-Hakkarainen, D. (2013).

Sociocultural perspectives on collaborative learning: Toward collaborative

Knowledge creation. In C.E. Hmelo-Silver, C.A. Chinn, C.Chan, & A.M.

O’Donnell (Eds.), The International Handbook of Collaborative Learning (pp.57-

73). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hansman, C. 2001). Context-based adult learning. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.). The New

Update on Adult Learning Theory (pp.43-52). New York, NY: John Wiley &

Sons.
 189

Hanushek, E.A. (2010). The economic value of higher teacher quality. (Working

Paper

56). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/1001507-Higher-Teacher-

Quality.pdf

Hanushek, E.A. (2012). Is the Common Core just a distraction? Stanford University

Hoover Institution. Retrieved from

http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/common-core-just-distraction

Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., O’Brien, D.M.,& Rivkin, S.G. (2005). The market for

teacher quality (Working Paper No. 11154). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of

Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w11154.pdf

Hargreaves, A. (2007). Sustainable professional learning communities. In L. Stoll &

K.S. Louis (Eds.), Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth,

Dilemmas (181-196). Berskshire: UK: Open University Press.

Hargreaves, A. (2008). Foreward. In S.M. Hord & W.A. Sommers (Ed.). Leading

Professional Learning Communities: Voices From Research and Practice.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hargraeves, A., & Fullan, M. (2012). Professional Capital: Transforming Teaching in

Every School. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). How to improve the supply of high quality

teachers. Brookings Papers on Educational Policy. Washington, D.C.: Brookings

Institute Press. 7-25.

 190

Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2010, May). Generalizations about using value-added

measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review. 267-271.

Hargreaves, A. & Goodson, I., (2004). Change Over Time? A Report of Educational

Change Over 30 Years in Eight U.S. and Canadian Schools. Final Report to the

Spencer Foundation, Chicago.

Harris, D.N., & Sass, T.R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality, and student

achievement, Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 798-812.

Hertert, L. (1997). Investing in teacher professional development: A look at 16 school

districts. Denver: CO: Education Commission of the States.

Hess, F.M. (2014). How the Common Core went wrong. National Affairs. Fall 2014.

Retrieved from http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-the-

common-core-went-wrong

Hill, H. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 470-

477.

Hipp, K.K., & Huffman, J.B. (2003, January). Professional learning communities:

Assessment development-effects. Paper presented at the meeting of the

International Congress for School Effectiveness and Improvement, Sydney,

Australia.

Hipp, K.K., & Huffman, J.B. (2010). Demystifying professional learning communities:

School Leadership at its best. New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
 191

Hipp, K.K., Huffman, J.B., Pankake, A.M., & Olivier, D.F. (2008). Sustaining

Professional learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change,

9(2), 173-195.

Hirsh, S (2009a). A new definition. Journal of Staff Development, 30(4), 10-14.

Hirsh, S. (2009b). Creating effective professional learning systems to bolster teaching

quality and student achievement. Preface in Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R.C.,

Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S. Professional leaning in the learning

profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and

abroad. National Staff Development Council.

Hirsh, S., & Killion, J. (2009). When educators learn, sudents learn: Eight principles of

professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 464-469.

Hoff, D., & Manzo, K. (2007). Bush claims about NCLB questioned. Education Week,

March 14, p.1.

Hord, S.M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous

Inquiry and Improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development

Laboratory.

Hord, S.M. (1998). Creating a professional learning community: Cottonwood Creek

School. Issues…about Change, 6(2), 1-8.

Hord, S.M. (2000). Multiple Mirrors: Reflections on the creation of professional learning

communities. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Hord, S.M. (2004). Learning together, leading together: Changing schools through

professional learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

 192

Hord, S.M. (2008). Evolution of the professional learning community. Journal of Staff

Development, 29(3), 10-13.

Hord, S.M. (2015). What is an authentic professional learning community? Journal of

Staff Development, 36(3), 38-39.

Hord, S.M., & Sommers, W.A. (2008). Leading professional learning communities:

Voices From Research and Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hord, S.M., Roussin, J.L., & Sommers, W.A. (2008). Guiding professional learning

communities: Inspiration, challenge, surprise, and meaning. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Corwin Press.

Hord, S.M., & Tobia, E.F. (2012). Reclaiming our teaching professions: The power of

educators learning in community. NY: Teachers College Press.

