Characteristics of Professional Learning Communities

Professional Learning Communities have been described by several authors. They have used slightly different terminologies to describe its characteristics and each one has focused on certain specific dimensions. But in principle there seem to be consensus on the meaning and characteristics of the PLC. The model of the PLC as described below is based on the models proposed in the literature. PLCs appear to share five key characteristics or features, which appear to be intertwined, operating together (Louis et al., 1995; Hord, 2004). These are:

• Shared values and vision- Having a shared vision and sense of purpose has been found to be centrally important (Andrew and Lewis, 2007). In particular, there is a strong focus on all students’ learning (Hord, 2004). Individual autonomy is seen as potentially reducing teacher efficacy when teachers cannot count on colleagues to reinforce objectives (Louis et al., 1995). They suggest that a shared value base provides a framework for “shared, collective, ethical decision making”.

• Collective responsibility- There is a broad agreement in the literature that members of a PLC consistently take collective responsibility for student learning (King and Newmann, 2001; Leithwood and Louis, 1998). It is assumed that such collective responsibility helps to sustain commitment, puts peer pressure and accountability on those who do not do their fair share, and eases isolation (Newmann and Wehlage, 1995).

98

• Reflective professional inquiry- This includes: ‘reflective dialogue’, conversations about serious educational issues or problems involving the application of new knowledge in a sustained manner; ‘deprivatization of practice’((Louis et al., 1995), frequently examining teachers’ practice, through mutual observation and case analysis, joint planning and curriculum development (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995); seeking new knowledge (Hord, 2004); tacit knowledge constantly converted into shared knowledge through interaction (Fullan, 2001); and applying new ideas and information to problem solving and solutions addressing pupils’

needs (Hord, 1997).

• Collaboration- This concerns staff involvement in developmental activities with consequences for several people, going beyond superficial exchanges of help, support, or assistance (Louis et al., 1995) for example joint review and feedback (Hord, 2004). The link between collaborative activity and achievement of shared purpose is highlighted (Newmann & Wehlage, 1995). Feelings of interdependence are central to such collaboration; a goal of better teaching practices would be considered unachievable without collaboration, linking collaborative activity and achievement of shared purpose. This does not deny the existence of micro-politics, but conflicts are managed more effectively (Hargreaves, 2003).

• Group, as well as individual learning is promoted- All teachers are learners with their colleagues (Louis et al., 1995). Collective learning is evident, through collective knowledge creation (Louis, 1994), whereby the school learning community interacts and engages in serious dialogue and deliberates about information and data, interpreting it communally and distributing it among them.

In a similar trend, Newmann and Associates (1996) posit five essential characteristics of PLCs namely ‘shared values and norms; a clear and consistent focus on student learning; reflective dialogue; reprivatizing practice to make teaching public and focus on collaboration’. Schools where these components are combined to focus on student learning are more effective in sustaining improved student learning. This is the reason why the Province of New Brunswick has chosen to support the development of the PLC concept throughout the public school system (Williams et al., 2008, p.11).

In addition to these five characteristics, the following are also seen as fundamental for the success of PLCs: mutual trust, respect and support among staff members; inclusive membership – the community extending beyond teachers and school leaders to support staff, and it being a school-wide community rather than consisting of smaller groups of staff; and openness, networks and partnerships – looking beyond the school for sources of learning and ideas (Bolam et al., 2005; Stoll et al., 2006). Hence, the shift from a view of

99

schools as bureaucratic organizations to one of schools as Professional Learning Communities tends to be the trend in many countries.

Such a model of collaborative learning is appropriate for the modern and fast changing challenges facing the school worldwide. Shared vision and values with the focus on student learning need to be well understood. With this view in mind, all staff members put their efforts, skills and knowledge together to create a learning environment. School leaders provide all necessary support and leadership required. One important precondition for the PLC to work is collaboration. Teachers need to work collaboratively towards the shared vision and values in order to promote student learning.

Collaboration

Collaboration has always been considered as one prerequisite for school effectiveness and school improvement. It has also been associated with increased academic performance. Collaboration is at the core of the Professional Learning Community.

Ronfeldt et al. (2015) studied how kinds of collaborations that exist in instructional teams impact on student achievement in 336 Miami-Dade County public schools over a period of 2 years. The results support policy efforts to improve student achievement by promoting teacher collaboration about instruction in teams.

