PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

THE IMPACT OF TEACHER PARTICIPATION IN PROFESSIONAL
LEARNING COMMUNITIES ON TEACHER PRACTICES AND
STUDENT LEARNING

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

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

Scott DeShong
California University of Pennsylvania
July, 2022

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

@ Copyright by
Scott DeShong
All Rights Reserved
July 2022

ii

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

iv

Dedication
This study is dedicated to my family as they have meant so much to my personal
and professional journey. They have been and continue to be my “why.”
My parents were my first teachers and have dedicated their lives to the education
of others. Early on in life they instilled in me the fact that “your education is something
that no one can take from you.” I draw strength and persistence from their example and
love.
My children, Kyle and Eric, are a source of great joy and pride. They have grown
into tremendous adults. Thank you for your patience with me throughout this process. I
want to be a better father and person because of you!
Finally, I cannot adequately express how much the support and encouragement of
my wife, Rebecca, has meant to me throughout our married lives. You have stood beside
me through my efforts, failures, and accomplishments. Thank you for your sacrifices
during our time together. I can guarantee that you will not hear, “I am headed to the salt
mine!” nearly as much now that this step is complete!

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

v

Acknowledgements
I would like express great appreciation to my faculty committee chair, Dr. Mary
Wolf. The feedback, input, and encouragement you provided throughout this journey has
added to my learning and growth. Thank you for your time and patience!
I would also like to thank Dr. Niki Harvey, my external committee member, for
the time she put into reading and editing my research. Your wisdom and perspective
have been invaluable throughout the process.
Dr. Kathy Pechtold contributed significantly to this project through sharing her
suggestions and recommendations. Your knowledge and thinking were greatly
appreciated! I am glad we had a chance to connect again professionally.
This project would not have come to completion without the support of Dr. M.
Christopher Marchese and the educators of the Avon Grove School District. Thanks to
all of you for your dedication to creating the best conditions for learning in the school
district. I value your knowledge, experience, and service. I am honored to work with
you!

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

vi

Table of Contents
Dedication

iv

Acknowledgements

v

List of Tables

ix

List of Figures

x

Abstract

xi

CHAPTER I. Overview of the Research Study

1

Background

2

Capstone Focus

3

Research Questions

4

Financial Implications

4

Summary

6

CHAPTER II. Review of Literature
History of School Reform Efforts

7
8

Professional Learning Communities and Teacher Collaboration

14

Characteristics of Effective Professional Learning Communities

21

Necessary Conditions for Instructional Improvement

21

Influence of School Leadership

24

Importance of Teacher Leadership

26

Professional Development and Adult Learning

26

Sustainability of Effective PLCs

27

Teacher Perception of PLCs

30

Benefits of PLCs

31

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

vii

Cautions Related to PLCs

34

Summary

37

CHAPTER III. Methodology

39

Purpose of the Study

39

Research Questions

42

Research Setting and Participants

42

Project History

43

First Year of Implementation

43

Second Year of Implementation

49

Third Year of Implementation

51

Fourth Year of Implementation

53

Research Plan

53

Research Design

55

Validity

60

Summary
CHAPTER IV. Data Analysis and Results

63
64

Research Questions

64

Data Analysis

65

Results

70

Research Question One

70

Research Question Two

75

Research Question Three

83

Summary

92

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

viii

CHAPTER V. Conclusions and Recommendations

93

Conclusions

94

Research Question One

94

Research Question Two

98

Research Question Three

100

Fiscal Implications

109

Recommendations

111

Limitations

114

Implications for Further Research

116

Summary and Conclusion

117

References

118

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

127

APPENDIX B. Interview Questions

134

APPENDIX C. California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board
Approval

135

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

ix

List of Tables
Table 1. Alignment of Research Questions, Data Collection Methods, and Data
Sources

58

Table 2. PLCA-R Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Dimension

67

Table 3. CDT Sample Size by Year and Content

68

Table 4. Link between Data Collection Instruments and Research Questions

70

Table 5. Change in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration –
Pedagogical Practices

72

Table 6. Algebra One CDT Average Scale Score, Median, Mode, and Range

76

Table 7. Biology CDT Average Scale Score, Median, Mode, and Range

77

Table 8. Literature CDT Average Scale Score, Median, Mode, and Range

78

Table 9. Change in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration –
Structures, Resources, and Conditions

86

Table 10. Growth in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration –
Pedagogical Practices