Huffman, J.B., & Hipp, K.K. (2003). Reculturing Schools as professional learning

communities. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

Hunt, J.B. (2009). Standards-based reform 2.0. Foreword in Darling-Hammond, L., Wei,

R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S. Professional leaning in the

learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States

and abroad. National Staff Development Council.

Jaquith, A., Mindlich, D., Wei, R.C., & Darling-Hammond, L.. (2010, December).

Teacher Professional Learning in the United States: Case Studies of State

Policies and Strategies. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward. Retrieved from

http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/2010phase3technicalreport.pdf?sfvrsn=0
 193

Jennings, J. (2012). Reflections on a half-century of school reform: Why have we fallen

short and where do we go from here? Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from

http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=392

Johnson, R.B., & Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2004, October). Mixed-methods research: A

research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Johnson, R.B., Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Turner,L.A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed-

methods research. Journal of Mixed-Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.

Johnson, S.M. (2010). How best to add value? Striking a balance between the individual

and the organization in school reform. Voices in Urban Education, 27, Annenberg

Institute for School Reform. Retrieved from: http://vue.annenbergin

stitute.org/sites/default/files/issuePDF/VUE27.pdf

Joyce, B., &Showers, B. (3rdEds.). (2002). Student achievement through staff

Development .Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum

Development.

Kane, T., Taylor, E., Tyler, J., & Wooten, A. (2011). Evaluating teacher effectiveness.

Education Next. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/files/ednext2013

research_kane.pdf

Kannapel, P.J., & Clements. S.K. (2005). Inside the black box of high-performing, high-

poverty schools. Lexington, KY: The Pritchard Committee for Academic

Excellence.Retrieved from: cte.ed.gov/nationalinitiatives/gandctools

_viewfile.cfm?d=60022
 194

Killion, J. (2006). Collaborative professional learning communities in school and

Beyond: A toolkit for New Jersey Educators. Oxford, OH: New Jersey

Department of Education and NSDC.

King, M.B., & Newmann, F.M. (2001). Building school capacity through professional

development: Conceptual and empirical considerations. International Journal of

Education Management, 15(2), 86-93.

Knowles, M.S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to

andragogy. Chicago: Follett.

Kruse, S., Louis, K., & Bryk, A. (1995). Building professional learning communities in

Schools. Madison, WI: Center for School Organization and Restructuring.

Langer, J. A. (2000). Excellence in Middle and High School: How Teachers’ Professional

Lives Support Student Achievement. American Educational Research Journal,

37, 397-439.

Learning First Alliance. (2003). Beyond islands of excellence: What districts can do to

improve instruction and achievement in all schools—A leadership research brief.

Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Learning Forward. (2011). Standards for professional learning. Oxford, OH: Author.

Lee, V.E., Smith, J.B., & Croninger, T.G. (1995). Another look at high school

restructuring issues in restructuring schools. Madison, WI: Center on

Organization and Restructuring of Schools. School of Education. University of

Wisconsin-Madison.
 195

Leech, N.L.& Onwuegbuzie, A.J. (2007). An array of qualitative data analysis tools: A

call for data analysis triangulation. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(6), 557-584.

Lencioni, P. (2007). Conquer team dysfunction. Retrieved from http://www.tablegroup.

com/books/dysfunctions/Conquer%20team%20Dysfunction.pdf

Lieberman, A. (1985). Why we must end isolation. American Teacher, 70(1), 9-10.

Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher development: transforming

conceptions of professional learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 591-596.

Lincoln, V.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Litosseliti, L. (2003). Using focus groups in research. New York, NY: Continuum.

Little, J. W., (1993).Teacher’s professional development in a climate of educational

reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyses. 15(2), 129-151.

Little, J.W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice.

TeacherCollege Record, 105(6), 913-945.

Little, J.W. (2006). Professional community and professional development in the

learning-centered school. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Lomos, C. (2012). Professional learning communities and student achievement.

Unpublished doctoral thesis. Retrieved from

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/2427030/thesis.pdf
 196

Lomos, C., Hoffman, R.H., & Bosker, R.J. (2011). Professional Communities and

Student Achievement: A meta-analysis. School Effectiveness and School

Improvement: An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice,

22(2), 121-148.

Lortie, D.C. (1975, 2002). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: Chicago

Press.