While virtually all respondents reported participating in collaborations, they collaborated from less than 30 minutes per week (12%) to more than 3 hours per week (24%). Survey results also suggested that some kinds of collaboration are more common than others:

Table 5. Types of Collaboration

Types of Collaboration % Response

Meeting frequently to discuss ways to increase achievement 75%

Meeting with colleagues to examine student work 68%

Observing colleagues to provide instructional feedback 22%

The nature and extent of teachers’ collaboration have been addressed. It is also reported that there are two kinds of collaboration which are likely to promote gains in students’

learning: (1) collaboration focused on analyzing student data and developing instructional responses and (2) collaboration focused on curriculum and instructional decision-making.

100

They also cited Vescio et al. (2008): ‘The most effective PLCs were those characterized by collaboration with a clear and persistent focus on data about student learning’. It is also noted that teams that maintained a high level of ‘group instructional practice’ like preparing together for instruction, co-teaching, observing one another, and grouping students flexibly for particular instructional purposes had better student achievement.

They found that years of experience are not related to collaboration measures. According to the survey carried out, 88% of the respondents reported instructional teams as ‘helpful’

and 10% reported them as a little ‘helpful’ and only 2% as ‘not helpful’. This shows that collaboration is vital and teachers are aware of its importance in promoting student achievement and they do make the effort to collaborate. The research showed that the extent of collaboration was greatest in two domains: ‘reviewing formative assessments and developing instructional strategies’; and least in: ‘addressing classroom management/discipline issues and reviewing students’ classroom work’.

It is noted that different kinds of schools have different kinds of instructional collaboration. Collaboration factors can be said to be a function of school characteristics.

It is found that elementary schools report, on average, better quality collaboration compared to secondary schools. Collaboration is mainly about instructional strategies, curriculum and students. By contrast, the quality of collaboration about assessment was statistically similar between elementary and secondary schools.

Results from the study indicate that schools that have instructional teams engaged in better collaboration also have higher achievement gains in both math and reading. This evidence suggests that instructional collaboration has positive effects on students’

achievement gains. It is found that teachers perform better when they are in schools that had better collaboration in these areas. Teachers who worked in schools with better quality collaboration tended to be more effective at raising student achievement.

Therefore, collaboration can be teacher-level or school-level; the results indicate that,

‘even when working in schools with better or worse quality collaboration, the benefits of being a more collaborative individual persist’. Therefore, as a first step, it is important to improve the effectiveness of individual teachers engaged in collaboration. On the other hand, the analyses indicate that the same teacher improved at greater rates when he/she

101

worked in schools with better collaboration than when he/she worked in schools with worse collaboration.

It is noted that while collaboration across a range of instructional domains is likely to be beneficial, time and resources for collaboration are limited, so teachers and schools often must prioritize some instructional topics over others. The findings suggest that “district and schools benefit most by structuring collaboration in instructional teams around local formative assessments and state assessments”. This is one way to collaborate effectively for improving student achievement. However, although collaboration may be an essential condition for collective learning, it does not ensure it. Collective learning is not the sum of individual learning; it is rather:

…a process of mutual influences and mutual learning that transpires in a group context and that is shaped by group norms, expectations, interactions, knowledge bases, communication patterns and so on (Mitchell and Sackney,2000, 46).

Duncombe and Armour (2004) distinguish between cooperation and collaboration. The former refers to a situation where teachers cooperate with each other, share work and swap lesson plans, while in a collaborative situation they work together to solve problems by discussing and exploring possible solutions. In this study a distinction is made between collaboration as the structure of people working together and collaborative learning, which refers more to the content of the collaboration.

Finally, it is also noted that even in the absence of school-wide collaborative structures, individual efforts to collaborate should not be overlooked; school leaders and teachers should find ways to encourage such efforts. McLaughlin and Talbert (2001) studied professional communities in 16 high schools in the USA. Their findings suggest that teachers in most high schools are left “on their own” in their practice as they chose, in keeping with the norm of professional autonomy. However, they found that, in several departments, teachers worked together around shared beliefs and responsibilities for teaching. In their study, there were more differences within schools than between them in terms of professional community.

Understanding the different levels and forms of collaboration and their positive effects on student learning has been discussed. Collaboration is the foundation for the PLC. It is

102

therefore, essential that teachers develop collaborative skills and attitudes; collaborative structures and space are provided and a collaborative culture is created. Collaboration does not occur automatically, but needs to be developed, nurtured and supported.

