PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES:
A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROFESSIONAL LEARNING
COMMUNITIES AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

A Doctoral Capstone Project
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies and Research
Department of Secondary Education and Administrative Leadership

In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education

Shawn Marvin Lee McNeil
California University of Pennsylvania
July 2020

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

© Copyright by
Shawn Marvin Lee McNeil
All Rights Reserved
July 2020

ii

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

iv

Dedication
To the love of my life, Erica McNeil, I cannot adequately express in words how
much your love and support means to me. Thank you for the 20 years that you have stood
beside me through all my efforts, failures, and achievements. You have always been my
inspiration, and you are the reason that this accomplishment is possible. I thank you for
all the sacrifices you have made during our marriage and throughout my career. I love
you, dear, and the life that we have built together.
To my children whom I love dearly, Isaiah, Isaac, Shawna, and Shanice, I thank
you for the sacrifices you have made throughout this process. You all bring so much joy
and laughter into my life. You all are my heart and the reason I strive to be the best man
and father that I can be.
This study is dedicated to my beautiful family because everything for me begins
and ends with you all.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

v

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my appreciation to the amazing educators at Pittsburgh Science
and Technology Academy who participated in this research study. Thank you for volunteering
your time to share your perceptions and experiences regarding our professional learning
practices. Your commitment to continuous improvement and ensuring that all students can
experience academic success is demonstrated daily. I value your knowledge and experience as
educators, and this research would not be possible without your support.
I would like to express special appreciation to my faculty committee chair, Dr. Kevin
Lordon. Your consistent encouragement, insight, and guidance has been essential to my learning
and growth throughout my doctoral journey. Thank you for patiently guiding me throughout this
process of presenting and sharing my research.
I appreciate the support provided to me by my external committee member, Dr. Rodney
Necciai, who spent many hours reading and editing my research. Thank you for helping me to
consider other perspectives within the research and for the feedback that you provided to extend
my thinking about my research.
I am forever thankful for my mother and father, Louise and Howard McNeil. You
showed me what it means to place the needs of others before your own. You encouraged me to
pursue all my dreams and were always available to offer your wisdom, guidance, and care.
Thank you for your unchanging support and love throughout my life.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication

iv

Acknowledgements

v

Abstract

xii

List of Tables

x

List of Figures

xi

CHAPTER I. Overview of the Research Study

1

Introduction

1

Background

2

Identification of Capstone Focus

4

Research Questions

4

Expected Outcomes

5

Fiscal Implications

5

Summary

5

CHAPTER II. Review of the Literature

7

Introduction

7

What is a Professional Learning Community

7

Three Big Ideas of Professional Learning Communities

8

A focus on learning for all students

10

A collaborative culture and collective effort to support student and adult learning

11

A results orientation to improve practice and drive continuous improvement

12

Critical Questions Which Guide the Focus on Learning for All Students

12

Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility

14

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
Conditions necessary to support a culture of collaboration

vii
15

Creating meaningful teams for collaboration

15

Providing time for collaboration

16

Clarity on the purpose and priorities of collaboration

19

Demonstration of reciprocal accountability

22

Focus on Learning

25

Use of SMART goals

25

Collaboratively analyzing evidence of student learning to improve instruction

27

Continuous Improvement and Sustaining the Change

32

Provide ongoing support for teams

32

Improvement science

34

Establishing widely dispersed leadership

36

Summary

37

CHAPTER III. Methodology

36

Purpose of the Study

38

Research Questions

39

Research Setting: Establishing a Professional Learning Community

39

Collaborative Team Protocols

43

The Learning Team Cycle

52

A Culture of Continuous Improvement

56

Research Design

57

Validity of the Data Collection Tools

61

Summary

64

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results

viii
66

Purpose of the Study

66

Research Setting

66

Teachers Participating in the Research Study

72

Data Collection

73

Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ)

74

Research Question 1

76

Research Question 2

80

Research Question 3

86

Additional Artifacts

88

Summary

89

CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations

90

Introduction

90

Implications of Key Findings

91

Shared and supportive leadership

91

Collective learning and application

95

Shared personal practice

96

Shared and supportive conditions

99

Recommendations

100

Future Directions for Research

104

Summary and Conclusion

105

References

106

APPENDIX A. California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board Approval 110

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

ix

APPENDIX B. Pittsburgh Public Schools Data and Research Review Board Approval

112

APPENDIX C. Informed Consent Letter

114

APPENDIX D. Professional Learning Communities Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R)

117

APPENDIX E. Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ)

125

APPENDIX F. Stages of Concern and Corresponding Questions

130

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

x

List of Tables
Table 1. A Balanced Assessment System

30

Table 2. Enrollment at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy

68

Table 3. Teacher Demographics

73

Table 4. Link Between Data Collection Instrument and Research Questions

74

Table 5. Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ)

75

Table 6. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Each Principle Addressed in the PLCA-R 82
Table 7. Participant Responses: Shared and Supportive Conditions – Relationships

83

Table 8. Participant Responses: Shared Personal Practice

84

Table 9. Participant Responses: Shared and Supportive Leadership

85

Table 10. Participant Responses: SoCQ Consequence

86

Table 11. Participant Responses: SoCQ Collaboration

87

Table 12. Participant Responses: Collective Learning and Application

88

Table 13. Research Questions Associated with Each Data Collection Instrument

91

Table 14. Participant Responses: Shared and Supportive Leadership

93

Table 15. Participant Responses: Shared Personal Practice

98

Table 16. Participant Responses: Shared and Supportive Conditions – Relationships

99

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

xi

List of Figures
Figure 1. Improvement Science at Scale: Lesson Study in Japan

35

Figure 2. Standards and Task – Alignment Descriptors

48

Figure 3. Stages of Concern Mean Scores for Participants

78

Figure 4. Collective Learning and Application

80

Figure 5. Overall Participant Response for PLCA-R

82

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

xii

Abstract
A key component of the Pittsburgh Public Schools’ five-year strategic plan includes professional
learning practices. Incorporating collaborative teams as part of the Professional Learning
Community (PLC) within our schools is essential to achieving the outcomes outlined in the
strategic plan. This research study considers the impact of collaborative teams within the PLC
structure on teacher instructional practices. The goal of this research study was to determine
whether PLCs have an impact on teachers’ abilities to refine their instructional practices based
upon the results of data, student needs, and ongoing collaboration with their colleagues. The
effectiveness of the PLC intervention at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy was
determined based upon three research questions: How do PLCs ensure that teachers make
changes to instruction based upon the results of data and student needs? What role do
professional learning communities have in the future academic success of students? Have
professional learning communities provided ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with
colleagues to refine teaching practices? A quantitative approach for data collection was used
throughout this research study, and the two data collection instruments used were the SoCQ and
the PLCA-R. The analysis of data collected suggests that teachers at Pittsburgh Science and
Technology Academy are implementing collaborative practices as part of the PLC intervention
and making changes to instruction based upon the collective learning that is occurring with their
collaborative teams.

TEACHER PERCEPTIONS OF PLCS AND INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

1

Chapter I: Overview of the Research Study
Introduction
There is a considerable amount of research that supports the idea that
implementing Professional Learning Communities (PLC) within schools will significantly
improve student achievement outcomes. PLCs ensure that educators are focused on
student learning and have developed a shared mission and collective commitments. The
shared mission is used to guide decision-making about teaching and learning. When
educators have been involved in developing the mission and vision for teaching and
learning within the school, there is a greater commitment to ensuring that all students
achieve the goals and expected outcomes that have been mutually agreed upon. The
central focus of the shared values and vision is found in having a collective commitment
to focus on student learning.
Elena Aguilar states that mission and vision statements help teams to establish
priorities and guides decisions (2016). Creating a mission and vision that has been agreed
upon ensures that leaders can remind the team of their commitments to each other and to
student learning (Aguilar, 2016).
Another key characteristic of PLCs includes a culture of collaboration and
commitment to continuous improvement. Instructional practices and creativity are
significantly influenced by the connections that teachers make with each other and with
administrators. Although teachers implement these changes individually, the collaboration
with their colleagues is essential to teacher learning and the improvement process. It is
also important to note that the foundation of an effective PLC is the culture of shared and

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

2

supportive leadership. Teachers must be encouraged to share their feedback and take
ownership of their professional learning experiences.
Background
I have served as the principal of Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy
since the summer of 2013. The mission of Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy is
to provide daily opportunities for students to develop the skills and knowledge necessary
for post-secondary success in all disciplines with a focus on the STEM-related fields of
life science, environmental science, computer science, or engineering. The school
prepares students by providing a rigorous curriculum that requires advanced coursework
and is characterized by excellent instruction, exploration and a commitment to
achievement.
Teachers at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy were introduced to the
essential ideas of PLCs at the start of the 2017-18 school year. The focus of our learning
during this initial year of implementation included developing a common understanding of
our collaborative team structure and purpose. During the 2017-18 school year, we
established norms for our collaborative teams and determined which tools and protocols
would be used to guide the learning of our collaborative teams. We learned that
collaboration must be focused on student learning to provide the foundation necessary for
continuous improvement in instruction and increases in student achievement.
Teachers were assigned collaborative teams and were asked to create team norms
and collective commitments. The next phase of our learning included the use of three
specific team learning protocols that were used to drive the individual and collective
learning of the team. The protocols include the following areas: Unwrapping Standards,

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

3

Data Analysis, and Student Work. Additionally, the guiding questions that we considered
as a team related to the three key areas of PLCs below:


Focus on Learning:
o Do we believe all students can learn at high levels?
o Do we accept responsibility to ensure that all students learn?



Build a Collaborative Culture
o What do we expect students to learn?
o How will we know when they learn it?
o How will we respond when they don’t?
o How will we respond when they already know it?



Focus on Results
o Which students mastered specific essential standards?
o Which instructional practices worked?

Our collaborative teams focused on developing and implementing SMART Goals
and Common Formative Assessments as part of the next step for our learning as a PLC.
The use of SMART goals ensured that the teams concentrated on the greatest areas of
need based upon the data. Teachers also created a systematic plan to accomplish the goal
while considering the tools that would be needed to check whether students are making
progress. Currently, the focus of our collaborative teams includes implementing the
learning team cycle. The learning team cycle is a five-step process: Analyze Data, Set
Goals, Learn Individually and Collaboratively, Implement New Learning, Monitor,
Assess, and Adjust Practice. The learning team cycle incorporates a continuous
improvement model. Educators work collaboratively to gather evidence of current levels

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

4

of student learning, develop strategies and ideas to build on strengths and address
weaknesses in that learning, and implement those strategies and ideas. Finally, it is
necessary to analyze the impact of the changes to instruction in order to determine what
should be applied during the next cycle of continuous improvement.
Identification of Capstone Focus
A key component of the Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) five-year Strategic Plan –
Expect Great Things – includes professional learning practices. The district vision is that
upon graduating from high school, all students are college, career, and life-ready, and
prepared to complete a two- or four-year college degree or workforce certification. PPS
adopted the National College and Career Readiness Indicators released by Redefining
Ready! to help define and measure college, career, and life readiness for students within
the district. Currently, less than 30% of PPS students who take the SAT are meeting the
college readiness indicator of a 530 in math. Improving the quality and impact of
professional learning through the use of collaborative teams as a part of the Professional
Learning Community in our schools will be a key factor in achieving the outcomes
outlined in the Strategic Plan. This research study will consider the impact of
collaborative teams within the PLC structure on teacher instructional practices.
Research Questions
Indicators of effectiveness will be determined based upon three research questions
that have been established for this study: How do PLCs ensure that teachers make changes
to instruction based upon the results of data and student needs? What role do professional
learning communities have in the future academic success of students? Have professional

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

5

learning communities provided ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with
colleagues to refine teaching practices?
Expected Outcomes
This research study will be used to identify the current state of the PLC initiative at
Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy and determine the next steps that should be
recommended for the school. Implementing PLCs effectively will improve the quality of
professional learning and provide teachers with the support that is necessary to provide
innovative and engaging classroom instruction and increase student achievement.
Fiscal Implications
The manner in which resources are allocated reveals the values of any
organization, and time is one of the most precious resources in a school. School leaders
must show their commitment to school improvement and increasing student achievement
by providing teachers with the time that is necessary for meaningful collaboration. For the
most part, creating systems and opportunities for this cost-neutral resource is available to
all school leaders. However, time for collaboration must be a priority.
Summary
While this research study is focused on only teaching and learning that is occurring
at one school, Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy, the findings of this study
could have implications that apply to all Pittsburgh Public Schools, given our focus on
implementing PLCs throughout the school district. Qualitative data will be collected from
all teachers who participate in this action search that will occur at Pittsburgh Science and
Technology Academy. The data collected will be related to teachers’ perceptions about
the impact of PLCs on their instructional practices.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

6

Chapter I introduced the background of this research study as well as the purpose
and expected outcomes. Chapter II includes the literature that provides a detailed
explanation of the characteristics of a PLC. The key ideas that are included in Chapter II
include critical questions that guide the focus on learning for all students, Collaborative
Culture and Collective Responsibility, Focus on Learning and Continuous Improvement,
and Sustaining Change. Chapter III presents the Methodology of the study, which includes
additional detail regarding the setting, participants, research design, and data collection
process. Chapter IV provides the results of the research and the interpretation of the
findings. Chapter V presents the conclusion of the study and additional recommendations
based upon the results of the study.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

7

Chapter II: Review of the Literature
Introduction
The purpose of this research study is to focus on determining the effectiveness of
Professional Learning Communities. Indicators of effectiveness will be determined based
upon three research questions that have been established for this study: How do PLCs
ensure that teachers make changes to instruction based upon the results of data and student
needs? What role do professional learning communities have in the future academic
success of students? Have professional learning communities provided ongoing
opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching practices? This
research study will be used to identify the current state of the PLC initiative at Pittsburgh
Science and Technology Academy and determine the next steps that should be
recommended for the school. A key component of the Pittsburgh Public Schools’ fiveyear Strategic Plan – Expect Great Things – includes professional learning practices. The
district vision is that upon graduating from high school, all students are college, career,
and life-ready, and prepared to complete a two- or four-year college degree or workforce
certification. Improving the quality and impact of professional learning by implementing
PLCs in our schools will be a key factor in achieving the outcomes outlined in the
Strategic Plan.
What is a Professional Learning Community
It can be challenging to find agreement with defining Professional Learning
Communities. There is a great amount of research available regarding implementing and
sustaining PLCs within schools. Richard Dufour, Rebecca Dufour, Robert Eaker, and
Thomas Many describe six characteristics of PLCs in the book Learning by Doing (2010):

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

8

1. Shared mission (purpose), vision (clear direction), values (collective
commitments), and goals (indicators, timelines, and targets), which are
all focused on student learning
2. A collaborative culture with a focus on learning
3. Collective inquiry into best practice and current reality
4. Action orientation or “learning by doing”
5. A commitment to continuous improvement
6. A results orientation
Three Big Ideas of Professional Learning Communities
The three critical components of PLCs identified by Dufour et al., (2010) provide
the framework for this review. The three critical components include having a focus on
learning for all students, a collaborative culture and collective effort to support student
and adult learning, and a results orientation to improve practice and drive continuous
improvement.
Shirley M. Hord writes that there are five distinct attributes of a PLC (1997). The
five attributes that Hord identifies include: supportive and shared leadership, collective
creativity, shared values and vision, supportive conditions, and shared personal practice.
Within Hord’s framework, it is important to note that PLCs are rooted in a culture of
shared and supportive leadership. The school culture must be one that encourages teachers
to share their feedback and take ownership of their professional learning experiences in an
effort to achieve goals that have been mutually developed. In a professional learning
community, the administration is not viewed as having all the knowledge that is necessary
for school transformation. Hord points out the importance of collaborative relationships:

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

9

A school whose staff is learning together and participating in decisions about its operation
requires a campus administrator who can let go of power and his/her own sense of
omnipotence and omnicompetence and thereby share the leadership of the school (1997,
p.18).
In order to create this culture of shared and supportive leadership, it is critical that
principals are reflective concerning their own need for learning and growth. Principals
must ensure that teachers feel comfortable providing honest feedback. In the article
Leaders as Leaders, Lucianne Carmichael points out that principals must model the
change and learning that they demand from others (1982). School leaders should show
their vulnerability and willingness to try new things in order to model the important
disposition of a continuous learner for the teachers that those school leaders supervise.
Encouraging teacher leadership and collaboration was the primary catalyst for
increased student achievement at Adams Elementary School in North Carolina. In a
research study conducted by Berry, Johnson, and Montgomery, it was determined that the
ideas and expertise needed to turn the school around were already present and embedded
in their own faculty, and the school simply needed a catalyst that would encourage more
sharing of that expertise,” (2005). Creating opportunities for ongoing discussion and
collaboration was an essential part of the change process:
Several strategies have helped Adams become the kind of school where teachers openly
discuss their practice and work together to solve knotty instructional problems. With
consultant support from a regional education laboratory, teachers organized professional
learning teams to research solutions to problems uncovered by a careful analysis of school
data. In these professional learning teams, teachers share lessons learned, use protocols to