Louis, K.S., Kruse, S.D., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyzing

school-based professional community. In K.S. Louis & S.D. Kruse & Associates

(Eds.). Professional Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Louis, K.S., & Marks, H.M. (1998). Does professional community affect the classroom?

Teacher’s work and student experience in restructuring schools. American

Journal of Education, 106, 532-575.

Louis, K.S., Marks, H.M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Professional learning community in

restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757-798.

Loveless, T. (2012). How well are American students learning? The Brown Center on

Education Policy, 3(1), 1-36.

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2014) Massachusetts comprehensive

assessment system (MCAS) results. Retrieved from http://www.doe.mass.edu

/mcas/results.html
 197

McCaffrey, D., Lockwood, J.R., Koretz, D. , & Hamilton, L. (2003). Evaluating value-

Added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/

2004/RAND_MG158.pdf

McKinsey & Company. (2007). How the world’s best-performing systems come out on

top. Retrieved from: http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-best-

performing-schools-come-out-on-top/

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and

learning. Stanford: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary School

Teaching.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2006). Building skill-based teacher learning

communities. New York: Teachers College Press.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2010). Professional Learning Communities:

Building Blocks for School Culture and Student Learning. Annenberg

Institute for School Reform.

Mendro, R., Jordan, H., Gomez, E., Anderson, M., & Bembry, K. (1998). An application

of multiple linear regression determining longitudinal teacher effects. Annual

Meeting of AERA.

Met Life Survey of the American Teacher: Challenges for School Leadership. (2013).

Retrieved from https://www.metlife.com/assets/cao/foundation/MetLife-

Teacher-Survey-2012.pdf
 198

Miles, K.H., Odden, A., Fermanich, M. & Archibald, S. (2004). Inside the black box:

school district spending on professional development in education. Journal of

Education Finance. 30(1), 1-26.

Mirel, J.,& Goldin, S. (2012). Alone in the classroom: Why teachers are too isolated.

Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/alone-in-the-

classroom-why-teachers-are-too-isolated/255976/

Mishook, J. (2011). Supporting the collective practice of teachers. Annenberg Institute of

School Reform. Retrieved from

http://annenberginstitute.org/?q=commentary/2011/06/supporting-collective-

practice-teachers

Morrissey, M.S. (2000). Professional learning communities: An ongoing exploration.

Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). (2012). 2012 results. Retrieved

from http://nces.ed.gove/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2012/pdf

2013456.pdf

National Center on Education Statistics. (2013). 2012 NAEP results. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (1996). What matters most:

Teaching for America’s future. New York City, NY: National Commission on

Teaching and America’s Future. National Commission on Teaching and

America’s Future (2005). Induction into learning communities. Washington, DC:

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.

 199

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (2010). Team Up for 21st

Century Teaching and Learning: What Research and Practice Reveal about

Professional Learning.. New York City, NY: National Commission on Teaching

and America’s Future.

National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State

School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, D.C. :

Authors.

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (Eds.). (1995). Successful school restructuring: Highlights

of findings. Madison, University of Wisconsin Center on the Organization and

Restructuring of Schools.

Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1997). Successful school restructuring: A Report to the

public and educators by the Center on Organization and Restructuring Schools.

Madison, WI: Wisconsin, Center for Education Research.

No Child Left Behind [NCLB] Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. 6301et. seq. (West, 2003).

Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L. (2004). How large are teacher effects? 26(3),

237-257.

Oakes, J., Franke, M.L., Quartz, K.H., & Rogers, J. (2002). Research for high-quality

urban teaching: Defining it, developing it, assessing it. Journal of Teacher

Education.

O’Day, J. (2013). Two steps forward, many more to go. American Institutes for

Research. Retrieved from: http://www.air.org/resource/three-decades-education-

reform-are-we-still-nation-risk#O_Day
 200

Olivier, D.F., & Hipp, K.K. (2006). Leadership capacity and collective efficacy:

Interacting to sustain student learning in a professional learning community.

Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 505-519.

Olivier, D.F., Hipp, K.K, & Huffman, J.B. (2003). Assessing Schools as Professional

Learning Communities. In J.B. Huffman and

Olivier, D.F., Antoine, S., Cormier, R., Lewis, V., Minckler, C., & Stadalis, M. (2009,

March). Assessing Schools as Professional Learning Communities Symposium:

Professional learning community assessment-revised. Paper presented at the

Annual meeting of the Louisiana Education Research Association. Lafayette, LA.