Professional Learning Communities posit on this collaborative base. It is the means to achieve professional learning and development for greater school effectiveness.

Impact of Professional Learning Communities

A key purpose of PLCs is to enhance teacher effectiveness as professionals, for students’

ultimate benefit; hence the ultimate outcome of PLCs has to be experienced by students, even though there is an intermediate capacity-level outcome.

An effective Professional Learning Community has the capacity to promote and sustain the learning of all professionals in the school community with the collective purpose of enhancing pupil’s learning.

(Bolam et al., 2005, p.145)

Little (2002) reports that research has steadily converged on claims that professional community is an important contributor to instructional improvement and school reform.

In Australia, Andrews and Lewis (2007) also found that where teachers developed a PLC, it not only enhanced their knowledge base, but also had a significant impact on their classroom work.

In Wales, Professional Learning Community is seen as a strategy for school and system improvement. Harris and Jones (2017) study the country wide investment in the PLC, whereby a ‘National PLC model’ was developed. They report that in 2008, the Welsh government worked on a National School Effectiveness Framework and in this context schools clusters work together on innovative and collaborative activities. At an early stage, heads of schools and teachers were introduced to ‘a set of guiding principles around effective professional collaboration, teacher enquiry and teacher research’. The training was then extended to all schools in Wales. The Welsh government agreed definition of the PLC was established as follows:

A PLC is a group of practitioners working together using a structured process of enquiry to focus on a specific area of their teaching to improve learner outcomes and to raise school standards. (Harris and Jones, 2017)

103

They showed that under the right conditions PLCs have the potential to build professional capital. However, they ‘reinforce the need for rigorous and sustained implementation if a lasting impact is to be achieved’.

Bryk, Camburn, and Louis (1999, p.767), however, caution that the path between professional community and instructional improvement is not necessarily direct, because instructional improvement may be only one of schools’ many purposes. They note how a high performing school with a long history of providing challenging intellectual work for its students, that develops into more of a professional community, might be orienting its professional interaction towards conserving existing practices rather than changing them.

Their findings lead them to suggest that “If professional community in fact fosters instructional change, it does so by creating an environment that supports learning through innovation and experimentation” (p.771).

Cordingley et al. (2003) concludes from a systematic review of the literature on sustained, collaborative professional development (CPD) and its effect on teaching and learning that collaborative CPD could have a positive impact on teachers and pupils. The reported changes in teacher behaviour included: greater confidence; enhanced beliefs among teachers of their power to make a difference to pupils’ learning; development of enthusiasm for collaborative working, despite initial anxiety about classroom observation; and greater commitment to changing practice and willingness to try new things. The positive impact on students included enhanced motivation and improvement in performance.

Furthermore, in a high school study, Wiley (2001) finds that individual student achievement in math was positively affected by an increased learning in a school resulting from professional community, but only in schools where teachers experienced above average transformational leadership. The effects were also particularly strong in disadvantaged areas.

However, in the Netherlands, Visscher and Witziers (2004) carried out a study exploring the link between departmental professional community and math test scores. They concluded that shared goals, joint decision-making, shared responsibilities, consultation

104

and advice were important but insufficient to improve educational practice and, consequently, student achievement. Rather, effects resulted when departments

Consistently translate their shared vision and willingness to cooperate into a system of rules, agreements and goals regarding teaching and instruction, and evolve their professional activities around this by obtaining data on student performance, which in turn serves as a feedback mechanism for improving teaching and learning. This differs from a ‘softer’ approach stressing reflective dialogue, sharing materials, shared vision and the inner value of professional development (p. 798).

A case study on three schools in Iceland (Sigurdardottir, 2010) shows that improvement in the Professional Learning Community can improve the schools’ level of effectiveness.

Schools can be changed to support better student achievement through individual and collaborative learning, even though the teachers did not perceive this as happening.

Results from this study also confirm that improving the teacher’s skills and work conditions inside the classroom are more likely to directly affect student outcomes than improving factors of school life outside the classrooms.

The aim of the PLC is therefore to sustain learning at all levels. It is seen as a capacity to improve schools by improving instructions. However, the impact of the PLC on learning may not be direct; it creates the environment that fosters innovation and creativity and leads to collective professional development. It therefore, enables teachers to be more systematic in their approach. Improving teachers’ skills and work environment probably have a direct effect on instruction and student learning.