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

10

make decisions, and rely on systematic note taking to inform other colleagues about their
work (Berry, Johnson, & Montgomery, 2005).
A focus on learning for all students. Another attribute of PLCs that Hord
identifies as essential is teachers and administrators developing shared values and vision.
Hord states that “sharing vision is not just agreeing with a good idea; it is a particular
mental image of what is important to an individual and to an organization,” (1997, p.21).
Staff are encouraged not only to be involved in the process of developing a shared vision,
but to use that vision as a guidepost in decision making about teaching and learning in the
school (1997, p. 21). The central focus of the shared values and vision is found in having a
collective commitment to focus on student learning. Louis and Kruse report that “the
central focus on student learning creates a sense of moral authority in both private practice
and public conversation” (1995, p.43). Louis and Kruse continue to state the following:
Without a core of shared beliefs about institutional purposes, practices and desired
behavior, the other elements of professional community that we will describe below
cannot emerge. Even if teachers want to form more tightly connected social and
professional connections, the absence of a core of shared values will produce, instead,
misunderstanding, conflicts, and may also lead to interpersonal mistrust. This does not
mean that teachers need full consensus about all aspects of their work, which erects an
impossible standard against which to measure professional community. However, a
delimited core of value positions in the school permits teachers to begin the task of
developing a moral community that ultimately allows them to become advocates for
teaching and learning. (1995, p.39).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

11

Elena Aguilar states that mission and vision statements help teams to establish priorities
and guides decisions (2016). It is also important to note that the creating a mission and
vision that has been agreed upon ensures that leaders can remind the team of their
commitments to each other and to student learning (Aguilar, 2016). It is that commitment
to ongoing learning and student achievement that will guide the team as they work
together to increase student engagement and student learning within the classroom. The
mission and vision statements that are collaboratively developed should direct the
behavior of the team as it relates to decision making, prioritizing and aligning the school
culture (Aguilar, 2016).
A collaborative culture and collective effort to support student and adult
learning. A culture of collaboration is another characteristic of PLCs. Ernest Boyer's
research reports that the Basic School is a place where everyone comes together to
promote learning and every classroom is, itself, a community (1995). Additionally, Boyer
states that “in the Basic School, the separate classrooms are connected by a sense of
purpose, a climate that is communicative, just, disciplined, and caring, with occasions for
celebrations,” (1995). The connections that teachers make with each other and with
administrators have a significant impact on teacher creativity and the use of innovative
instructional practices within the classroom. While teachers may implement these changes
individually, the collaboration with their colleagues is essential to teacher learning and the
improvement process. Hord builds upon the research of Boyer and concludes that most
successful learning occurs when teachers teach effectively in their own classrooms but
also find solutions together (Hord, 1997). Hord states that teachers are more likely to be
consistently well informed, professionally renewed, and inspired when teachers are

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

12

encouraged and allowed to operate as team members, with shared goals, and time
routinely designated for professional collaboration (1997).
A results orientation to improve practice and drive continuous improvement.
Hord defines the PLC as a community of learners, in which the teachers and
administrators in a school continuously seek and share learning and act on their learning
(1997). Dufour and Fullan state that schools will not know whether all students are
learning unless educators are hungry for evidence that students are acquiring the
knowledge, skills, and dispositions deemed most essential to their success (2013). Dufour
and Fullan continue to state that educators must systematically monitor student learning
on an ongoing basis and use evidence of student learning to respond immediately to
students who experience difficulty (2013). PLCs focus on improving instructional practice
in order to drive continuous improvement. Mattos, Dufour, Eaker, and Many explain why
the three big ideas are so important to the PLC process:
We cannot overemphasize the importance of the three big ideas to the PLC process. When
educators truly embrace and act on these ideas, the answers to many of the inevitable
questions that arise in PLC transformation become evident. Without this shared
understanding of basic assumptions, every question that arises in a school can become a
matter for debate based on individual opinions and personal war stories. When others
accept these assumptions, they serve as filters that guide the decision-making process in a
PLC (Mattos, Dufour, Eaker & Many, 2016).
Critical Questions Which Guide the Focus on Learning for All Students
Given the relentless focus on learning for all students, it is essential that teachers
and administrators who participate in a PLC identify the specific learning targets that

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

13

students are expected to meet. Having this focus on specific standards and learning targets
will ensure that the members of the PLC focus on learning for all students. Dufour and
Fullan state that in a PLC, there are four critical questions that help educators focus
relentlessly on learning for all students (2013):
1. What is it we want our students to learn? What knowledge, skills, and
dispositions do we expect them to acquire as a result of this course,
this grade level, and this unit of instruction?
2. How will we know if each student is learning each of the skills,
concepts, and dispositions we have deemed most essential?
3. How will we respond when some of our students do not learn? What
process will we put in place to ensure students receive additional time
and support for learning in a way that is timely, precise, diagnostic,
directive, and systematic?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are
already proficient?
Responding to these four questions ensures that teachers are continuously
examining the effectiveness of their teaching practices. Teachers analyze the evidence of
student learning together and consider more effective ways of assessing student learning
in the classroom as they develop common formative and summative assessments (Dufour
& Fullan, 2013). Working in collaborative teams, teachers develop a coordinated plan of
support when students experience difficulty to avoid subjecting students to the traditional
education lottery in which the response to a struggling student has been solely dependent
on the individual teacher (Dufour & Fullan, 2013). Dufour et al. (2010) writes that if

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

14

teachers are to work collaboratively to clarify the essential learning, write common
assessments, and jointly analyze the results, they must overcome the fear of being thought
of as ineffective teachers by their colleagues and principals. Patrick Lencioni (2003)
points out that effective teams consistently engage in productive and unguarded conflict
and commit to accomplishing the goals established after reviewing all the information
provided.
Furthermore, Aguilar explains that it is important for team members to identify
which student needs are being addressed and the evidence being used to show that each
need exists (2016). Aguilar provides six questions to keep students at the center of the
learning for the team (2016):
1. How are our students’ social, emotional, and academic learning needs
at the center of our teamwork?
2. How is our team working toward creating equitable schools?
3. What current student data do we have to indicate that this is what we
should focus on?
4. How will this focus help our school meet its goals and fulfill its
mission?
5. Which student needs are we addressing?
6. What evidence is there to indicate that our students have those needs?
Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility
While the PLC includes the entire school or school district, collaborative teams
include the educators that share students or teach the same subject areas. Dufour et al.
(2010) writes that PLCs empower educators to make important decisions and encourages

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

15

their creativity and innovation in the pursuit of improving student and adult learning.
Researchers have also found that systems that show continuous improvement have done
so by establishing collaborative practices between teachers within and across schools
(Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber, 2010). Mourshed et al. (2010) reports that collaborative
practice is all about teachers and school leaders working together to develop effective
instructional practices, study what works well in the classroom, and do both with rigorous
attention to detail and with a commitment to improving not only one’s own practice but
that of others. The collaborative team provides the structure and support systems that are
necessary to develop an empowering PLC. Educators cannot accomplish these goals in
isolation because no one person has all the time, skills, or knowledge to ensure all students
learn at high levels, so educators in a PLC or district commit to working collaboratively to
achieve this outcome (Mattos et al., 2016). Mattos and his colleagues see collaboration as
a fundamental element of the PLC, and all members must work interdependently to
achieve common goals for which the members are mutually accountable (2016).
Conditions necessary to support a culture of collaboration. Creating
meaningful teams for collaboration. Collaborative teams can be created based upon
various criteria. Fulton and Britton state that the typical model for a collaborative team in
elementary schools is by grade-level teams (2011). Additional researchers state that the
most powerful team structure is typically the grade level team in elementary schools and
course-specific or subject-area teams in secondary schools because these structures readily
align with shared responsibility for student learning (Dufour & Fullan, 2013). Regardless
of whether the teams meet across the grade level or within their content groups, the team
provides a window on the soul of the school, and engaging in a grade-level or subject-

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

16

specific team meeting will enable one to know how poised a school is to help students
experience increased academic success (Saphier, King, & D’Auria, 2006). Highperforming teams are created intentionally and with a great amount of thought given to the
makeup of the team. Establishing and sustaining high-performing teams requires more
than occasionally bringing adults together for conversations, but teams must work
together interdependently to achieve common goals (Dufour & Fullan, 2013).
There are certainly challenges that arise when creating collaborative teams in
schools. Small elementary schools may have only one teacher per grade level.
Additionally, some high schools may have one teacher providing instruction in a specific
subject area. It is important to note that interdisciplinary teams can also be a viable option,
but often, members focus on the behavior of individual students rather than on working
interdependently to improve learning for all students (Dufour & Fullan, 2013).
Providing time for collaboration. Finding enough time to meet with colleagues in
order to address the four critical questions of a PLC can feel like an impossible task.
Mattos et al. (2016) provides several reasons why educators need time to collaborate:
1. Educators are professionals and benefit from the insights, expertise,
and collective efforts of a team of colleagues. Collaboration is not a
frill; it is an essential element of professional practice.
2. The research base in support of collaboration is extensive both inside
and outside of education. The collaborative team has been called the
fundamental building block of a learning organization and the link
between a collaborative culture and improving schools is well
established.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

17

3. Organizations demonstrate their priorities by how they use their
resources. Time is one of the most precious resources in a school. In
light of the strong correlations between meaningful collaboration and
improved student achievement, it would be disingenuous for any board
of education to argue that it wants better results, but it is unwilling to
provide this essential, cost-neutral resource to achieve them.
Dufour and Fullan write that when teachers are collaborating with colleagues to
develop curriculum, plan a lesson, create assessments, analyze evidence of student
learning, and develop action-research projects to improve results, they are working – they
are engaged in professional activities to better meet the needs of those they serve (2013).
Raywid writes that while additional time to work with colleagues will not assure
success for schools, teachers must have sustained time for collaborative reflection on
school practice, conditions, and events (1993). Raywid considered various ways that
schools could provide collaborative time without substantially increasing school cost and
surveyed schools across the country to learn about some innovative ways that teachers are
finding time to collaborate. Some school districts have added additional non-instructional
school days in order to provide teachers with full day professional learning opportunities.
Teachers have been provided substitutes in order to build in collaborative time on regular
school days. Schools have also adopted extended day schedules in order to provide
teachers with the same amount of class time with students but an increased amount of
professional learning time during the school day (Raywid, 1993).
Fullan and Miles discuss the importance of time in their analysis of the problems
of change efforts within schools, and they concluded that time is the salient issue (1992).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

18

But time is energy. And success is likely only when the extra energy
requirements of change are met through the provision of released time or
through a redesigned schedule that includes space for the extra work of
change. Time is also money. And Louis and Miles discovered that serious
change in big-city high schools requires an annual investment of between
$50,000 and $100,000. They also found some schools spending five times
that much with little to show for it. The key seemed to be whether the
money simply went for new jobs and expensive equipment or was spent
for local capacity-building (acquiring external assistance, training trainers,
leveraging other add-on funds, and so on). Nevertheless, some minimum
level of funding is always needed (Fullan & Miles, 1992).
Mattos et al. (2016) advocates that teachers should meet at least weekly when
following the collaborative team protocols that should be implemented within the school
structure. Furthermore, weekly team meetings should last approximately one hour.
Another way principals can provide extended time for collaborative team meetings is to
devote professional learning days to the collaborative team process (Mattos et al., 2016).
Some school districts have incorporated early dismissal or late start days for students,
allowing for collaboration among the teachers and principals while students are not in the
school building. Mattos et al. (2016) make it clear that principals and teachers will never
find enough time for collaboration, so principals and teacher leaders must be creative in
providing time for collaborative teams to meet while students are at school without
increasing costs or losing a significant amount of instructional time.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

19

One of the ways in which leaders demonstrate the priorities of their
organization is through the allocation of resources. In schools, one of the
most precious resources – second only to human resources – is time. The
schedule reflects the priorities of the school. If principals and
superintendents hope to foster a collaborative culture, it is imperative that
they create schedules that provide time for teachers to co-labor with their
teammates (Mattos et al., 2016).
Clarity on the purpose and priorities of collaboration. The leader must clearly
communicate the purpose and priorities of the collaborative team. Aguilar states that a
leader needs to consistently remind team members that the purpose of the team is to
improve experiences and outcomes for children (2016). The academic needs and
improvement of teaching and learning should always be at the center of the work of the
collaborative team. Dufour and Fullan state that a system that ensures educators are
assigned into meaningful teams and given ample time to collaborate will not experience
higher levels of student learning if the teams don’t focus on the right work (2013).
Principal meetings should not be used to review budget concerns, bus routes, and the
latest issues in school law because these topics will contribute to developing the capacity
of principals to lead an improvement process. Furthermore, teacher-level conversations
should not focus on field trips, procedures for addressing students without materials, or
the lack of resources available to the team, as these conversations will not provide the
focus on student learning that is needed to raise the levels of student achievement (Dufour
& Fullan, 2013). Collaborative teams should establish clear priorities in order to respond
to the following questions (Dufour & Fullan, 2013):

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

20

1. What are the essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions our students
must acquire?
2. What assessment processes will we use to gather evidence of student
learning?
3. What does the evidence of student learning reveal about the
effectiveness of different educational practices?
4. Who on our team is getting consistently better results in an important
area of student learning, and what can we learn from this teammate?
5. Which students need additional time and support to help them acquire
the essential knowledge and skills?
6. How will we provide those students with the additional time and
support for learning in a way that is timely, precise, diagnostic,
directive, and systematic?
7. Which students need enrichment and extension of their learning
because they have already demonstrated proficiency?
8. What are the areas in which our students consistently struggle, and
what is our theory regarding why these skills or concepts are proving
difficult for them?
9. What do we need to learn individually and collectively to improve
upon our ability to help students succeed?
10. What action research can we initiate to test the impact of our own
learning?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

21

“Bambino refers to collaborative teams as critical friends but concludes that by
providing structures for effective feedback and strong support, these groups help teachers
improve instruction and student learning,” (2002). Bambino received training and support
with implementing critical friends groups at her school. Members of the group met
regularly to examine student work and discuss the process that teachers used to create the
learning opportunities for students. According to Bambino, giving and receiving feedback
is a priority of the work that is done within the teacher group (2002).
Members of the community must also study multiple sources of student data to
discover where students are performing well and thus where staff members can celebrate
(Hord, 2009). An important part of the process of professional learning within
collaborative teams includes a commitment to collective learning, intentionally
determined, to address student needs and the increased effectiveness of the professionals;
and Peers sharing their practice to gain feedback and thus individual and organizational
improvement (Hord, 2009).
Dufour et al. (2010) states that the purpose of collaboration – to help more students
achieve at higher levels – can be accomplished only if the professionals engaged in
collaboration are focused on the right work. Educators who are asked to work in
collaborative teams will continue to struggle unless they come to a shared understanding
of key terms (Dufour et al., 2010). When asking teachers to collaborate, principals are
asking them to engage in a systematic process in which they work together,
interdependently, to analyze and impact their professional practice in order to improve
individual and collective results (Dufour et al., 2010). Principals must ensure that teams
are clear about the work that is to be done during the collaborative team time.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

22

In a PLC, the process of collaboration is specifically designed to impact
educator practice in ways that lead to better results. Over and over again,
we have seen schools in which staff members are willing to collaborate
about any number of things – dress codes, tardy policies, the
appropriateness of Halloween parties – provided they can return to their
classrooms and continue to do what they have always done. Yet in a PLC,
the reason teachers are organized in teams, the reason they are provided
with time to work together, and the reason they are asked to focus on
certain topics and complete specific tasks is so that when they return to
their classrooms they will possess and utilize an expanded repertoire of
skills, strategies, materials, assessments, and ideas in order to impact
student achievement in a more positive way (Dufour et al., 2010).
Demonstration of reciprocal accountability. As it has been noted previously, a
commitment to providing teachers with time for collaboration is a key factor in building a
culture of collaboration within the PLC. In addition to allotting time for collaboration,
teachers should be provided the necessary resources and support to help move the
individual and collective learning of the team forward. The obligation to provide teachers
with the resources and assistance they need to meet expectations is commonly referred to
as reciprocal accountability (Dufour & Fullan, 2013). Principals must consider what they
can do to help collaborative teams succeed in clarifying the essential outcomes,
monitoring student learning, and improving upon their individual and collective ability to
teach those outcomes (Dufour & Fullan, 2013).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