Retrieved from http://ullresearch.pbworks.com/f/Olivier_Assessing_PLCs_

Symposium_-_PLCA-R_Introduction.pdf

Onwuegbuzie, A.J., & Combs, P. (2011). Data analysis in mixed research: A

primer. International Journal of Education, 3(1).

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2005). Teaching

matters: Attracting, developing, and retaining effective teachers. Retrieved from

http://www.oecd.org/education/school/34990905.pdf

Palys, T. (2008). Purposive sampling. In L. Given (Ed.), The Sage encyclopedia of

qualitative research methods (pp.698-699). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Publications Inc. doi:10.4135/9781412963909.n349

 201

Pankake, A.M., & Moller, G. (2003), Overview of professional learning communities.

In K.K. Hipp & J.B. Huffman (Eds.), Reculturing schools as professional

learning communities. (pp. 3-14). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education.

School leadership at its best (pp.87-103). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield

Education.

Pankake, A.M., & Huffman, J.B. (2010), Case story #2: Mineral Springs Middle School

(6-8).In K.K. Hipp & J.B. Huffman (Eds.), Demystifying professional learning

communities school leadership at its best (pp.87-103). Lanham, MD: Rowman &

Littlefield Education.

Papagiannis, G.J., Easton, P.A., & Owens, J. T. (1992). The school restructuring

movement in the United States: An analysis of major issues and policy

implications. Unpublished manuscript, The Florida State University, Department

of Educational Foundation and Policy Studies, Tallahassee. Retrieved from

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000923/092318eo.pdf

Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2012). Educator effectiveness. Retrieved from

http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/educator_effectiveness_

project/20903

Pennsylvania School Performance Profile. (2013-2014). Retrieved from

http://paschoolperformance.org/
 202

Peterson, P.E., & Hess, F.M. (2008). Few states set world-class standards. Education

Next,8(3), 70-73.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R.I. (2000). The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn

Knowledge into Practice. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Publishing.

RAND. (2009). Are charter schools making a difference? A study of student outcomes in

eight states. Retrieved from

http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_briefs/2009/RAND_RB943

3.pdf

Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing

and choice are undermining education. Philadelphia, PA: Basic Books.

Resnick, L.B., & Hall, M.W., (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable education

reform. Daedalus, 127(4), 89-118.

Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005, March). Teachers, Schools, and

Academic Achievment. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989a). Teachers’ workplace: The social organization of schools. New

York, NY: Teaches College Press.

Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989b). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and

commitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary

School Journal, 89(4),421-439.

Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., & Wilder, T. (2008). Grading education: Getting

accountability right. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

 203

Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. J. (2002, November). What Large Scale Survey

Research Tells Us About Teacher Effects On Student Achievement: Insights

From the Prospects Study of Elementary Schools. Consortium for Policy

Research in Education. University of Pennsylvania. Graduate School of

Education.

Roy, P., & Hord, S.M. (2006). It’s Everywhere, but What Is It? Professional Learning

Communities. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 490-501.

Sackney, L., Mitchell, C., & Walker, K. (2005). Building capacity for learning

Communities: A case study of fifteen schools. A paper presented to the American

Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Saldana, J. (2008). The Coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage Publications.

Sambolt, M., & Blumenthal, D. (2013). Promoting college and career readiness: A pocket

guide for state and district leaders. American Institute for Research.

Student Academic Achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-

Added Research Center. Retrieved from

http://www.air.org/sites/default/files/downloads/report/CCR_Pocket_Guide_0.pdf

Sanders, W.L., & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teaching on

future students’ academic achievement. .Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee

Value-Added Research Center.

Schlechty, P.C. (1990). Schools for the 21st century. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
 204

Schmoker, M. (2004). Tipping point: From feckless reform to substantive instructional

Improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(6), 424-432.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements

in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and

Curriculum Development.

Scholastic. (2013). Primary Sources: America’s Teachers on Teaching in an Era of

Change. Retrieved from http://www.scholastic.com/primarysources/

PrimarySources3rdEdition.pdf

Seidman, I. (2008). Interview as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in

education and the social sciences (3rd. Ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.

New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing.

Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., Kleiner, A. (2000).

Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents,

And everyone who cares about education. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Senge, P. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization

(revised edition). New York, NY: Doubleday Publishing.

Sergiovanni, T. (2005). Strengthening the heartbeat: Leading and learning together in

Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.