23

Principals and district leaders should not assume that teachers magically know
how to work with colleagues, so it is critical for school leaders to provide support and lead
that work if PLCs are to live up to their potential (Thessin & Starr, 2011). Stamford (CT)
Public Schools introduced PLCs in the district’s 20 schools in the 2007-08 school year.
Although all teachers were provided time on a weekly basis to meet with other teachers to
discuss their practice, school leaders realized that teachers were confused and, in some
cases, even frustrated by this new direction (Thessin & Starr, 2011). Teachers had not
received the necessary professional development and guidance to have the intentional and
productive discussions about student learning and teacher instructional practice that were
expected to improve student achievement.
Thessin and Starr (2011) report what was learned from Stamford and state that
when implementing PLCs systemwide, districts play four key roles: ownership and
support, professional development, clear improvement process, and differentiated support.
Providing ownership and support is found in how districts look for ways to involve
teachers and administrators in developing and leading the PLC process. This could include
the creation of a district PLC Steering Committee. Ongoing professional development is
necessary because districts must teach administrators and teachers how to work together
effectively in PLCs. Additionally, district leadership should provide a clear picture of how
PLCs fit into the district’s improvement process so that each PLC’s work fits into an
overall plan. Lastly, school support should be differentiated according to each school’s
unique needs in order to help those schools move to the next step in their PLC growth
(Thessin & Starr, 2011).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

24

Dufour and Fullan (2013) assert that another strategy for demonstrating reciprocal
accountability is by removing the obstacles that are preventing people from making
progress.
When principals and teachers in effective districts in the United States
expressed frustration over not having sufficient time to do the work that
was asked of them, the districts came up with creative ways to provide
time. When the small size of schools and distance between schools
resulted in isolated teachers without a collaborative team to support them,
the district provided the technology and coordination to link schools and
establish electronic teams. In another district, when a state mandate for
merit pay threatened to undermine the collaborative culture and collective
responsibility district leaders were trying to create, the central office and
union leadership created a plan to provide enhanced compensation to all
staff if individual schools and the district in general met specific student
achievement targets. When teachers and principals in yet another district
found that analysis of evidence of student learning was being hampered by
the amount of time needed to prepare the data, the central office leadership
team established a task force of teachers who found a software program
that solved the problem. These real-world examples illustrate an important
element of reciprocal accountability – a commitment to help identify and
remove the obstacles that interfere with progress (Dufour & Fullan, 2013).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

25

Dufour and Fullan also state that leaders who hope to demonstrate reciprocal
accountability must have a process in place for the two-way exchange of information with
people throughout the organization (2013).
Focus on Learning
Use of SMART goals. Dennis Sparks discusses the challenges of selecting
schoolwide goals focused sharply on student learning. Sparks states that coming together
to select a student learning goal in an academic area is often very hard work (1999).
Sparks also states that schools are often creating goals that are too broad, which prevents
the faculty from engaging in serious, in-depth study (Sparks, 1999). Chenoweth concludes
that research and experience have identified five practices that typically yield
improvement (2015):
1. Have a laser-like focus on what kids need to learn
2. Collaborate on how to teach that content by unpacking standards,
mapping curriculum, designing lessons, and constructing assessments
that measure whether students master those lessons
3. Use the results of classroom and district formative assessments to see
which kids got it and need enrichment, and which kids didn’t and need
additional help
4. Find patterns in data and use them to improve instruction
5. Build personal relationships so that students trust teachers and so that
parents, teachers, and administrators trust one another
Dufour et al. (2010) have repeatedly listed a results orientation as one of the
characteristics of a professional learning community. Dufour and his colleagues have

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

26

found that the best way to help people throughout a school district to truly focus on results
is to insist that every collaborative team establish SMART goals that align with school
and district goals. Goals that are SMART are: Strategic, Measurable, Attainable, Results
Oriented, and Time Bound (Dufour et al., 2010).
Jan O’Neill writes that setting goals that connect to the classroom and focus on
student learning helps educators see, learn from, and communicate their results (2000).
Understanding the difference between process and results goals is
important to setting learner-centered, effective SMART goals. Our field
observations confirm what many educational researchers have found:
Most school goals are process oriented – geared toward activities,
programs, and instructional methods. Examples of process goals are
developing a balanced literacy program for primary students,
implementing an integrated math/science curriculum for incoming
freshmen, and adopting a zero-tolerance policy toward violence. Results
goals give us better feedback on how well we help students learn (O’Neill,
2000).
The work of the collaborative team is to translate one or more of the school goals
into a SMART goal that drives the work of the team (Dufour et al., 2010). It is important
to note that the collaborative team is working toward a shared goal that has been mutually
agreed upon. A school culture that is focused on results must also include a balance
between attainable goals the teams feel they can achieve in the short term and stretch
goals – goals so ambitious they could not possibly be achieved unless practices within the
organization change significantly (Tichy, 1997).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

27

According to Dufour et al. (2010), if schools and districts limit themselves to the
pursuit of attainable goals, they run the risk of never moving outside their comfort zones.
This will hinder the progress of any school or district that is focused on creating systemic
change throughout the school system. The principal and teachers should focus on both
stretch goals as well as goals that are short term in nature. Researchers have found that in
the early stages of building a PLC, celebrating small wins is important to sustaining the
effort of the members of the collaborative team, and attainable goals are an essential
element of results-oriented small wins (Dufour et al., 2010). Furthermore, district goals
should be clearly linked to the purpose of learning for all students, should establish
challenging targets, and should require innovation and long-term commitment if they are
to be achieved (Dufour et al., 2010).
Bailey and Jakicic write that the most powerful part of the collaborative process is
the development and implementation of an action plan that is designed to close the gap
between the current reality and the goal (2012).
Collaboratively analyzing evidence of student learning to improve instruction.
When the collaborative team begins to create assessments to determine whether students
have learned the identified essential learning outcomes, team members are beginning the
work that will really make a difference for students and will challenge teachers’
instructional practice (Bailey & Jakicic, 2012). DuFour et al. (2010) add that all steps in
the PLC process are intended to provide a teacher team with transparent evidence of
student learning so team members can determine which instructional strategies are
working and which are not. As part of the collaborative learning process within the PLC,
teachers engage in the creation of common assessments. Bailey and Jakicic state that the

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

28

term common assessment refers to those assessments given by teacher teams who teach
the same content or grade level – no teacher can opt out of the process; it must be
common to all teachers who teach that course or grade level (Bailey & Jakicic, 2012).
In high-performing PLCs, the assessment process must include team-developed
common formative assessments as team members attempt to determine whether students
are learning (DuFour et al., 2010). The team members then use the evidence of student
learning from their common formative assessments to inform their individual and
collective practice in four ways (Dufour et al., 2010):
1. To inform each teacher of individual students who need intervention
because they are struggling to learn or who need enrichment because
they are already proficient
2. To inform students of the next steps they must take in their learning
3. To inform each member of the team of his or her individual strengths
and weaknesses in teaching particular skills so each member can
provide or solicit help from colleagues on the team
4. To inform the team of areas where many students are struggling so that
the team can develop and implement better strategies for teaching
those areas
The benefits of common formative assessment are great, and common formative
assessments do the following (as cited in Bailey & Jakicic, 2012):
1. Promote efficiency for teachers
2. Promote equity for students

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

29

3. Provide an effective strategy for determining whether the guaranteed
curriculum is being taught and, more importantly, learned
4. Inform the practice of individual teachers
5. Build a team’s capacity to improve its program
6. Facilitate a systematic, collective response to students who are
experiencing difficulty
7. Offer the most powerful tools for changing adult behavior and practice
Bailey and Jakicic argue that PLCs should focus on common formative
assessments for their work together because of the compelling research that these are the
assessments that can truly improve student achievement (2012). More and more schools
are creating team-based assessments in addition to a variety of other types of assessments
because of the strong research base for using formative assessments to provide the
necessary information teachers need about their students (Bailey & Jakicic, 2012).
Table 1 shows how a balanced assessment system that includes both formative and
summative information about student learning will help teachers make short and longterm decisions about instructional practices to meet the needs of students (Bailey &
Jakicic, 2012).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

30

Table 1
A Balanced Assessment System
Classroom Assessments

Common
Formative
Assessments
Examples of
Worksheets, Final
Tasks
practice
clickers,
exams,
assessed with
whiteboards, final
rubrics, short
exit slips,
projects
quizzes,
conferences
common
worksheets,
and clickers
Formative or
Very
More
Very
summative?
formative
summative formative
Whose
Classroom
Classroom Collaborative
responsibility? teachers
teachers
teams at each
school
Purpose?

To give
immediate
feedback

To give a
grade

To determine
if students
have learned
the material
and how to
respond

Interim or
Benchmark
Assessments
Quarterly
tests or
performances,
writing
samples

External
Summative
Assessments
State tests,
ACT, SAT,
and
Advanced
Placement
(AP) exams

More
summative
District teams
of
representative
teachers
To assess
curriculum,
instructional
strategies,
and pacing

Summative
An external
group of
“experts”
To
determine
whether
curriculum,
instructional
strategies,
and pacing
were
appropriate

Dufour et al. (2010) conclude that all of the steps in the PLC process are intended
to provide a teacher team with transparent evidence of student learning so team members
can determine which instructional strategies are working and which are not.
Collaboratively analyzing the evidence of student learning enables teachers to
appropriately adjust their teaching practices, which is an essential part of the PLC process.
By providing teachers with protocols to guide their work, principals can help
teachers make the analysis of evidence of student learning in the service of improved
student and adult learning part of the school’s organizational routine (Dufour et al., 2010).
Protocols ensure all voices are heard on the critical issue at hand, help members look

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

31

closely at evidence of student learning, examine success as well as failure, and help
participants become skillful in facilitating dialogue on the right work (as cited in Dufour
et al., 2010).
Dufour et al. (2010) provide an example of a protocol for collaboratively analyzing
evidence of student learning from Harvard’s Project Zero, which includes the following
six steps:
1. Team members examine evidence of student learning or examples of
student work in silence and take notes on their observations.
2. The team leader asks, “What did you see?” Members are asked to
make factual, non-evaluative statements.
3. The team leader asks, “What questions does this evidence of student
learning raise for you?” Members speculate about students’ thought
processes and gaps in their understanding.
4. Members discuss implications for their teaching.
5. Members establish action plans to act on their learning.
6. Members share their reactions to and assessment of the meeting.
It is also important for teams to use protocols to create a safe environment for an
individual teacher to pose a problem and seek the help of his or her colleagues (Dufour et
al., 2010). According to Dufour et. al. (2010), teams should return to the results of their
analysis when they prepare to teach the same unit in the next school year. Teachers should
continue to use SMART goals each unit to improve student achievement from the
previous school year. The evidence of student learning from previous years should be
used to inform teaching practices in the future and get better results.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

32

Continuous Improvement and Sustaining the Change
Provide ongoing support for teams. PLCs are cultures that constantly implement
current priorities well by embedding the very processes that enable teams to be excellent
at what they do today, but also open to next-generation innovations (Dufour & Fullan,
2013). Dufour and Fullan have expressed that leadership at all levels means creating the
conditions – structures, support, systems, and culture – that allow others to succeed at
what they are being asked to do (2013). In order to create a relentless focus on continuous
improvement, leaders must first promote the success of others by addressing three issues
(Dufour & Fullan, 2013):
1. What are the obstacles that are impeding progress?
2. What support and resources can we provide to promote progress?
3. How can we identify and celebrate examples of progress to build
momentum for the reform and to increase individual and collective
confidence about taking on the next challenge?
Furthermore, Dufour and Fullan argue that leaders at all levels must have a process to
gather information on the current reality of those they are called upon to lead by
addressing the following questions (2013):
1. Are systems in place to monitor progress, identify obstacles, and
engage the organization in removing those obstacles?
2. Is the organizational structure congruent with the organization’s
strategic goals and priorities?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

33

3. Do collaborative teams have a clear understanding of the rationale for
the system’s initiative, how they contribute to the initiative, and the
short-term and long-term goals that should guide their work?
4. Do teams have sufficient autonomy to solve problems and take
ownership of the initiative?
5. Do teams have sufficient time to focus on meaningful work?
6. Do teams have the necessary resources to move forward effectively?
7. What events, problems, or recurring conditions are contributing to
setbacks for teams, and how can we work together to address those
concerns?
8. Do we encourage team members to help one another?
9. Do we provide support for teams? In what form?
10. Are we helping teams approach problems with a learning orientation
rather than a blame orientation? Are we modeling a learning
orientation?
11. Does communication of ideas flow freely between team members and
among teams?
12. Do team members show respect to one another?
13. Is there a sense of personal and professional affiliation and
camaraderie within the team?
14. Do we demonstrate respect to team members by acknowledging their
contributions to progress, attending to their ideas, and treating them
with an assumption of good intentions?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

34

15. Do we acknowledge and honor the efforts and achievements of
individuals and teams through celebration of small wins?
Principals must consider how they are removing obstacles that hinder the progress
of the collaborative team and the type of support that is needed in order to sustain the
work of the PLC. Teams must have time to meet to do their work collaboratively and to
respond to the assessments they administer (Bailey & Jakicic, 2012). Principals will also
need to ensure that teachers are comfortable using data to inform their instruction. Bailey
and Jakicic state that to create a supportive culture, it is important that data conversations
stay focused on the facts – the student results and planning for response (2012). Principals
and district leaders will need to remove any obstacles that prevent teachers from having
easy access to the important data that is needed for them to have rich discussions about
what students know and are able to do.
Improvement Science. Catherine Lewis provides an argument for how
improvement science can be used by educators as a way to focus on continuous
improvement, strategies for ongoing learning and attention to the knowledge-building, and
motivational systems within schools (2015). In addition to the core framework of
improvement science, the plan-do-study-act cycle (PDSA), researchers argue there are
three fundamental questions that drive continuous improvement work, and provide the
knowledge about how to sustain educators’ motivation to improve instruction (Lewis,
2015). The fundamental questions are:
1. What are we trying to accomplish?
2. How will we know that a change is an improvement?
3. What change can we make that will result in improvement?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

35

Lewis concludes that the ideas underlying improvement science are not new to
education researchers given that improvement science focuses on identification, analysis,
and remediation of a problem in a specified context using the PDSA cycle (2015). One of
the examples of improvement science that Lewis shares is lesson study. The left-hand side
of Figure 1 shows a collaborative process in which a team of teachers plans, enacts, and
examines an intended improvement to instruction (as cited in Lewis, 2015).

Figure 1
Improvement science at scale: Lesson study in Japan
This figure also shows how different forms of lesson study can be used to produce a
locally managed system in which classroom educators lead the enactment, study
refinement, and spread of instructional improvements (Lewis, 2015). Lesson study
provides educators with an opportunity to choose an improvement aim, agree on how they
will recognize improvement, identify the changes that might produce improvement, and
then test these changes in the PDSA cycle (Lewis, 2015).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

36

Lewis concludes that educators can improve instruction by integrating basic
disciplinary knowledge with organizational processes, such as development of a shared
improvement aim, cause-and-effect mapping to share current practice and identify
potential drivers of improvement, and PDSA cycles to test potential improvements (2015).
Establishing widely dispersed leadership. Dufour and Fullan have concluded that
widespread leadership is equally imperative for sustaining improvement efforts (2013). It
is important for leaders to be intentional about developing other leaders who are
committed to the school improvement process and work of the PLCs.
Leadership development that sustains an improvement process means
giving lots of people throughout the organization both challenging
experiences directly tied to the system’s goals and ongoing support and
feedback to develop their collective capacity to meet those challenges.
People at all levels are being groomed for leadership through their work,
not away from their work. When an organization has created widespread
ownership of the change process and developed the leadership potential of
its members, people throughout the organization take collective
responsibility for preserving its culture. Positional leaders may come and
go, but the culture endures because it is grounded in collective leadership
rather than dependent upon an individual (Dufour & Fullan, 2013).
In a PLC, there is collective ownership of the process, and to that end, the process
itself should be guided not by one or two individuals but by teams that have been
empowered with the capacity to do the work (Bailey & Jakicic, 2012). The PDSA cycle
and development of common formative assessments encourages teams to build collective

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

37

capacity. Bailey and Jakicic agree that once teacher teams have received the necessary
support to build their capacity to guide the work, it is critical for teams to go beyond what
they view as traditional team leadership (2012).
Summary
The review of literature provides additional support of the extensive research that
has been conducted regarding the impact of PLCs on teacher instructional practices and
student learning. The three critical components of PLCs identified by Dufour et al. (2010)
provided the framework for this review. The three big ideas shared include having a focus
on learning, a collaborative culture, and a results orientation to improve practice and drive
continuous improvement. The PLC process requires leadership that is resilient when
confronted with adversity, problems, and plateaus (Dufour & Fullan, 2012). PLCs create a
collaborative school culture, where teachers focus on analyzing the evidence of student
learning and receive feedback from their colleagues on a regular basis. Teachers in a PLC
are empowered to make changes to instruction based upon student data and feedback from
colleagues. Teachers work in teams to develop common assessments and focus on the
evidence of student learning with their colleagues as part of a continuous improvement
cycle of learning.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

38

CHAPTER III: Methodology
Purpose of the Study
The goal of this research study is to determine whether Professional Learning
Communities have an impact on teachers’ abilities to refine their instructional practices
based upon the results of data, student needs, and ongoing collaboration with their
colleagues. The researcher is interested in investigating the role that Professional Learning
Communities have in the future academic success of students. All educators at Pittsburgh
Science and Technology Academy will receive the results of the research study in order to
understand the current state of the PLC initiative. Pittsburgh Science and Technology
Academy faculty and staff will be able to create an action plan in order to increase the
effectiveness of PLCs, and the overall professional learning opportunities for the staff.
The research of Richard Dufour provides the primary support for the
implementation of the PLC intervention at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy.
The critical components of PLCs identified by Dufour et al., (2010) include having a
focus on learning for all students, creating a collaborative culture to support student and
adult learning, and ensuring that there is a results orientation to improve practice and drive
continuous improvement. Shirley M. Hord is among the many other researchers who have
contributed to the growing emphasis on PLCs as a method of increasing student
achievement. According to Shirley M. Hord, there are five distinct attributes of a PLC
(1997) and they must include: supportive and shared leadership, collective creativity,
shared values and vision, supportive conditions, and shared personal practice.
There is a substantial amount of research supporting the implementation of PLCs
as an intervention to improve student achievement outcomes. PLCs provide the systems

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

39

and structures needed to ensure that educators focus on continuously improving
instruction by maintaining an emphasis on student learning and collaboration that is based
upon a shared mission and collective commitments. The shared mission of the PLC guides
the decision making regarding teacher instructional practices and student learning. PLCs
are rooted in a culture of shared and supportive leadership, and the researcher in this study
is interested in determining how PLCs encourage teachers to share their learning,
feedback, and take ownership of their professional learning experiences.
Research Questions
There are three research questions established for this study and these questions
serve as the indicators of effectiveness of the intervention:
1. How do PLCs ensure that teachers make changes to instruction based
upon the results of data and student needs?
2. Have professional learning communities provided ongoing
opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching
practices?
3. What role do professional learning communities have in the future
academic success of students?
Research Setting: Establishing a Professional Learning Community
Professional Learning Community (PLC) - “An ongoing process in which
educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry
and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve,”
(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, Many, 2010, p. 10).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

40

The implementation of PLCs at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy
began during the 2017-18 school year. There were many mistakes along the way as the
collaborative teams and norms for learning were established. Some of the challenges that
teams faced were a result of a desire to move too fast throughout the process. The
implementation of PLCs began by immediately establishing collaborative teams and
focusing on developing common formative assessments across content areas. Creating
common formative assessments was challenging for many reasons, but mainly because of
the uniqueness of the school program and small learning community at Pittsburgh Science
and Technology Academy. Most teachers provide very specific classes that are not offered
by other members of their department.
During the 2017-18 school year, teachers worked within their teams to create
SMART (Specific, Measureable, Attainable, Results-oriented, Time-bound) goals and
action plans for accomplishing the goals that were established. It was important for teams
to have an understanding of how common formative assessments were aligned to specific
standards. Teachers were encouraged to work within their teams to create assessments that
would measure student progress, and enable them to know that they had achieved their
goal. We asked members of the collaborative teams to provide the specific action steps
that would need to occur in order to achieve the goal. What were the resources needed?
What individuals could serve as experts to provide support outside of other members of
the collaborative team? Additionally, teachers were asked to establish the timeline for
achieving this goal.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

41

The guiding questions that we considered as a team related to the three key areas
of PLCs below:
1. Focus on Learning: The fundamental purpose of school is to ensure
that all students learn at high levels. There are four universal guiding
questions:
a. What is it we want our students to know?
b. How will we know if students are learning?
c. How will we respond when students do not learn?
d. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students
who are proficient? (Dufour & Fullan, 2013)
2. A Collaborative Culture: If we are to help all students learn, it will
require us to work collaboratively in a collective effort to meet the
needs of each student. There are four conditions for this to happen:
a. Organization into meaningful collaborative teams with a
focus on interdependent, common goals, and mutual
accountability.
b. Regular time for collaboration is embedded into the routine
practices.
c. Clarity on the purpose and priorities of their collaboration.
d. Demonstration of reciprocal accountability. Providing
resources, training, and ongoing support for PLC
implementation success.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

42

3. A Results Orientation: In order to know if students are learning and to
respond appropriately to their needs, we must create a results
orientation. There must be a hunger for evidence of student learning
and use of that evidence to drive continuous improvement of the PLC
process. There are four conditions needed to guide this focus on
results:
a. Everyone is working collaboratively with others to achieve
SMART goals (Strategically and Specifically aligned with
school and district goals, Measurable, Attainable, Resultsoriented, Time bound).
b. Everyone is working collaboratively to gather and analyze
evidence of student learning regularly to improve
professional and collaborative practice.
c. Evidence of student learning is used on a regular basis to
identify the individual and specific needs of students.
d. Staff are assessing the effectiveness of every policy,
program, procedure, and practice based upon its impact on
student learning.
The most important task that teachers completed during the first weeks of
implementing team protocols was to use collaborative time to create team norms and
collective commitments. Collective commitments are essential to building team trust. An
important characteristic of an effective team is the sense of trust that the team members

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

43

have among each other. Elena Aguilar (2016) states that when there is an agreement to do
something and one or more members don’t honor this agreement, trust can be eroded.
Collaborative Team Protocols
As a next step, teams incorporated three specific team learning protocols in order
to drive the individual and collective learning of the team. The protocols introduced
include the following areas: unwrapping standards, data analysis, and student work. Once
each collaborative team had established team norms and collective commitments, it was
time to engage in discussion using one of the three protocols as a way to focus on specific
areas of learning as professionals. Teams used a protocol that requires seven steps for
unwrapping standards:
1. Read the standard and eligible content, and circle verbs (skills).
2. Underline the nouns (concepts) to be taught.
3. Double underline any prepositional phrase (context).
4. Write each verb (skill) and noun (concept) combination as a separate
learning target.
5. If a prepositional phrase (the context) is included at the beginning or
the end of the standard/eligible content, include it in the target.
6. Examine each learning target asking the following questions:
a. What are the instructional and assessment implications of
this target?
b. What would it look like to teach this target in the classroom
(setting, materials, strategies)?
c. Is the skill measurable?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

44

d. What would the assessment look like?
e. Do we need to change the verb to make it more measurable?
7. After examining the instructional and assessment implications, are
there any targets that are implicit or not directly stated in the
standard/eligible content that should be included?
When using this protocol, teachers engage in a critical examination of each
learning target in order to determine the instructional and assessment implications that are
important for teachers to consider as they plan for student learning and classroom
instruction. This protocol encourages teachers to think about what students will need to do
in order to show mastery of the key concepts.
The data analysis protocol used incorporated a four-step process for discussing
student data and considering the implications of the data. The four-step process of
analyzing data using this protocol includes the following:
1. Prepare and Preview – During the first step of this protocol, teachers
select the data to analyze and look for trends. Questions asked are
about the patterns, categories, or trends emerging within the data.
Additionally, the team identifies areas of strength and areas for
improvement based upon the data.
2. Probe – The expectation during this step is for the team to consider
multiple perspectives within the data, including equity, student groups,
and various cohorts. The team will then select a specific, actionable
area of focus and consider how different student groups performed on
various questions. For detailed item-level analysis, teachers study

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

45

student responses on specific questions and determine what students
needed to know in order to be able to perform well on the questions.
This step will allow teachers to know which misconceptions will need
further explanation.
3. Plan – Teams develop an action plan to address the area of focus.
Teachers begin to plan for changes in their approach to teaching the
standard and concept. During the third step of planning, teachers
decide which students will need additional instruction. It is also critical
to determine how students will be assessed to determine mastery after
the reteaching. Any district level supports to assist in the reteach or
reassessment should be considered. Lastly, the team discusses how
student misconceptions may have arisen and how the reteaching
addresses each misconception.
4. Pursue – Teachers implement the action plan and assess student
progress.
The student work protocol is the third tool that teams were encouraged to use during
collaborative team meetings. The specific objectives of this protocol are three-fold:
1. To analyze student work from a task within a lesson or unit to
establish evidence of alignment with the rigor of the targeted PA Core
State Standards.
2. To determine how students performed on an assignment and reflect on
evidence of what students know and are able to do as well as what
additional feedback or instruction is needed to help them progress.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

46

3. To provide suggestions for improving the assignment and related
instructional materials.
Teachers bring student work samples to the team meeting that are standards
aligned. It is important for teachers to choose tasks that are central to the learning goals of
the unit or lesson, as this will provide the best opportunity for high quality feedback from
members of the team. Teachers collect and submit for review multiple samples of student
work that represent a range of learning levels.
The student work protocol requires the entire team to review the student work
together. Reviewing the student work as a team ensures the incorporation of discussion
and collaboration within the process. Each member of a team independently records their
findings prior to team discussion. After the individual review of the student work, the
team discussion focuses on understanding all reviewers’ analyses of both the task and the
students’ responses. Guiding questions are included at each step of the process within the
student work protocol as a way of promoting and extending the discussion. The student
work protocol includes a five-step process:
1. Analyze the Task – The first step for the Collaborative Team is to
develop a focused understanding of the task itself. The team must take
the necessary time to gain an understanding of what the task is asking
students to know and do.
a. Guiding Questions
i. What content and performance demands does the
task make on students?
ii. What is the purpose of the task?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

47

iii. Which PA Core Standards and Eligible Content
seem to be targeted by the task?
iv. What types of student reasoning are required by the
task?
2. Examine Instructional Context and PA Core Standards Alignment of
the Task – After establishing a clear understanding of the nature and
demands of the task, the team now looks at the task in its instructional
context. Members of the team limit their analysis to the materials in
the lesson that support the teaching and learning of the required skills
and knowledge for the task, not the samples of student work.
a. Guiding Questions
i. Where does the task occur within the instructional
sequence? What have students already learned from
the lesson when they approach the task? What will
they learn after?
ii. Does the lesson include sufficient and effective
instruction and scaffolding leading up to the task?
iii. Do the expectations described in the scoring
guidelines correspond with the analysis of the task in
Step 1?
iv. Is the task central to the learning goals of the lesson
and unit?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

48

v. Which standards targeted in the lesson match the
content and performance demands of the task? (See
Figure 2 for Alignment Descriptors)
vi. Do the directions, prompts, and/or scoring guidelines
for the task adequately provide or indicate
opportunities for students to demonstrate the
requirements of the targeted standard(s) for the task?

Figure 2
Standards and Task – Alignment Descriptors
3. Analyze Individual Student Work – The team examines the collected
range of student responses to the task, first individually then, in Step 4,
as a group.
a. Guiding Questions
i. What does the student’s work demonstrate about
their understanding of the task?
ii. What does the student’s work demonstrate about
their proficiency with the requirements of the
targeted standards and eligible content?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

49

iii. What does the student’s work demonstrate about the
depth of their understanding and reasoning ability?
iv. How does the application of the scoring guidelines
and rubrics related to the task support an
understanding of the student’s proficiency?
4. Analyze the Collection of Student Work – After each sample has been
individually considered, the team analyzes the whole collection of
samples of student work.
a. Guiding Questions
i. In what aspects of the task have students generally
performed well?
ii. What are the most frequent and fundamental
problems students appear to have with the task? Are
there common errors made across the collection of
student work?
iii. What does the range of student work demonstrate
about the clarity of the task, directions, and
supporting materials?
iv. In what ways do the scoring guidelines and rubrics
aid in the evaluation of student proficiency on the
targeted standards?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

50

v. In what ways does the task allow (or not allow)
students to demonstrate various levels of proficiency
with the targeted standards?
vi.

Is there evidence of consistent levels of reasoning
and understanding across the samples of student
work?

vii. What are the implications of the findings for the
collection of student work for further task
development?
5. Provide Suggestions for Next Steps in Instruction and Improvement –
The team uses insights from the review team’s analysis of the task and
student work to suggest next steps for instruction to address student
needs and improvements the developer(s) might make to the task,
instructional context, supporting materials, and scoring rubrics.
a. Guiding Questions
i. Are the task instructions clear to students? How
could they be modified to increase student
understanding of the task’s expectations?
ii. Is the task properly placed within the overall lesson
and unit plan? What modifications to instructional
context might improve student performance?
iii. Does the task allow a variety of students to
demonstrate their own level of proficiency? What

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

51

modifications might be made to the task to elicit
evidence of various levels of proficiency?
iv. Do the task prompts, directions, and requirements
provide students with a clear opportunity to
demonstrate proficiency of the targeted standards?
v. Does the task allow students to demonstrate deep
understanding and reasoning about the related
concepts, topics or texts?
vi. What modifications to the scoring guidelines/rubrics
would improve guidance for evaluating student
proficiency on the targeted standards?
vii. What instructional strategies should be utilized to
assist students in deepening their current level of
performance?
During the first two years of establishing PLCs at Pittsburgh Science and
Technology Academy, the researcher focused on providing teachers with the specific tools
to encourage teams to develop the practices emphasized within the review of the
literature. The researcher provided teachers with time for collaboration as well as the
structure necessary for meaningful collaboration to occur. Teachers were given specific
guidelines and procedures to follow during collaborative team time. The tools provided
supported teachers with developing common formative assessments, analysis of data, and
analysis of student work.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

52

The Learning Team Cycle
During the 2019-20 school year teachers were introduced to the learning team
cycle in effort to support our district emphasis on continuous improvement. Dufour and
Fullan state that educators must systematically monitor student learning on an ongoing
basis and use evidence of student learning to respond immediately to students who
experience difficulty (2013). The learning team cycle is a process that helps teachers
systematically identify the changes needed to improve instruction and student learning.
Stephanie Hirsh and Stacy Crow state that empowering teacher teams to learn and solve
problems together requires a vision of a certain way of knowing and working as well as an
infrastructure that provides teams with leadership, resources and support (2018).
Implementation of the learning team cycle has created more opportunities for
teachers to take ownership of their own professional learning. The PLC intervention
during the 2019-20 school year focused on increasing the relevancy of professional
learning for teachers by recognizing that teachers should take part in deciding what they
should learn and how they obtain the desired skills and knowledge. It was the intention of
the researcher to encourage teachers to learn both individually and collaboratively, and to
model the actions of a continuous learner. Hirsh and Crow report that collaborative
learning puts teachers in constant structured communication with one another, offering a
consistent and reliable means for teachers to find support, solve problems, and grow as a
result of working with expert peers (2018). The role of the researcher throughout this
intervention has been to ensure that teachers have the necessary resources, time, and
materials necessary for collaboration.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

53

Using the learning team cycle, teachers address learning challenges that they have
identified as important to tackle as a team. Teachers must prioritize the problems that they
want to address first, and then use the five-stage process to collaborate and take the
necessary steps to address the problem. This process can be aligned with any school
improvement goals identified within the school, or a comprehensive plan that addresses
areas of growth for the entire school district. The learning team cycle engages teams in an
inquiry based process where educators receive feedback from their colleagues and
implement changes to classroom instruction based upon individual learning as well as
collective learning of the team. Hirsh and Crow explain the teacher learning team cycle
(2018):
1) Analyze data: In this stage, team members analyze data so they can
identify and better understand the exact problem they are addressing.
Data is organized and displayed for analysis and the team examines
data for trends, issues and opportunities.
2) Set goals: Teams identify student and educator learning goals.
Teachers create data summary statements that are specific to the needs
of their students. Student learning targets are expressed as SMART
goals. The student learning goals influence teacher decisions about
improvement goals for educators.
3) Learn individually and collaboratively: Teachers should gain new
knowledge and skills by examining their assumptions, attitudes, and
beliefs. During this stage, team members will focus on their learning
goals that they set for themselves and their students. Team members

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

54

begin to differentiate their individual learning and seek out support
from colleagues or coaches to address their learning goal. Teams and
individuals may participate in book studies, explore instructional
materials, participate in online courses, or participate in practice
sessions with peers. The purpose of this stage is to incorporate their
learning into the lessons that they are planning for students.
4) Implement new learning: Teachers are now ready to implement their
refined lessons and assessments within the classroom. Once teachers
have changed their practices and behaviors in order to affect how they
teach and the ways students learn, they are now ready to apply their
learning within the classroom. Support from coaches, principals, and
teacher colleagues continues during this stage.
5) Monitor, assess, and adjust practice: Teams use evidence of student
learning and feedback from students and peers to assess and refine the
implementation of the new instructional strategies. Teams use
formative and summative assessments to determine whether the
learning goals were achieved.
Each of the first three stages of the learning team cycle includes outcomes that the
researcher emphasized as part of this continuous process of learning. During stage one of
the cycle, the teams were to write data summary statements. It was important for teams to
create statements that identify what they see in the data and not the assumptions that they
might make when analyzing the data. The researcher provided teams with support by first
determining whether a data literate PLC is evident at Pittsburgh Science and Technology.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