Sergiovanni, T., & Staratt, R. (2007). Supervision: A redefinition (8th Eds.). New York.

NY:McGraw Hill.
 205

Shannon, G. S., & Bylsma, P. (2004). Characteristics of improving schools: Themes from

the research. Olympia, WA: Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Shepard, L.A. (2008). Formative assessment: Caveat emptor. In The Future of

Assessment: Shaping Teaching and Learning. Ed. C.A. Dwyer, 279-303. New

York: Erlbaum.

Shulman, L.S. (1998). Discipline of inquiry in education: An overview. In In R.M. Jaeger

Complementary Methods for Research in Education (pp.3-17). Washington,

DC:AERA.

Simon, M.K., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and scholarly research: A recipe for

success. Seattle, WA: Dissertation Success, LLC.

Sparks, D., & Hirsh, S. (2000). Strengthening professional development. Education

Week, 19, 37.

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, M., Wallace, M., Thomas, S. (2006). Professional

learning communities: A review of the literature, Journal of Educational Change,

7,221-258.

Stoll, L., McMahon, A., Thomas, S. (2006). Identifying and leading effective learning

Communities, Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 611-623.

Stoll, L., & Louis, K.S. (Eds.), (2007). Professional learning communities: Divergence,

depth,and dilemmas. Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

Stranhan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three

elementary schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal,

104(2), 1591-1626.
 206

Stronge, J. (2013). Effective teachers=student achievement: What the research says.

New York, NY: Routledge.

Supovitz, J.A. (2002). Developing Communities of Instructional Practice. Teachers

College Record, 104(8), 1591-1626.

Talbert, J.E. (2010). Professional learning communities at the crossroads: How systems

Hinder or engender change. In A. Hargreaves, A. Lieberman, M. Fullan & D.

Hopkins (Eds.), The Second International Handbook of International Change

(pp. 555-571). New York: Springer.

Talbert, J.E., & McLaughlin, M.W.(2002). Professional communities and the artisan

model of teaching, Teachers and Teaching: theory and practice, 8(3/4), 325-343.

Retrieved from: http://web.stanford.edu/group/suse-crc/cgi-

bin/drupal/sites/default/files/professional-communities-2002.pdf

Toole, J.C.,& Louis, K.S. (2002). The role of professional learning communities in

International Education. In K. Leithwood & P. Hallinger (Eds.), Second

international handbook of educational leadership and administration. (pp.4247-

279). Dordrecht, NL: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Trends in International Mathematics and Science (TIMMS). TIMMS 2011 Results.

Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/results11.asp

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (Ninth Ed.). (2003). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public

school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 207

United States. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation

at risk: The imperative for educational reform: a report to the Nation

and the Secretary of Education, United States Department of Education.

Washington, D.C.: The Commission.

United States Department of Education. (2007). No Child Left Behind: A Desktop

Reference. Retrieved from http://www.2ed.gov/admins/lead/account/nclb

reference/page_pg3.html

United States Department of Education. (2008). Mapping America’s educational

Progress 2008. Retrieved from: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/

results/progress/nation.html

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of the research on the impact of

professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.

Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80-91.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Weglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into

the discussion of teacher quality (Policy Information Report). Princeton, NJ:

Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from

http://nocheating.org/Media/Education_Topics/pdf/teamat.pdf

Weglinsky, H. (2002, February 13). How schools matter: The link between teacher

practices and student academic performance. Educational Policy Analysis

Archives, 10(12). Retrieved from http://epaa/asu.edu/epaa/v10n12/.

 208

Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organisation

Articles. 7(2), 210-219. Retrieved from http://wenger-trayner.com/wp-content

/uploads/2012/09-10-17-CoPs-and-systems-v2.01.pdf

Whitehurst, R. (2009). Don’t forget curriculum. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings

Institute.

Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., and Sanders, W.L. (1997). Classroom and Teacher Context

Effects on Student Achievement: Implications for teacher evaluation. Journal

of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11, 57-67.

Wood, C.J. (1995). You can’t teach what you don’t know. A summary report NM-

FAME. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico

Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W.-Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing

the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement.

Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Institute of Education

Sciences.
 209

Appendix A

IRB Approval
 210

Appendix B

Permission to Conduct the Study from Site Superintendent of Schools

 211

Appendix C

Recruitment Letter for Study Participation

Dear _____________,

I am a doctoral candidate completing an Ed.D. in K-12 Educational Leadership through

Widener University. During the spring 2015 semester, I will be conducting research on
teacher perceptions of professional learning communities as a means for improving
professional development and increasing student learning. Your Superintendent of
Schools has granted me permission to conduct this research with educators of the five
schools who are engaged in implementing professional learning communities within the
school district.

The research study will focus on the experiences and perceptions of educators engaged in
ongoing, job-embedded professional learning, through professional learning
communities. You are receiving this letter because you are an educator engaged in a
professional learning community in your school district.

I have attached a consent form that includes detailed information about the purpose and
scope of the study, participant expectations, and procedures. Please read through the
letter carefully and contact me at 570-916-7134 or pkastner@mail.widener.edu with any
questions you may have. If you agree to participate in the study, the signed consent form
must be returned to me in the provided envelope.

Thank you for your consideration of this request.

Sincerely,
Pamela M. Kastner, M.Ed., NBCT
 212

Appendix D

Informed Consent Form

INVESTIGATOR NAME: Pamela Kastner

STUDY TITLE: Educator Perceptions of the Impact of Professional Learning Community
on Professional Growth and Student Learning

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

The primary purpose of this study is to explore educators’ perceptions of the effects of
Professional Learning Communities as defined by five universal dimensions. The
researcher seeks to assess progress along a continuum of the operationally defined criteria
of a PLC by analyzing specific school and classroom practices. In addition, educator
perceptions of the overall quality of the professional learning they have experienced as a
member of a PLC will be explored, along with the perceived impact PLCs may offer
toward improving educator effectiveness and student learning.

I am being asked to be a participant in the study because I am an educator engaged in a

professional learning community at the study site.

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY

The investigator will analyze educators’ perceptions of the impact professional learning
communities may offer as a means for impacting professional growth and student
learning. As a participant in the study, I will be asked to complete a brief demographic
survey followed by participation in two brief online surveys during the spring 2015
semester. The first survey measures the fidelity of implementation of professional learning
communities. The second survey measures how closely school and district professional
development practices align with Learning Forward’s Standards for Professional Learning.
These surveys will be distributed electronically through your school district e-mail and will
take approximately 20 minutes to complete.

I understand that I may be selected for a follow-up interview with the researcher, conducted
face-to-face or via web-conferencing software.

RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS

As a participant in this study, I should not be adversely affected. However, if I experience
any discomfort whatsoever, I am able to contact the researcher(s) and/or withdraw from
the study without penalty or consequence. I also understand that there is a low
probability of any physical, psychological, social, economic, or legal risk involved with
participation in this study. There are no chances of physical harm in this research project,
 213

because it does not involve exposure to pain, discomfort, or injury. The potential for
psychological harm in this research project is minimal. Social and economic harms are
minimal because the research results will not yield information that could label or
stigmatize me. All identifying information will be kept private, confidential, and viewed
by the researcher.

BENEFITS

There will be no direct benefits to participants in this proposed study. However, the
insights gained from this research may be of value to the larger educational community
in the continued development and refinement of professional learning communities for
educators.

CONFIDENTIALITY
All documents and information pertaining to this research study will be kept confidential in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. I understand
that data generated by the study may be reviewed by Widener University's Institutional
Review Board, which is the committee responsible for ensuring my welfare and rights as a
research participant, to assure proper conduct of the study and compliance with university
regulations. If any presentations or publications result from this research, I will not be
identified by name.

All information that is collected during this study will be stored electronically on a
secure, password protected server. The particular file in which the survey will be stored
can only be accessed by the investigator. All data will be destroyed after successful
defense of the dissertation.

TERMINATION OF PARTICIPATION

I may choose to withdraw from this study at any time and for any reason. If I choose to drop
out of the study, I will contact the investigator and my research records will be destroyed.
COMPENSATION
I will not receive payment for being in this study. Participation in this study is strictly
voluntary. There will be no cost to me for participating in this research.