55

The researcher explained to the staff that a data literate culture is one that includes team
members who know where to go to find the data they need and how to access it. Having a
sense of trust within the team, makes it easy for teachers to seek help from others when
they do not feel they have a skill set required for data analysis. Lastly, a data literate
culture includes team members who are willing to advocate for the necessary time for data
decision-making tasks.
The expected outcome during stage two of the learning team cycle are the student
and educator learning goals. The researcher supported the teams with translating the data
summary statements into student goals. The student learning goals emphasize the learning
priorities and helps to give a clear sense of purpose and alignment as teams monitor
student progress. Educator learning goals identify the skills and knowledge teachers
individually and collectively need to help students achieve their learning goal (Hish &
Crow, 2018). Hirsh and Crow state that the teacher learning goal will consider the
knowledge, attitudes, skills, aspirations, and behaviors (KASABs) necessary to achieve
the student learning goal (2018).
The third outcome that the researcher introduced to the team as part of the
learning team cycle is the learning agenda. As teams learn individually and collaboratively
it is necessary to write a plan that addresses how the team and individual will achieve the
outcomes they established in their learning goals (Hirsch & Crow, 2017). The key actions
that are included within the learning agenda include accessing expertise, reflecting on new
knowledge, and assessing new understanding. Team members must identify and access
the experts who have the skills and knowledge that they need to gain. Accessing the
knowledge can occur as a result of observing instruction being modeled by the expert,

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

56

participating in lesson studies, and reflecting on instruction with a peer. Engaging in
reflection throughout the process of learning will help individuals and teams understand
how their attitudes, knowledge, and assumptions have changed as a result of their
individual and collaborative learning. Lastly, the learning agenda includes an opportunity
for the team to check for their readiness to implement the new learning.
A Culture of Continuous Improvement
Laura Calvert states, “For real learning to take place, adult learners must become
agents of their own learning,” (2016). Creating a culture of continuous improvement will
be the result of educators taking ownership of their own learning. The intervention that the
researcher implemented during the 2019-20 school year continued to build upon the PLC
practices in place at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. However, the
intervention also supported an increase in teacher ownership of their professional learning
experiences. Calvert defines teacher agency as the capacity of teachers to act purposefully
and constructively to direct their professional growth and contribute to the growth of their
colleagues (2016). The learning team cycle, as part of the work of the collaborative teams,
supports teachers with the process of planning for and presenting their own professional
learning. The goal of the continuous improvement model is for educators to systematically
improve their instruction and engage in cycles of learning with their colleagues. The
researcher incorporated an intervention that created collaborative learning opportunities
where teachers determined the topics based upon student needs as determined by the data.
Teachers were given the autonomy to choose their collaborative teams based upon
common goals and interests between the members of the team.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

57

The researcher noted in Chapter 2 several practices that school leaders can use to
increase opportunities for meaningful educator collaboration. Raywid writes that while
additional time to work with colleagues will not assure success for schools, teachers must
have sustained time for collaborative reflection on school practice, conditions, and events
(1993). Raywid considered various ways that schools could provide collaborative time
without substantially increasing school cost. One of the innovative ways that the
researcher provided time for teachers to collaborate was by providing substitutes in order
to build in collaborative time on regular school days. The opportunity for additional
collaborative time was a necessary intervention and providing substitutes for class
coverage did not substantially affect the school budget. Teachers were given regularly
scheduled time to engage in discussion, analysis, and reflection as part of the learning
team cycle.
Research Design
The researcher obtained approval from the California University of Pennsylvania
Institutional Review Board prior to conducting any research. Additionally, the Pittsburgh
Public School’s Data Governance and Research Review Board reviewed the researcher’s
request to conduct research within the school district and the review board approved the
request. The researcher provided potential participants in the research study with a letter
that outlined the purpose of the study, amount of involvement of participants, and
information concerning the anonymity of all participants in the study. All participants in
this study have been teaching at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy since the
2016-17 school year. All volunteers were asked to participate in a survey and
questionnaire as part of the research study.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

58

The researcher considered incorporating administrator observations as part of the
data collection process. The purpose of this research study is to determine the impact of
PLCs on teacher instructional practices, so observing teachers as they collaborate would
provide the researcher with some additional insight about teacher concerns as they
implement the intervention. Data collected during these observations would show how
teachers respond to the various resources and tools provided to support the work of the
collaborative teams. However, after considering this data collection process, the
researcher chose not to be a participant-observer during collaborative team meetings. The
principal being a participant-observer during these meetings would significantly influence
teacher behavior.
Ultimately, the researcher chose to use inquiry data to capture teacher perceptions
and attitudes about the effectiveness of the PLC intervention. Using inquiry data enables
the researcher to understand teacher concerns about the PLC intervention, and the impact
the intervention is having on teacher instructional practices. Therefore, this research study
incorporated a quantitative approach for data collection. Given the researchers role as a
researcher practitioner within the school community, it was essential to ensure that the
approach taken in the research study was as objective as possible. The researcher
considered having teachers respond to questions face to face, but the process of collecting
and analyzing the feedback collected during these interviews would be extremely time
consuming. Additionally, it would be more difficult for teachers to share their honest
feedback when their responses are not anonymous.
Using a quantitative approach to this research study enabled the researcher to
describe the context of the intervention while minimizing the researcher’s own bias.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

59

Quantitative research methods allow data to be collected directly from many participants
by using surveys and questionnaires. The use of quantitative methods enables the
researcher to accurately understand the current situation and use statistical analysis to
answer the research questions.
Quantitative data was collected by asking participants in the research study to
complete the Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ) twice during the school year.
Please see Appendix 1 for the SoCQ. Using the survey link provided, teachers completed
the SoCQ online. The SoCQ provided the researcher with an understanding of teacher
concerns and perceptions regarding the implementation of the intervention. Data
generated by the SoCQ were used to answer research question one: How do PLCs ensure
that teachers make changes to instruction based upon the results of data and student
needs?
The SoCQ stems from the Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) which
began with the work of Frances Fuller in the late 1960s. The SoCQ is used to help
researchers monitor the implementation of change and gain more insight about how
educators understand the innovation being implemented. Participants who completed the
SoCQ responded to 35 questions to determine their level of concern at various times
during the implementation of the school intervention.
Seven stages of concern about innovations are identified and include the
following: Refocusing, Collaboration, Consequence, Management, Personal,
Informational, and Unconcerned. The SoCQ has a set of scales that assists with numerical
analysis of the perception of the intervention. Participant responses are organized using a
Likert scale and scores are structured according to the following ranges: 0–Irrelevant, 1–2

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

60

= Not True of Me Now, 3–5 = Somewhat True of Me Now, and 6-7= Very True of Me
Now.
The SoCQ highlights how teachers may experience different concerns at various
times as the intervention is implemented. The lowest level of intensity, Unconcerned,
indicates that the participant in the study has little to no concern about their involvement
with intervention. The next level of intensity, Informational, shows that the individual is
aware of the intervention and interested in learning more details about the intervention. At
this stage of concern, the participant in the intervention is not revealing any concern about
the impact that the intervention will have on them. The individual would like more
information about the implementation process and requirements of the intervention. Once
the intensity of the concern reaches the Personal level, the participant has revealed some
uncertainty about the requirements of the intervention. There may be questions as to
whether he or she will be able to meet those requirements. The participant in the study is
also thinking about possible conflicts based upon existing demands or personal
commitment. When concerns of the individual increase to the Management level he or she
begins to focus on the processes and tasks of using the innovation. Individuals are now
raising concerns about how to efficiently implement the intervention within their
schedule. Questions about the impact of the intervention on students suggests that the
participant’s level of concern is at the stage noted as Consequence. The participant is also
interested in knowing how relevant the intervention will be for students, the outcomes that
will be evident, and any changes needed to improve the outcomes. The level of concern
identified as Collaboration shows the participants willingness to work productively with

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

61

others to use the innovation. At the last stage of concern, Refocusing, the participant is
seeking other ways to incorporate the intervention to increase its benefits to students.
The Professional Learning Communities Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R) enabled
the researcher to collect additional quantitative data. The PLCA-R is included in
Appendix 2. The PLCA-R was administered twice during the 2019-20 school year. Using
the survey link provided, teachers completed the PLCA-R online. This survey assesses the
perceptions that participants have about the school principal, staff members, and
stakeholders based upon the attributes of PLCs. The survey includes statements about
PLC practices in schools and participants read the statements and use a four-point scale to
reflect their degree of agreement with the statement. Participants rate whether they
strongly agree, agree, disagree or strongly disagree with each statement. The PLCA-R
focuses on five attributes of PLCs: Shared and Supportive Leadership, Shared Values and
Vision, Collective Learning and Application, Shared Personal Practice, and Supportive
Conditions.
Validity of the Data Collection Tools
The SoCQ pilot instrument was sent to a sample of teachers and college faculty in
1974. The interventions measured with the SoCQ were teaming in elementary schools and
the use of instructional modules in colleges. The pilot study included those who were
using the intervention as well as those who were not incorporating the intervention.
Archie George, Gene Hall and Suzanne Stiegelbauer state that item correlation and factor
analyses indicated that seven factors explained more than 60% of the common variance
among the 195 items and that the hypothesized scales corresponded to the factor scales
(2013). Subscales were developed after 363 questionnaires were returned. In order to

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

62

support test validity, participants who completed the pilot questionnaire were interviewed
and each person’s responses were classified to determine the correlations between the
interview data and the person’s classification on the 195-item measure.
The researchers determined that the questionnaire could be reduced to 35 items, all
selected from the original 195-item instrument. George et al., (2013) state that for two
years the 35-item SoCQ was used in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of 11
educational innovations and several validity studies were explored. Those participating in
these studies were interviewed, their responses were rated and the ratings were contrasted
with the SoCQ data.
Individuals were asked to respond to stages of concern definitions and to
indicate their relative intensity of concern. Levels of Use interview tapes
also were analyzed to determine concerns. The SoCQ data were
interpreted and predictions were made about what concerns each
respondent expressed in an interview. Those predictions were compared to
actual interview data. Finally, extensive dialogue and interaction helped
the project staff develop and refine procedures for interpreting the data.
The general conclusion was that the SoCQ accurately measures the stages
of concern about an innovation. (George et al., 2013).
The SoCQ was analyzed to study the relationship between scores on the stages of concern
scales. Other variables such as intercorrelation matrices, judgments of concerns based
upon interview data and confirmation of expected group differences, and changes over
time were used to investigate the validity of the SoCQ scores (George et al., 2013).

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

63

Olivier, Hipp and Huffman developed the PLCA-R to measure the attributes of
PLCs that Shirley M. Hord emphasizes in her framework. The researcher in this study was
interested in determining the extent to which PLCs are evident within routine practices at
Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy, and the PLCA-R has been widely used for
this purpose by researchers. The PLCA-R provides the researcher with quantifiable data
related to teacher perceptions about the school functioning as a PLC. Furthermore, the
PLCA-R identifies specific collaborative and community practices that teachers engage in
that relate to PLC activities.
Hipp and Huffman (2010) state that the most recent use of the PLCA-R as a
diagnostic tool confirmed internal consistency resulting in the following Cronbach Alpha
reliability coefficients for factored subscales (n=1209): Shared and Supportive Leadership
(.94); Shared Values and Vision (.92); Collective Learning and Application (.91); Shared
Personal Practice (.87); Supportive Conditions – Relationships (.82); Supportive
Conditions – Structures (.88); and a one-factor solution (.97).
The initial PLC Assessment did not address the need for collection, interpretation,
and use of data to improve the efforts of the PLC. To address this need, developers of the
assessment included specific items related to data within the PLCA-R.
To verify the relevance of the seven new statements directly addressing a
school’s utilization of data, we solicited responses to Expert Opinion
Questionnaire from educators who had knowledge of the original PLCA
measure or attributes of PLCs. The panel of experts consisted of school
administrators and teachers, district and regional education supervisory
personnel, university faculty and staff, educational consultants, and

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

64

doctoral students studying PLCs. The PLCA revision process also sought
feedback from several researchers and doctoral students who had utilized
the measure. The Expert Opinion Questionnaire had respondents rate
proposed measure statements in terms of their relevance to data practices
within a PLC (Hipp & Huffman, 2010).
The PLCA-R utilized in this research study includes 52 questions that use a Likert
scale for responses. The PLCA-R enabled the researcher to collect data related to research
questions one, two, and three: How do PLCs ensure that teachers make changes to
instruction based upon the results of data and student needs? Have professional learning
communities provided ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to
refine teaching practices? What role do professional learning communities have in the
future academic success of students?
Summary
This quantitative research study provides an in-depth investigation of the
implementation of PLCs at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. The goal of this
research study is to determine whether Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) have
an impact on teachers’ abilities to refine their instructional practices based upon the results
of data, student needs, and ongoing collaboration with their colleagues. The teachers
participating in this study have engaged in all PLC interventions at Pittsburgh Science and
Technology Academy and have been teaching at the school since the 2016-17 school year.
The SoCQ and PLCA-R diagnostic tools were used to collect data related to the research
questions presented in this study.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

65

Chapter IV provides a description of the results of the research and interpretation
of the findings based upon analysis of the data.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

66

CHAPTER IV: Data Analysis and Results
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research study was to determine whether Professional
Learning Communities have an impact on teachers’ abilities to refine their instructional
practices based upon the results of data, student needs, and ongoing collaboration with
their colleagues. PLCs provide the support structures needed to help educators
continuously focus on improving instruction, and the researcher in this study was
interested in determining how PLCs encourage teachers to share their learning and
feedback, and take ownership of their professional learning experiences.
There are three research questions established for this study:
1. How do PLCs ensure that teachers make changes to instruction based
upon the results of data and student needs?
2. Have professional learning communities provided ongoing
opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching
practices?
3. What role do professional learning communities have in the future
academic success of students?
Research Setting
Pittsburgh Public Schools offers several magnet school programs for students and
families who are interested in a specialized program. Pittsburgh Science and Technology
Academy is a magnet school that offers a personalized, advanced curriculum for students
who have an interest in STEM education. The mission of Pittsburgh Science and
Technology Academy is to provide daily opportunities for students to dream, discover,

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

67

and design. The school program is designed to help students develop the skills necessary
for post-secondary success in all disciplines with a focus on the STEM-related fields of
life science, environmental science, computer science, or engineering. Some important
features of the program include a one-to-one laptop program, block scheduling of classes
to support acceleration of coursework, and internships that enable students to learn from
professionals in the STEM fields.
Students enter Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy during the sixth- and
ninth-grade years, and there are currently 589 students enrolled in the school. Students are
accepted into Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy by completing a magnet
application. Students are selected by a weighted lottery system. The weights give students
extra chances for admission. Students receive weights for scoring proficient on the most
recent PSSA math and reading tests, meeting family income guidelines, scoring in the top
50% of their class on their most recent PSSA math exam, and having 90% or better
attendance in the previous school year. There are two schools that have technology and
science programs, and students who attended those schools receive additional weights for
admission as well. This lottery system was implemented to ensure that the student
population of Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy is comparable to the entire
Pittsburgh Public School District population and includes students from all neighborhoods
throughout the city.
The student population of Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy includes
362 male students and 227 female students, 226 African American Students, 269 White
students, 54 Multi-racial students, 25 Asian students, 13 Hispanic students, and fewer than

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

68

five students who identify as American Indian. Table 2 includes additional details
regarding the school demographics.

Table 2
Enrollment at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy
Grade

07

08

09

10

0

0

<5

<5

0

0

0

Asian

<5

<5

<5

<5

7

<5

5

African American

25

24

20

49

38

41

29

Hispanic

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

<5

Multi-Racial

<5

8

6

<5

11

14

8

Caucasian

22

43

22

60

53

33

36

Male

35

51

38

73

63

53

49

Female

19

29

15

45

47

42

30

Total

54

80

53

118

110

95

79

American Indian

06

11

12

Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy opened in 2009 after almost two
years of planning. The school is located in the Oakland area of Pittsburgh and is within
walking distance of several colleges and universities in the area. The school program
design was a result of collaborative efforts between Pittsburgh Public Schools, Carnegie
Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh, US Steel Corporation, DSF Charitable
Foundation, and many other local community partners. The academy was established to
meet the increasing need to provide families with new educational options. No other
school in the Pittsburgh region offers a whole school program focused on STEM learning

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

69

and preparing scientifically literate students to meet the demands of the university and
business community. Additionally, there is a significant disparity in the representation of
White students and students of color in the STEM fields. One of the most important
objectives in designing a STEM magnet school was to ensure that the school district
intentionally addressed the lack of equity in providing students of color with opportunities
for advanced coursework in the STEM fields.
The philosophy of Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy is built upon the
belief that all students can succeed in advanced STEM coursework with the right amount
of time and support. Students enter the school with various learning experiences, so it is
essential that students receive instruction that is appropriate for their level of mastery. All
middle school students receive 80 minutes of math and science instruction daily. Another
important feature of the middle school program includes classroom looping for all core
classes. Students who enter the sixth grade will continue to have the same core classroom
teachers throughout their middle school experience. This allows teachers to build strong
relationships with students and families and understand more about their students’
interests and learning styles. All students participate in an advisory program and are
assigned a teacher who provides weekly guidance and support as students navigate their
academic program during their middle and high school experience.
Teachers in the middle school program work collaboratively within grade-level
teams. The professional learning time for teachers occurs each Wednesday, and students
receive a one-hour early dismissal in order for teachers to have this opportunity for
collaboration and learning with their colleagues. During the professional learning time,
teachers are able to meet within their grade-level teams, content areas, or as a whole group

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

70

to address various topics. Teachers are open about their instructional practices and show a
willingness to share with others any changes that they make in order to meet the needs of
their students.
During the ninth-grade year, students take both biology and chemistry. These two
classes provide students with the fundamental concepts in these content areas. During
ninth-grade, students learn about the four STEM concentration classes that begin once
students enter their sophomore year. The four STEM concentrations include body and
behavior (life science), computers and connections (computer science), environment and
energy (environmental science), and form & function (engineering). Each concentration
has a unique sequence of courses over a two-year period that engages students at a deep
level within the discipline.
The executive experience is another unique feature of the school program at
Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. The executive experience course is a fieldbased internship available to students in the 12th grade. The executive experience course
offers students an authentic work experience where students are learning from
professionals in the STEM fields while also developing research and collaboration skills.
During the executive experience internship, students work in interdisciplinary teams to
design and implement a project under the guidance of a university professional or industry
leader.
During the 2018-19 school year, the staff developed the following definition for
professional learning: “Professional Learning will provide all educators with the
strategies, knowledge, and skills necessary to enable students to succeed in a well-rounded
education and to meet state academic standards.” Additionally, the key attributes of

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

71

Professional Learning at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy were determined to
be:
1. Personalization (addressing specific needs based upon observation,
feedback, and request; professional learning that is relevant to the
educator)
2. Collaboration (common goals and mutual accountability)
3. Data-driven learning (discussing specific instructional practices that work,
evidence of student learning, and specific standards that students
have/haven’t mastered)
4. Classroom focus (impacts learning in the classroom)
5. Ongoing support (not stand-alone training but long-term and systematic
opportunities for learning with follow up that is embedded throughout the
process – including implementation time)
6. Instruction to improve parent engagement (working more effectively with
families)
7. Inclusion (systems of support and interventions for all students, effective
instruction for students with disabilities)
8. Outcomes based (professional learning regularly evaluated for impact on
teacher effectiveness and student achievement, feedback/evaluations used
to improve quality of professional learning)
9. Access to experts and other institutions of higher education
10. “Balcony” or Macro-perspective (observation from administration or
based upon school goals)

Building upon this definition, at the start of the 2020 school year, the staff
established a theory of action based upon certain professional learning areas of focus. The
theory of action established guiding principles for professional learning and a belief that
implementing these practices and principles will result in increased rigor, student voice,
engagement, and achievement for all students. Furthermore, the staff is committed to

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

72

providing professional learning that focuses on culturally responsive pedagogy that
challenges inequality and emphasizes creating authentic connections between students and
staff. The staff believes that a continuous effort and commitment to these professional
learning guiding principles will lead to an increased level of mutual trust and respect that
will help students rise to higher expectations in all areas and be empowered as agents of
social change.
Teachers Participating in the Research Study
The implementation of PLCs at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy
began during the 2017-18 school year. The 17 teachers participating in this research study
have contributed to carrying out the PLC practices from the start of this process. The
teachers who volunteered to participate in this research study have an average of 14.2
years of teaching experience. Table 3 provides additional information about the
participating teachers. Teaching experiences range from five to 28 years.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

73

Table 3
Teacher Demographics
Participant

Number of Years
Teaching

Number of Years at
Science and Technology
Academy

1

17

5

2

5

5

3

25

11

4

14

9

5

10

8

6

12

6

7

28

11

8

11

11

9

9

9

10

10

9

11

10

10

12

12

8

13

18

10

14

19

10

15

12

6

16

9

7

17

21

8

Data Collection
The researcher used inquiry data to capture teacher perceptions and attitudes about
the effectiveness of the PLC intervention. A quantitative approach for data collection was

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

74

used in order to describe the context of the intervention while minimizing the researcher’s
own bias. Quantitative research methods allow data to be collected directly from many
participants by using surveys and questionnaires. The two data collection instruments used
in this research study were the SoCQ and the PLCA-R. Table 4 shows how each data
collection instrument is aligned to specific research questions.
Table 4
Link between Data Collection Instrument and Research Questions
Research Question
Data Collection Instrument
1. How do PLCs ensure that teachers make
PLCA-R, SoCQ
changes to instruction based upon the results
of data and student needs?
2. Have professional learning communities provided
ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with
colleagues to refine teaching practices?

PLCA-R

3. What role do professional learning communities
have in the future academic success of students?

PLCA-R, SoCQ

Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ)
The SoCQ was used to gain more insight about how participants understand the
innovation being implemented. Participants responded to the 35 questions included in the
SoCQ, which was used to determine the participants’ level of concern when beginning the
implementation of the intervention and at the conclusion of the intervention. Seven stages
of concern about innovations are identified and include the following: refocusing,
collaboration, consequence, management, personal, informational, and unconcerned. The
SoCQ has a set of scales that assists with numerical analysis of the perception of the
intervention. Participant responses are organized using a Likert scale, and scores are
structured according to the following ranges: 0 = Irrelevant, 1–2 = Not True of Me Now,

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

75

3–5 = Somewhat True of Me Now, and 6–7 = Very True of Me Now. Table 5 includes a
description of each stage of concern.
Table 5
Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ)
Level of Intensity

Title

Description

0

Unconcerned

Indicates that the participant in the
study has little to no concern about
their involvement with intervention.

1

Informational

Shows that the individual is aware of
the intervention and interested in
learning more details about the
intervention.

2

Personal

The participant has expressed
uncertainty and is thinking about
possible conflicts based upon
existing demands or their personal
commitment.

3

Management

The participant is focusing on the
processes and tasks of using the
innovation. Individuals are now
raising concerns about how to
efficiently implement the
intervention within their schedule.

4

Consequence

The participant is also interested in
knowing how relevant the
intervention will be for students, the
outcomes that will be evident and
any changes needed to improve the
outcomes.

5

Collaboration

The participant shows a willingness
to work productively with others to
use the innovation.

6

Refocusing

The participant is seeking other ways
to incorporate the intervention to
increase its benefits to students.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

76

Each of the 35 statements in the SoCQ represent one of the seven fundamental
stages of concern. There are five statements that align to each level of intensity of the
SoCQ. Appendix F shows how each statement corresponds to one of the stages.

Research Question 1: How do PLCs ensure that teachers make changes to
instruction, based upon the results of data and student needs?
The researcher considered the mean scores of the SoCQ in order to analyze the
results of the survey responses. Figure 5 shows the mean scores of the SoCQ. The data
shows that the greatest change in mean scores between the first and second administration
of the SoCQ are found in the questions aligned to Stage 0. The data suggests that teachers
were not concerned about the use of collaborative team protocols at the start of the
intervention. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the significant change in
responses at the end of the year were due to the challenges of teaching students from
home as a result of the COVID-19 school closure that began March 13, 2020. The number
of teachers that agreed with question number 21, I am preoccupied with things other than
this innovation, increased significantly. Additionally, question 30 asks teachers to respond
to the following: “Currently, other priorities prevent me from focusing my attention on
this innovation.” The data indicates a substantial shift in the amount of attention teachers
felt that they could give to the collaborative team protocols that were being implemented
as part of the PLC process at the end of the school year.
The data reveals that teachers became more concerned with ensuring that the
focus of their collaborative teams was relevant to student learning, and teachers
considered the changes that they needed to make in order to improve student outcomes.
Additionally, teachers began to think about how student feedback could influence their

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

77

instructional practices. The responses documented at Stage 4 point out these changes in
teacher attitudes during the implementation of the intervention.
It is important to note that the SoCQ shows that teachers were interested in
collaborating in order to increase student academic success. The data indicates teachers
had a desire to work collaboratively in order to make changes to their instruction. The
researcher suggests that teachers were willing to engage in collaborative professional
learning in order to change their practice based upon the response of teachers to questions
27 and 29 of the SoCQ. Teacher response to questions 27 and 29 had an average of 5.35
on the Likert scale for the beginning-of-the-year (BOY) SoCQ and 4.94 for the end-ofthe-year (EOY) SoCQ.
The responses to questions aligned with Stage 6 of the SoCQ draw attention to
how teachers are now seeking other ways to incorporate collaborative team protocols
within the practices of the PLC in order to enhance student learning outcomes. Teachers
are reflecting on their experiences with students based upon the collaborative team
practices and are making modifications to instruction. See Figure 3 for the mean for each
of the stages of concern.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

78

Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy SoCQ
140
120

Mean Score

100
80
60
40
20
0
Beginning of Year
End of Year

Stage 0 Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Stage 4 Stage 5 Stage 6
64

68.8

69.4

63.8

52.6

65.8

57.8

120.4

75

75

70.8

62.8

63.8

68.8

Stage of Concern
Beginning of Year

End of Year

Figure 3
Stages of Concern Mean Scores for Participants
The PLCA-R enabled the researcher to collect additional quantitative data to
address Research Question 1: How do PLCs ensure that teachers make changes to
instruction based upon the results of data and student needs? The survey includes
statements about PLC practices in schools, and participants read the statements and use a
four-point scale to reflect their degree of agreement with the statement. Responses from
the PLCA-R in the area of Collective Learning and Application were considered in order
to address the first research question.
The data shows an increase from 82.4% at the beginning of the year to 100% of
participants agreeing or strongly agreeing that staff members plan and work together to
search for solutions to address diverse student needs. The data shows that 94.1% of the
participants believe staff members work together to seek knowledge, skills, and strategies
and apply this new learning to their work. During the first administration of the PLCA-R,

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

79

76.5% of the participants agreed that staff members collaboratively analyze multiple
sources of data to assess the effectiveness of instructional practices. There was a slight
change in response to this question during the second administration of the PLCA-R, as
70.6% of the participants agreed with this statement at that time. Additionally, the PLCAR showed a 23.5% increase at the end of the year of teachers who believe staff members
collaboratively analyze student work to improve teaching and learning.
The results of the PLCA-R support the proposition that a supportive culture of
collaboration exists that enables teachers to make changes to instruction based upon the
learning needs of students. Figure 4 shows the second set of PLCA-R data which is related
to collective learning and application.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

80

Figure 4
Collective Learning and Application

Research Question 2: Have professional learning communities provided ongoing
opportunities for teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching practices?
Providing teachers with ongoing opportunities to work with their colleagues to
refine teaching practices is a critical attribute of PLCs. The PLCA-R emphasizes shared
personal practice as one of the five attributes included in the assessment tool. Initially,

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

81

only 29.4% of the participants reported that opportunities exist for staff members to
observe peers and offer encouragement, but this increased to 52.9% at the end-of-the-year.
The end of the year PLCA-R showed a 47.1% agreement that staff members provide
feedback to peers related to instructional practices. However, end-of-the-year results also
show 100% of the teachers agreeing that staff members informally share ideas and
suggestions for improving student learning.
Another key question presented in the PLCA-R addresses whether staff members
collaboratively review student work to share and improve instructional practices. The
participant responses increased from 58.8% agreement to 70.6% agreement at the end-ofthe-year. Opportunities for coaching and mentoring are evident within the PLC practices
implemented, as 64.7% of the participants agreed that mentoring and coaching is available
to teachers. The results of the beginning-of-the-year and end-of-the-year PLCA-R showed
94.1% agreement that individuals and teams have the opportunity to apply learning and
share the results of their practices. When asked whether staff members regularly share
student work to guide overall school improvement, 52.9% of the participants agreed,
which was an increase from 29.4% at the beginning-of-the-year.
Participant responses to the PLCA-R are organized in Figure 8 using a four-point
Likert scale, and scores are structured according to the following ranges: 1 = Strongly
Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Agree, and 4 = Strongly Agree. The PLCA-R provided the
researcher in this study with quantifiable data related to teacher perceptions about the
school functioning as a PLC. The PLCA-R identifies specific collaborative and
community practices that teachers engage in that relate to PLC activities.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

82

Figure 5
Overall Participant Response for PLCA-R
Figure 5 highlights the significant change that occurred from the beginning-of-theyear to the end-of-the-year administration of the PLCA-R. The data shows that the
majority of teachers surveyed agree that six attributes of PLCs are being implemented at
Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. Shared Personal Practice was the only
category where teacher responses did not fall between agree and strongly agree on the
scale. Table 6 shows the mean scores and standard deviations for each of the categories
included on the PLCA-R.
Table 6
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Each Principle Addressed in the PLCA-R
Six Principles – PLCA-R
Beginning of Year
End of Year
Shared and Supportive Leadership

Mean
3.26

SD
.22

Mean
3.43

SD
.23

Shared Values and Vision

2.93

.12

3.21

.16

Collective Learning and Application

3.04

.22

3.22

.27

Shared Personal Practice

2.64

.49

2.90

.45

Supportive Conditions – Relationships

2.91

.35

3.39

.30

Supportive Conditions – Structures

2.98

.28

3.15

.20

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

83

The data shows that there was a positive increase in all six areas addressed by the
PLCA-R. The greatest change in the mean value is noted in the area of Supportive
Conditions Relationships. Table 7 shows the overall responses on the PLCA-R as the
relate to the PLC principle, supportive conditions – relationships.
Table 7
Participant Responses: Shared and Supportive Conditions – Relationships
Statement (Shared and Support Conditions – Relationships)

Caring relationships exist among staff and students
that are built on trust and respect.

BOY Mean EOY Mean
3.29
3.77

A culture of trust and respect exists for taking risks.

3.24

3.65

Outstanding achievement is recognized and celebrated
regularly in our school.

2.47

3.06

2.71

3.18

2.82

3.29

School staff and stakeholders exhibit a sustained and
unified effort to embed change into the culture of the school.
Relationships among staff members support honest and
respectful examination of data to enhance teaching and learning.

Participant responses suggest that the PLC practices implemented significantly
increased teacher belief in the relationships that create shared and supportive conditions at
Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. The data further suggests that caring
relationships previously existed among students and staff and the PLC protocols
significantly enhanced the relationships among students and staff. Table 8 highlights the
area that had the lowest Likert scale response scores on the PLCA-R.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
Table 8
Participant Responses: Shared Personal Practice
Statement (Shared Personal Practice)
Opportunities exist for staff members to observe
peers and offer encouragement.

84

BOY Mean
2.24

EOY Mean
2.53

2.35

2.59

Staff members informally share ideas and suggestions
for improving student learning.

3.59

3.76

Staff members collaboratively review student work to
share and improve instructional practices.

2.53

2.88

Opportunities exist for coaching and mentoring.

2.53

2.65

Individuals and teams have the opportunity to apply
learning and share the results of their practices.

3.00

3.24

Staff members regularly share student work to guide
overall school improvement.

2.24

2.65

Staff members provide feedback to peers related
to instructional practices.

The data suggests that teachers do not believe there are opportunities available for
peer-to-peer observations, and staff members do not regularly share student work to guide
overall school improvement. The data further indicates that teachers believe there are
other opportunities available for individuals and teams to apply their learning and share
the results of their practices with their colleagues. Shared and supportive leadership had
the highest rate of agreement on the PLCA-R. Table 9 shows the mean scores for teacher
beliefs in the area of shared and supportive leadership.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

85

Table 9
Participant Responses: Shared and Supportive Leadership
Statement (Shared and Supportive Leadership)

BOY Mean

EOY Mean

Staff members are consistently involved in discussing
and making decisions about most school issues.

3.41

3.76

The principal incorporates advice from staff members
to make decisions.

3.59

3.71

Staff members have accessibility to key information.

2.88

3.24

The principal is proactive and addresses areas where
support is needed.

3.29

3.35

Opportunities are provided for staff members to initiate
change.
The principal shares responsibility and rewards
for innovative actions.