QUESTIONS
All of my questions have been answered to my satisfaction and if I have further questions
about this study, I may contact Pam Kastner , at 570-916-7134 or
pkastner@mail.widener.edu. If I have any questions about the rights of research
participants, I may call the Chairperson of the Widener University’s Institutional Review
Board at 610-499-4110.
 214

VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
I understand that my participation in this study is entirely voluntary and that refusal to
participate will involve no penalty or loss of benefits to me. I am free to withdraw or refuse
consent, or to discontinue my participation in this study at anytime without penalty or
consequence.
I voluntarily give my consent in this research study. I understand that I will be given a copy
of this consent form.
Signatures:

_______________________

Participant’s Name (Print)

________________________ ____________

Participant’s Signature Date

I, the undersigned, certify that to the best of my knowledge, the subject signing this consent
form has had the study fully and carefully explained by me and have been given an
opportunity to ask any questions regarding the nature, risks, and benefits of participation in
this research study.
Pamela M. Kastner
Investigator’s Name
________________________ _____________
Investigator’s Signature Date
 215

Appendix E

Permission to use the Professional Learning Community Assessment-Revised

(PLCA-R)
 216

Appendix F

Paper Copy of PLCA-R online survey

217
218
219
220
 221

Appendix G

E-Mail Introduction Information to the PLCA-R Survey

Dear Educator,

I am contacting you because you have voluntarily agreed to participate in a research

study being conducted at your school district, as evidenced by your signed informed
consent form .

As part of my dissertation study titled Educator Perceptions of the Impact of Professional

Learning Communities on Professional Growth and Student Learning I am asking that
you complete a short survey which asks questions about your perceptions and
experiences with professional learning communities. This survey measures educators’
perceptions of the five critical attributes of a professional learning community within a
school learning organization. The survey contains a number of statements about school
and classroom level practices aligned to the five dimensions of a professional learning
community.

Please read each statement and then use the scale to select the scale point that best
reflects your agreement with the statement; 1= Strongly Disagree (SD); 2= Disagree (D);
3- Agree (A); 4= Strongly Agree (SA). Be certain to select only one response for each
statement. Comments after the each dimension are optional.

By completing this survey, you voluntarily give your consent to participate in this
research study. You are free to withdraw or refuse consent, or to discontinue your
participation in this study at any time without penalty or consequence. As a participant in
this study, you will not experience any risks associated with this study. There will be no
cost to you related to participation in this study and you will receive no payment for
participating in this study. There may be no direct benefits to participating in this study;
however, the knowledge received may be of value to the greater educational community
interested in professional learning communities.

All survey results pertaining to this study will be kept confidential in accordance with all
applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations. The information collected during
your participation in this study will be kept for one year. All collected data from the
Professional Learning Community- Revised online survey will be electronically stored on
 222

a secure, password protected site this is accessible only by the researcher. Individual
results will not be shared with principals or supervisors.

Your completion of this survey constitutes your consent to being a participant in this
study. If you have further questions about this study, please contact me at 570-916-
7134 or at pkastner@pattan.net

I greatly appreciate your participation!

Sincerely,

Pamela M. Kastner

I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to

my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study.

About the Professional Learning Communities Assessment-Revised

Directions:
This questionnaire assesses your perceptions about your principal, staff, and stakeholders
based on the dimensions of a professional learning community (PLC) and related
attributes. This questionnaire contains a number of statements about practices which
occur in some schools. Read each statement and then use the scale below to select the
scale point that best reflects your personal degree of agreement with the statement. Select
the appropriate option provided to the right of each statement. Select one response for
each statement. Comments after each dimension section are optional.

Key Terms:

• Principal = Principal, not Associate or Assistant Principal

• Staff/Staff Members = All adult staff directly associated with curriculum,
instruction, and assessment of students
• Stakeholders = Parents and community members

Scale:
1 = Strongly Disagree (SD)
2 = Disagree (D)
3 = Agree (A)
4 = Strongly Agree (SA)
 223

Appendix H

Instructions for Participant Member Checking

Dear research participant,

Thank you for agreeing to be part of this research study on educators’ perceptions of
professional learning communities. As indicated in the Informed Consent form that you
had signed and submitted at the beginning of the spring 2015 semester, participants in the
study may be asked to participate in follow-up, interviews.

Because you were a participant in the interview process, I am including the complete
transcript of that interview as an attachment. Please reply to this email with your
comments, including agreement or disagree with the content, and any additional
information that would help me in clarifying your experience as a member of a
professional learning community at your school.

I will send you a summary of the research findings after the study analysis is complete.
Please contact me directly with any questions.

Sincerely,

Pamela M. Kastner

Doctoral Candidate

Widener University

pkastner@mail.widener.edu
 224

Appendix I

Paper copy of the Standards Assessment Inventory-2

225
226
227
228
229