3.41

3.65

3.18

3.29

The principal participates democratically with staff sharing
power and authority.

3.47

3.59

Leadership is promoted and nurtured among staff
members.
Decision-making takes place through committees and
communication across grade and subject areas.

3.29

3.35

3.29

3.53

Stakeholders assume shared responsibility and
accountability for student learning without evidence of
imposed power and authority.

2.94

3.06

Staff members use multiple sources of data to make
decisions about teaching and learning.

3.12

3.24

The data reflects a significant change in the belief of teachers regarding their
influence on school decisions. Teachers were asked whether they are consistently
involved in discussing and making decisions about most school issues, and there was an
increase of .62 in the mean score response of participants at the end-of-the-year. The data
also indicate that teachers believe the principal incorporates advice from staff members to
make decisions, and opportunities are provided for staff members to initiate change.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

86

Research Question 3: What role do professional learning communities have in the
future academic success of students?
Data from the SoCQ and PLCA-R were used to respond to Research Question 3.
The BOY and EOY responses to the SoCQ show that teachers were looking for more
ways to ensure that their collaborative time enhanced student learning and created
improved student learning outcomes.
Table 10
Participant Responses: SoCQ Consequence
Statement
BOY Mean EOY Mean
2.53
2.88
I am concerned about students’ attitudes toward the innovation.
I am concerned about how the innovation affects students.

3.82

4.89

I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students.

4.35

4.06

I would like to excite my students about their part in this approach.

2.76

3.35

I would like to use feedback from students to change the program.

2.65

3.65

The data indicates that at the beginning of the year, teachers were expressing
some apprehension about the intervention and were uncertain about the demands that the
PLC intervention would add to their workload. The EOY responses in Table 10 show a
significant change in teacher attitudes concerning the implementation of PLC practices.
The EOY data show that the majority of participants in the research study feel that the
statements are somewhat true of them now.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

87

Table 11
Participant Responses: SoCQ Collaboration
Statement
BOY Mean EOY Mean
5.35
4.76
I would like to coordinate my efforts with others to maximize the
innovation’s effects.
5.35
5.12
I would like to know what other faculty are doing in this area.

Collaborative learning creates opportunities for teachers and school leaders to
work together to develop effective instructional practices. The EOY data indicates
teachers have a desire to work collaboratively in order to make changes to their
instruction. As stated within the review of the literature, researchers have found that
systems that show continuous improvement have done so by establishing collaborative
practices between teachers within and across schools (Mourshed, Chijioke, & Barber,
2010).
The response to Questions 27 and 29 of the SoCQ suggests teachers are willing to
engage in collaborative processes in order to change their instructional practice. Teacher
responses to questions 27 and 29 had an average of 5.35 on the Likert Scale for the BOY
SoCQ and 4.94 for the EOY SoCQ.
The PLCA-R provided the researcher with quantifiable data related to teacher
perceptions about the school functioning as a PLC. Data from the PLCA-R further
supports the claim that teachers are implementing collaborative practices as part of the
PLC intervention and teachers are making changes to instruction based upon the collective
learning that is occurring within the PLC. Table 12 shows the mean scores of four
responses to the PLCA-R in the area of Collective Learning and Application.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

88

Table 12
Participant Responses: Collective Learning and Application
Statement (Collective Learning and Application)
BOY
3.29
Staff members work together to seek knowledge, skills
and strategies and apply this new learning to their work.

EOY Mean
3.35

Staff members plan and work together to search for
solutions to address diverse student needs.

3.06

3.47

School staff members and stakeholders learn together
and apply new knowledge to solve problems.

2.76

3.24

Staff members collaboratively analyze multiple sources
of data to assess the effectiveness of instructional
practices.

2.76

3.35

Furthermore, Table 8 reflects an increase in teacher beliefs regarding the
realization of shared personal practice as a PLC attribute at Pittsburgh Science and
Technology Academy. The data shows increases in the mean scores of all seven responses
regarding shared personal practices. The data provides a strong indication that the PLC
intervention had a positive influence on teachers sharing their practice and working
collaboratively to improve instructional practices.
Additional Artifacts
Teachers were given an opportunity to share their comments related to the six
principles of PLCs that are identified on the PLCA-R. One staff member stated that they
believe the majority of staff engages in the activities identified related to collective
learning and application, but not all staff. Another participant in the research study made
shared a comment regarding collective learning and application on the BOY PLCA-R
stating that “not all staff are on board with the PLC intervention.” During the BOY
PLCA-R assessment, one participant shared that they feel teachers are unengaged, data is

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

89

not relevant, and that outstanding achievement is not recognized or supported by staff but
rather viewed in a jealous way.
Participants shared on the EOY PLCA-R that teachers do not have the opportunity
to observe one another's classes due to scheduling conflicts. Another participant in the
research study stated that he or she would love to expand collaborative team time to take
turns observing a colleague's class and to provide feedback. It was also expressed that
relationships among the staff members are strong, but do not encourage open and honest
dialogue about teaching and learning because there is some fear of upsetting one another.
Summary
Chapter IV has presented the results of this research study and an interpretation of
the findings. The data shared indicates that there is evidence that the implementation of
PLCs at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy has had an impact on teachers’
ability to refine their instructional practices based upon the results of data, student needs
and ongoing collaboration with their colleagues. The SoCQ and PLCA-R diagnostic tools
were used to collect data related to the research questions presented in this study.
Chapter V provides a conclusion about the effectiveness of the PLC intervention at
Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. Presented in the next chapter are
implications of the research, including the fiscal impact of PLCs within the school and
across the school district. Lastly, Chapter V includes details of how the results and
learning from the research study can apply to the school and district level.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

90

Chapter V: Conclusions and Recommendations
Introduction
Recommendations based upon the analysis of data collected during this research
study are included in Chapter V. Additionally, an examination of the effectiveness of the
PLC intervention at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy is presented. The fiscal
implications of implementing PLCs within the school and across the school district are
explored along with suggestions about systems of support, accountability structures, and
the shared values that are needed to move forward with the PLC intervention at the district
level.
The intervention that the researcher implemented during the 2019-20 school year
continued to build upon the PLC practices in place at Pittsburgh Science and Technology
Academy. The intervention also supported an increase in teacher ownership of their
professional learning experiences, as the learning team cycle encourages teachers to
prioritize the problems that they want to address first and then use a five-stage process to
collaborate and take the necessary steps to address the problem.
The purpose of this research study was to determine whether PLCs have an impact
on teachers’ abilities to refine their instructional practices based upon the results of data,
student needs, and ongoing collaboration with their colleagues. A quantitative approach
for data collection was used throughout this research study, and the two data collection
instruments used were the SoCQ and the PLCA-R. The data collection instrument used to
address each research question is shown in Table 13.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

91

Table 13
Research Questions Associated with Each Data Collection Instrument
Research Question
Data Collection Instrument
1. How do PLCs ensure that teachers make
PLCA-R, SoCQ
changes to instruction based upon the results
of data and student needs?
2. Have professional learning communities provided PLCA-R
ongoing opportunities for teachers to work with
colleagues to refine teaching practices?
3. What role do professional learning communities
have in the future academic success of students?

PLCA-R, SoCQ

Implications of Key Findings
It is critical to note that a key component of the Pittsburgh Public Schools’ fiveyear strategic plan includes professional learning and the implementation of PLCs at
Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy began during the 2017-18 school year.
Central office support was provided to all school leaders from the assistant superintendent
for professional development to assist school leaders with making the connection between
the strategic plan and improvements in the quality and impact of professional learning.
The use of collaborative teams as part of PLCs was the essential process school leaders
were to embrace in order to improve student achievement and the outcomes outlined in
the strategic plan. The 17 teachers participating in this research study have contributed to
carrying out the PLC practices and engaging in collaborative team practices from the start
of this process.
Shared and Supportive Leadership. Providing teachers with ongoing
opportunities to work with their colleagues to refine teaching practices is a critical
attribute of PLCs, but this can be achieved only when school leaders make it a priority to

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

92

offer teachers these opportunities. In Chapter II the researcher noted several practices that
school leaders can use to increase opportunities for meaningful educator collaboration.
Teachers must have uninterrupted time that encourages deep reflection on instructional
practice and classroom conditions that support or hinder student achievement. Table 14
shows that shared and supportive leadership had the highest rate of agreement on the
PLCA-R. Table 14 shows the mean scores for teacher beliefs in the area of shared and
supportive leadership. The data reflects a significant change in the belief of teachers
regarding their influence on school decisions. Teachers were asked whether they are
consistently involved in discussing and making decisions about most school issues, and
there was an increase of .62 in the mean score response of participants at the end of the
year. The data also indicate that teachers believe the principal incorporates advice from
staff members to make decisions, and opportunities are provided for staff members to
initiate change.
A significant finding that is supported by the data collected in this research study
includes the ability and willingness of the school leader to ensure that teachers play a key
role in making decisions about school issues such as their own professional learning. The
principal researcher in this study created school processes that allowed teachers to
experience individualized learning that was teacher directed and teacher centered. Based
upon an analysis of the data collected in this research study, it is apparent that the
collaborative team protocols and implementation of the learning team cycle encouraged
teachers to play a key role in contributing to the learning of their colleagues.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

93

Table 14
Participant Responses: Shared and Supportive Leadership
Statement (Shared and Supportive Leadership)

BOY Mean

EOY Mean

Staff members are consistently involved in discussing and
making decisions about most school issues.

3.41

3.76

The principal incorporates advice from staff members to
make decisions.

3.59

3.71

Staff members have accessibility to key information.

2.88

3.24

The principal is proactive and addresses areas where
support is needed.

3.29

3.35

Opportunities are provided for staff members to initiate
change.

3.41

3.65

The principal shares responsibility and rewards for
innovative actions.

3.18

3.29

The principal participates democratically with staff
sharing power and authority.

3.47

3.59

Leadership is promoted and nurtured among staff
members.

3.29

3.35

Decision-making takes place through committees and
communication across grade and subject areas.

3.29

3.53

Stakeholders assume shared responsibility and
accountability for student learning without evidence of
imposed power and authority.

2.94

3.06

Staff members use multiple sources of data to make
decisions about teaching and learning.

3.12

3.24

The data suggests that shared and supportive leadership is a demonstrated
characteristic of the PLC at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. The principal
researcher implemented the learning team cycle as part of the work of the collaborative
teams in order to support teachers with the process of planning for and presenting their
own professional learning. The data collected from the first administration of the PLCA-R

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

94

show that 94.1% of teachers surveyed believe the principal provides opportunities for
teachers to initiate change. The EOY PLCA-R increased to 100% of teachers surveyed
agreeing that the principal provides opportunities to initiate change. Furthermore, data
collected from EOY PLCA-R show 100% agreement that the principal is proactive and
addresses areas where support is needed.
It is essential to note the principal researcher’s personal commitment to creating
the structures of support and actively engaging with teachers throughout the
implementation of the PLC initiative. After initially learning about the impact of PLCs
during the district leadership meeting, the researcher in this study reflected on the key
attributes of PLCs and immediately created structures of support to encourage the school
teams to develop the practices emphasized within the review of the literature. The
researcher believes that the data supports an emphasis on principals being personally
accountable and internalizing the learning in order for teachers to adopt the practices that
are critical for successful implementation of PLCs in schools. PLCs must be led by
principals who create the systems of support that are essential for meaningful
collaboration. Principals must provide specific guidelines and procedures to follow during
collaborative team time and offer the support that teachers need for careful analysis of
data and student work.
Table 14 shows that 88.2% of teachers surveyed believe staff members use
multiple sources of data to make decisions about teaching and learning. The high rate of
agreement with this question suggests that the implementation of PLCs has had an impact
on teachers using data to make decisions about classroom instruction. The researcher
believes that school leaders are primarily responsible for providing the support and

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

95

structures that are needed to consistently create opportunities for teachers to discuss data
and make changes to instruction based upon data. As stated previously, the goal of the
continuous improvement model is for educators to systematically improve their
instruction and engage in cycles of learning with their colleagues. The data collected
suggest that the principal plays a critical role in creating collaborative learning
opportunities where teachers determined the topics based upon student needs as
determined by the data.
Collective Learning and Application. The researcher considered data collected
from the PLCA-R in the area of collective learning and application in order to address the
first research question: How do PLCs ensure that teachers make changes to instruction
based upon the results of data and student needs? The EOY PLCA-R showed an increase
from 82.4% to 100% of participants agreeing or strongly agreeing that staff members plan
and work together to search for solutions to address diverse student needs. The data show
that 94.1% of the participants believe staff members work together to seek knowledge,
skills, and strategies and apply this new learning to their work. The BOY PLCA-R shows
that 76.5% of the participants agreed that staff members collaboratively analyze multiple
sources of data to assess the effectiveness of instructional practices. Furthermore, the
PLCA-R showed a 23.5% increase at the end of the year of teachers who believe staff
members collaboratively analyze student work to improve teaching and learning.
Laura Calvert states, “For real learning to take place, adult learners must become
agents of their own learning” (2016). The data suggest that the collaborative team
protocols implemented support the creation of a culture of continuous improvement, as
educators noted that they are able to take ownership of their own professional learning and

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

96

work collaboratively in order to improve instruction within their classrooms. The
intervention that the researcher implemented during the 2019-20 school year supported the
PLC practices in place at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy and increased
teacher ownership of their professional learning experiences. Calvert states that teacher
agency is the capacity of teachers to act purposefully and constructively to direct their
professional growth and contribute to the growth of their colleagues (2016). The learning
team cycle was a critical aspect of the collaborative team protocols used at Pittsburgh
Science and Technology Academy. The data indicate that the intervention created
collaborative learning opportunities and teachers determined the focus of learning based
upon student needs identified by data.
The results of the PLCA-R support the proposition that a supportive culture of
collaboration exists at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy that enables teachers
to make changes to instruction based upon the learning needs of students. The researcher
believes that a critical change in the mindset of principals is necessary because teachers
must be given more autonomy as part of a PLC. Teachers should eventually choose their
collaborative teams based upon common goals and interests among the members of the
team.
Shared Personal Practice. The researcher considered data collected from the
PLCA-R in the area of shared personal practice in order to address the second research
question: Have professional learning communities provided ongoing opportunities for
teachers to work with colleagues to refine teaching practices? There are many ways that
principals can provide regular opportunities for teachers to refine teaching practices. The
PLCA-R emphasizes shared personal practice as one of the five critical attributes of a

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

97

PLC. The data collected from the PLCA-R indicate that the learning team cycle and
collaborative team protocols increased opportunities for teachers to work with their
colleagues to refine teaching practices. The BOY PLCA-R showed that only 29.4% of the
participants reported that opportunities exist for staff members to observe peers and offer
encouragement, but this increased to 52.9% at the end of the year. Additionally, the EOY
PLCA-R showed a 47.1% agreement that staff members provide feedback to peers related
to instructional practices. However, end-of-the-year results also show 100% of the
teachers agreeing that staff members informally share ideas and suggestions for improving
student learning.
PLCs provide teachers with opportunities to collaboratively review student work
and improve instructional practices. The participant responses increased from 58.8%
agreement to 70.6% agreement at the end of the year in this area of collaborative review
of student work. The results of the beginning-of-the-year and end-of-the-year PLCA-R
showed 94.1% agreement that individuals and teams have the opportunity to apply
learning and share the results of their practices. The data further indicate that teachers
believe there are other opportunities available for individuals and teams to apply their
learning and share the results of their practices with their colleagues.
The data suggest that an area for improvement is found in the opportunities
available for peer-to-peer observations. Additionally, staff members do not regularly share
student work to guide overall school improvement. Table 15 shows the mean scores for
teacher beliefs in the area of shared personal practice.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

98

Table 15
Participant Responses: Shared Personal Practice
Statement (Shared Personal Practice)

BOY Mean

EOY Mean

Opportunities exist for staff members to observe peers
and offer encouragement.

2.24

2.53

Staff members provide feedback to peers related to
instructional practices.

2.35

2.59

Staff members informally share ideas and suggestions for
improving student learning.

3.59

3.76

Staff members collaboratively review student work to share and
improve instructional practices.

2.53

2.88

Opportunities exist for coaching and mentoring.

2.53

2.65

Individuals and teams have the opportunity to apply learning
and share the results of their practices.

3.00

3.24

Staff members regularly share student work to guide overall
school improvement.

2.24

2.65

Shirley M. Hord writes that a school whose staff is learning together and
participating in decisions about its operation requires a principal who can let go of power
and his/her own sense of omnipotence and omnicompetence and thereby share the
leadership of the school (1997, p. 18). A significant change that the researcher made
throughout the process of implementing the PLC initiative was to create more
opportunities for teacher ownership of professional learning. The researcher believes that
the connections that teachers make with each other during the process of problem solving
and grappling with new instructional practices is essential to building a culture of trust
within the PLC. Administrators have a significant impact on teacher creativity and the use
of innovative instructional practices within the classroom. An important part of the
process of implementing the PLC practices at Pittsburgh Science and Technology
Academy was to encourage teachers to think creatively and recognize teachers for

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

99

implementing innovative instructional strategies. Although the principal researcher noted
teachers were making individual changes, it was essential to emphasize the importance of
collaboration with their colleagues that was essential to the improvement process.
Shared and Supportive Conditions. Participant responses on the PLCA-R
suggest that the collaborative team protocols and additional practices implemented as part
of the PLC have significantly increased teachers’ belief about the type of shared and
supportive conditions that exist at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. The data
further suggest that caring relationships previously existed among students and staff, and
the PLC protocols significantly enhanced the relationships among students and staff.
Table 16
Participant Responses: Shared and Supportive Conditions – Relationships
Statement (Shared and Supportive Conditions)
BOY Mean EOY Mean
Caring relationships exist among staff and students
that are built on trust and respect.

3.29

3.77

A culture of trust and respect exists for taking risks.

3.24

3.65

Outstanding achievement is recognized and
celebrated regularly in our school.

2.47

3.06

School staff and stakeholders exhibit a sustained
and unified effort to embed change into the culture
of the school.

2.71

3.18

Relationships among staff members support honest
and respectful examination of data to enhance
teaching and learning.

2.82

3.29

The researcher notes that PLCs require administrator support in the areas of
structures as well as relationships. Teachers must prioritize their time in order to meet the
ever-changing demands of the district leadership, school leadership, students, and
families. Therefore, it is essential that principals provide teachers with the systems of

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

100

support that will help teachers collaborate effectively with a focus on continuous student
learning and growth. Dufour states that PLCs are cultures that constantly implement
current priorities well by embedding the very processes that enable them to be excellent at
what they do today, but also open to next-generation innovations (Dufour & Fullan,
2013). It is critical that principals adapt to these challenges and create the structures of
support that will enable teachers to effectively problem solve, share their practice, and
make changes to instruction based upon student data.
Recommendations
The data collected during this research study has strengthened the researcher’s
belief that principals must continuously focus on student and adult learning, provide
teachers with opportunities for meaningful collaboration, and create a culture of
continuous improvement. In order to create a relentless focus on continuous improvement,
leaders must first promote the success of others by addressing three issues (Dufour &
Fullan, 2013):
1. What are the obstacles that are impeding progress?
2. What support and resources can we provide to promote progress?
3. How can we identify and celebrate examples of progress to build
momentum for the reform and to increase individual and collective
confidence about taking on the next challenge?
The researcher believes that Pittsburgh Public Schools’ central office leadership has
introduced school leaders to research-based PLC practices, but there is a need to create
mutual accountability systems in order for school leaders to embrace these PLC practices
within their school settings. As a next step, central office leadership and school leaders

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

101

should work collaboratively to administer the PLCA-R throughout the school district and
use the data to create individualized support systems for school leaders to address the
areas of growth identified by the data collected.
Dufour and Fullan argue that leaders at all levels must have a process to gather
information on the current reality of those they are called upon to lead by addressing the
following questions (2013):
1. Are systems in place to monitor progress, identify obstacles, and
engage the organization in removing those obstacles?
2. Is the organizational structure congruent with the organization’s
strategic goals and priorities?
3. Do teams have sufficient autonomy to solve problems and take
ownership of the initiative?
4. Do teams have sufficient time to focus on meaningful work?
5. Do teams have the necessary resources to move forward effectively?
6. What events, problems, or recurring conditions are contributing to
setbacks for teams, and how can we work together to address those
concerns?
7. Do we encourage team members to help one another?
8. Do we provide support for teams? In what form?

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

102

9. Are we helping teams approach problems with a learning orientation
rather than a blame orientation? Are we modeling a learning
orientation?
10. Does communication of ideas flow freely between team members and
among teams?
11. Do we demonstrate respect to team members by acknowledging their
contributions to progress, attending to their ideas, and treating them
with an assumption of good intentions?
12. Do we acknowledge and honor the efforts and achievements of
individuals and teams through celebration of small wins?
The researcher recommends as a next step that the questions presented by Dufour
and Fullan above are considered by Pittsburgh Public Schools’ central office leadership
and school-based leadership. In collaboration with central office leadership, principals
should consider how they are removing obstacles that hinder the progress of the
collaborative team.
Teacher teams must be given the necessary time to meet. Principals will need to
address conflicts with teacher schedules and find creative ways to offer teachers more
collaborative time. This research study along with the research provided in the review of
literature points out how teachers benefit from collaboratively learning and sharing their
learning with each other in meaningful ways. Time for collaboration must be a priority
that central office leaders and school-based leaders honor and respect in order for teachers
to value this important time with their colleagues. Dufour and Fullan write that when

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

103

teachers are collaborating with colleagues to develop curriculum, plan a lesson, create
assessments, analyze evidence of student learning, and develop action-research projects to
improve results, they are working – they are engaged in professional activities to better
meet the needs of those they serve (2013).
Central office leadership should consider the fiscal resources provided to schools
and the allocation of time to support the work of PLCs across the district given the
emphasis of this work within the school district’s strategic plan. As a result of the
COVID-19 pandemic, many school districts across the nation anticipate significant
reductions in their budget. It is important to note that implementing these practices and
supporting PLCs across the school district will have minor fiscal implications on schools
and the school district. Mattos et al. (2016) point out that in light of the strong correlations
between meaningful collaboration and improved student achievement, it would be
disingenuous for any board of education to argue that it wants better results but it is
unwilling to provide this essential, cost-neutral resource to achieve them. The cost of
implementing this intervention at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy has been
marginal, as we have been able to access internal support from district leadership and
purchase reading materials and tools at a minor cost. The expense associated with building
teacher and school leader capacity in order for teams to collaboratively use data to make
informed decisions about instructional practices and student learning is minimal in
comparison to the costly software programs that many school districts are purchasing at
this time.
Principals should be mindful of the type of support needed in order to sustain the
work of the PLC. Principals will need to ensure that teachers are comfortable using data to

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

104

inform their instruction. Principals and district leaders will need to remove any obstacles
that prevent teachers from having easy access to the important data needed to engage in
rich discussions about what students know and are able to do.
Future Directions for Research
This research study provided the researcher with quantifiable data related to
teacher perceptions about Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy functioning as a
PLC. This research study examined whether PLCs have an impact on teachers’ abilities to
refine their instructional practices based upon the results of data, student needs, and
ongoing collaboration with their colleagues. Recommendations for future research include
the following:
1. Incorporate a mixed research methods approach for data collection that
will include student learning data, student interviews, teacher
interviews and teacher artifacts. Student learning data would include a
common formative assessment administered multiple times throughout
the school year with a particular group of students. The collection of
various forms of quantitative and qualitative data will enable the future
researchers to draw conclusions about the innovation utilizing the
results of student learning, contextual information, and multiple
perspectives.
2. Duplicate this research study in several schools throughout the
Pittsburgh Public School District. Following the same methodology
for data collection in multiple schools within the school district will
provide central office leadership with a more accurate assessment of

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

105

the implementation of PLCs across the district and the impact of PLCs
on teacher instructional practices. Central office leadership would then
be able to provide school leaders with differentiated support in order to
build leadership capacity for continuous school improvement efforts.
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter V has presented a conclusion about the effectiveness of the PLC
intervention at Pittsburgh Science and Technology Academy. The analysis of data
collected indicates that teachers are implementing collaborative practices as part of the
PLC intervention and making changes to instruction based upon the collective learning
that is occurring within the PLC.
This study supports the researcher’s belief that PLCs are effective when teachers
have access to supportive conditions that include principal leaders who foster a culture of
collaboration and focus on continuous improvement. The researcher believes PLCs
require central office support in order to create the accountability structures that are
necessary for systemic implementation of PLCs throughout a school district. This research
study has affirmed the researcher’s conviction to provide professional learning
opportunities that offer the autonomy for teachers to shape their learning and the tools to
support meaningful collaboration and continuous improvement.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

106

References
Aguilar, E. (2016). The art of coaching teams: Building resilient communities that transform
schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Bailey, K., & Jakicic, C. (2012). Common formative assessment: A toolkit for professional
learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 25–27. Retrieved from
http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
Berry, B., Johnson, D., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The power of teacher leadership. Educational
Leadership, 62(5), 56–60. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educationalleadership.aspx
Boyer, E. (1995). The basic school: A community for learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass
Inc.
Calvert, L. (2016). Moving from compliance to agency: What teachers need to make
Professional learning work. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward and NCTAF.
Carmichael, L. (1982, October). Leaders as learners: A possible dream. Educational Leadership
40(1) 58-59.

Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-

leadership.aspx
Chenoweth, K. (2015). How do we get there from here? Educational Leadership, 72(5), 16–20.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
Dufour, R., & Fullan, M. (2013). Cultures built to last: systemic PLCs at work. Bloomington,

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

107

IN: Solution Tree Press.
Fullan, M., & Miles, M. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta
Kappan, 73(10), 744–752. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ445727
Fulton, K., & Britton, T. (2011). STEM teachers in professional learning communities: From
good teachers to great teaching. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching
and America’s Future.
George, A., Hall, G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (2013). Measuring implementation in schools: The
Stages of concern questionnaire. Retrieved from
http://www.sedl.org/cbam/socq_manual_201410.pdf
Hirsh, S. & Crow, T. (2018). Becoming a Learning Team: A guide to a teacher-led cycle of
continuous improvement. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and
improvement. Leadership, 40(1), 58–59. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED410659
Hord, S. (2009). Professional learning communities: Educators work together toward a
shared purpose. Journal of Staff Development, 30(1), 40–43. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ827545
Lencioni, P. (2003). The trouble with teamwork. Leader to leader, 29, 35-40. Retrieved from
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ltl.36
Lewis, C. (2015). What Is Improvement Science? Do We Need It in Education? Educational
Researcher, 44(1), 54–61. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1052271

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

108

Louis, K., & Kruse, S. (1995). Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming
urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Mattos, M., Dufour, R., Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2016). Concise answers to frequently
asked questions about professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
Mourshed, M., Chijioke, C., & Barber, M. (2010). How the world’s most improved school
systems keep getting better. New York, NY: McKinsey. Retrieved from
https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/how-the-worlds-mostimproved-school-systems-keep-getting-better
O’Neill, J. (2000). SMART goals, SMART Schools. Educational Leadership, 57(5), 46–50.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
Raywid, M. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1), pp. 30–
34). Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership.aspx
Saphier, J., King, M., & D’Auria, J. (2006). Three strands form strong school leadership. Journal
of Staff Development, 27(2), 51-57. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ752267
Sparks, D. (1999). The singular power of one goal. Journal of Staff Development, 20(1), 54–58.
Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ588840
Thessin, R., & Starr, J. (2011). Supporting the growth of effective professional learning
communities districtwide. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(6), 48–54. Retrieved from
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ920078
Tichy, N. M. (1997). The leadership engine: How winning companies build leaders at every
level. New York, NY: HarperBusiness.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

APPENDICES

109

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

110

Appendix A
California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board Approval

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

111

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

Appendix B
Pittsburgh Public Schools Data and Research Review Board Approval

112

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

113

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

Appendix C
Informed Consent Letter

114

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

115

Informed Consent for a Research Study
Title of Project: Teacher Perceptions of Professional Learning Communities (PLC): The Relationship
Between PLCs and Teacher Instructional Practices

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR – Mr. Shawn McNeil

You are being asked to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this study, it is
important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will involve. Please read the
following information carefully and feel free to ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if
you need more information.

PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH STUDY

A key component of the Pittsburgh Public Schools (PPS) five-year Strategic Plan: Expect Great Things,
includes professional learning practices. The district vision is that all students graduate high school
college, career, and life-ready prepared to complete a two-or four-year college degree or workforce
certification. Improving the quality and impact of professional learning by implementing PLCs in our
schools will be a key factor in achieving the outcomes outlined in the Strategic Plan. This research study
will focus on determining the effectiveness of Professional Learning Communities (PLC). Additionally,
this research study will be used to identify the current state of the PLC initiative at SciTech and determine
next steps that should be recommended for the school.

What will be involved if you participate? If you decide to participate in this research study, you will be
asked to complete a survey and questionnaire. Your total time commitment will be approximately one
hour. Please note that there are no risks or discomforts associated with this study.

You meet the qualifications to participate in this study as a teacher who has been employed at SciTech
since the 2016 school year. Your participation in this study will help provide the necessary data to inform
our next steps related to the PLC initiative at SciTech. Additionally, you can expect to benefit from this
study by gaining more knowledge and understanding of various elements of PLCs.

CONFIDENTIALITY

Your responses to the survey and questionnaire will be anonymous. You will not be asked to write any
identifying information when completing these forms. In doing this, we believe there is minimal risks
associated with this research study. Your answers in this study will remain confidential and anonymous.
We will minimize any risks by maintaining all data on password-protected computer drives and
destroying raw data within two weeks of the completion of the research project.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

116

CONTACT INFORMATION
This research study has been approved by the California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review
Board. This approval is effective September 20, 2019 and expires September 19, 2020. The Pittsburgh
Public School’s Data Governance and Research Review Board has also approved this request to conduct
research within our District. If you have questions at any time about this study, you may contact the
researcher, Shawn McNeil, at mcn6174@calu.edu or Dr. Kevin Lordon at lordon@calu.edu. If you have
questions regarding your rights as a research participant, or if problems arise which you do not feel you
can discuss with the Primary Investigator, please contact the Institutional Review Board at
instreviewboard@calu.edu.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to take part in this
study. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a consent form. After you sign the
consent form, you are still free to withdraw at any time and without giving a reason. Withdrawing from
this study will not affect the relationship you have with the researcher. If you withdraw from the study
before data collection is completed, your data will be returned to you or destroyed.

CONSENT
I have read and I understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to ask questions. I
understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to withdraw at any time, without giving a
reason and without cost. I understand that I will be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree
to take part in this study.

Participant's signature ______________________________ Date __________

Investigator's signature _____________________________ Date __________

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

Appendix D
Professional Learning Communities Assessment-Revised (PLCA-R)

117

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

118

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

119

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

120

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

121

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

122

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

123

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

124

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

Appendix E
Stages of Concern Questionnaire (SoCQ)

125

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES
Stages of Concern Questionnaire
#______________________

126

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

127

The innovation that we are concerned with is our implementation of common formative assessments and
collaborative team protocols as part of our PLC structures.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

128

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

129

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

Appendix F
Stages of Concern and Corresponding Questions

130

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

131

Item
Stage 0
3

Statement
I am more concerned about another innovation.

12

I am not concerned about this innovation at this time.

21

I am preoccupied with things other than this innovation.

23

I spend little time thinking about this innovation.

30

Currently, other priorities prevent me from focusing my attention on this
innovation.

Stage 1
6

I have a very limited knowledge of the innovation.

14

I would like to discuss the possibility of using the innovation.

15

I would like to know what resources are available if we decide to adopt this
innovation.

26

I would like to know what the use of the innovation will require in the
immediate future.

35

I would like to know how this innovation is better than what we have now.

Stage 2
7

I would like to know the effect of reorganization on my professional status.

13

I would like to know who will make the decisions in the new system.

17

I would like to know how my teaching or administration is supposed to
change.

28

I would like to have more information on time and energy commitments
required by this innovation.

33

I would like to know how my role will change when I am using the innovation.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

132

Stage 3
4

I am concerned about not having enough time to organize myself each day.

8

I am concerned about conflict between my interests and my
responsibilities.

16

I am concerned about my inability to manage all the innovation requires.

25

I am concerned about time spent working with nonacademic problems
related to this innovation.

34

Coordination of tasks and people is taking too much of my time.

Stage 4
1

I am concerned about students’ attitudes toward this innovation.

11

I am concerned about how the innovation affects students.

19

I am concerned about evaluating my impact on students.

24

I would like to excite my students about their part in this approach.

32

I would like to use feedback from students to change the program.

Stage 5
5

I would like to help other faculty in their use of the innovation.

10

I would like to develop working relationships with both our faculty and
outside faculty using this innovation.

18

I would like to familiarize other departments or people with the progress of
this new approach.

27

I would like to coordinate my effort with others to maximize the
innovation’s effects.

29

I would like to know what other faculty are doing in this area.

PLCS AND TEACHER INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES

133

Stage 6
2

I now know of some other approaches that might work better.

9

I am concerned about revising my use of the innovation.

20

I would like to revise the innovation’s instructional approach.

22

I would like to modify our use of the innovation based on the experiences of our
students.

31

I would like to determine how to supplement, enhance, or replace the innovation.