95

Table 11. Decrease in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration –
Pedagogical Practices

97

Table 12. Growth in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration –
Structures, Resources, and Conditions

102

Table 13. Decrease in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration –
Structures, Resources, and Conditions

105

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

x

List of Figures
Figure 1. Overall PLCA-R Results by Dimension and Administration

66

Figure 2. Average CDT Scale Scores by Content Area

79

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

xi

Abstract
Professional learning communities (PLCs) are in their fifth year of implementation at
Avon Grove High School. DuFour et al. (2010) define a professional learning
community (PLC) as an “ongoing process in which educators work collaboratively in
recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the
students they serve” (p. 11). The purpose of this research is to determine the impact of
PLCs on teacher practices and student learning. In order to make this determination, the
following research questions were investigated: What are teachers’ perceptions of
professional learning communities (PLCs) in terms of the impact on their pedagogical
practices? When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within academic content areas,
how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement? What supportive
structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for teacher growth in the
implementation of PLCs? A mixed-methods research approach was used to answer the
research questions. The Professional Learning Communities Assessment – Revised was
administered twice during the school year, semi-structured interviews were conducted
with teachers, and student results on the Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT) were
collected over the last five years. The analysis of this data suggests that teachers feel
their pedagogical practices have expanded and improved, student achievement has seen
positive gains in two out of three measured content areas, PLC meeting time during the
school day has been a necessary condition for success, and resources are available and
necessary to help grow and sustain PLCs in the school.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

1

CHAPTER I
Overview of the Research Study
DuFour et al. (2010) defined a professional learning community (PLC) as an
“ongoing process in which educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of
collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve”
(p. 11). As identified by DuFour et al. (2010) there are six necessary elements of the
PLC process:
● a focus on learning created by a clear vision, collective commitments, and
goal-setting,
● a collaborative culture with a focus on learning for all,
● collective inquiry into best practice and current reality,
● action orientation: learning by doing,
● a commitment to continuous improvement, and
● a results orientation. (p. 11)
A considerable amount of research supports the positive impact the successful
implementation of PLCs in school settings has on student learning and the pedagogical
practices used by teachers to drive student achievement. For a school district to consider
how to best implement PLCs in order to maximize student achievement there must be an
understanding of how the PLC process is perceived by teachers, how student learning is
impacted, and what conditions are necessary for the successful implementation of the
PLC framework.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

2

Background
Four years prior to this study, Avon Grove High School identified the initiation of
PLCs within academic content areas as a building goal. The master schedule provided
for PLC meeting time at least once per week and PLCs developed norms, identified
specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, timely (SMART) goals, and used protocols to
answer the four questions of the PLC framework. Those questions are:
1. What is it we want our students to learn?
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?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are already
proficient? (DuFour, 2005, p. 15)
Building on this progress, two years prior to the study a building goal was to
develop common formative assessments in those PLCs where they had yet to be
developed and continue to refine the common assessments in those PLCs where they had
been created and implemented. While progress could be identified, the suspension of inperson teaching and learning during the 2019-2020 school year due to the coronavirus
pandemic interrupted the work towards that goal.
The implications on teaching and learning due to the ongoing pandemic continued
to influence professional development during the 2020-2021 school year. In addition to
the interruption of the professional focus on PLC development at Avon Grove High
School, the disruption to teaching and learning during the past two school years will drive
schools to concentrate on supporting the academic growth of all students to a greater

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

3

extent during the year of this study than in previous years. School-wide professional
development will be focused on strengthening PLCs while continuing the emphasis on
the development and use of common assessments. The focus of this research is to
determine the impact of the focus on the PLC framework on the pedagogical practices of
teachers and student academic achievement.
Avon Grove High School consists of slightly more than 1,700 students and is
located in southeastern Pennsylvania. The student body has a reasonable amount of
diversity as slightly more than 26 percent of students are identified as Hispanic, almost
26 percent of students are considered to be economically disadvantaged, and more than
five percent of the students are English language learners (Pennsylvania Department of
Education, 2018). The understanding of how to best meet the broad needs of the student
body is paramount to student success. As the school principal since 2015, I am keenly
interested in how the PLC framework can drive student achievement, expand and
improve the pedagogical practices of teachers, and create the best conditions for learning.
Capstone Focus
The overall goal of the project was to determine how the PLC framework
impacted student achievement and the pedagogical practices of teachers. Were the
academic departments within the high school truly using the PLC framework to drive
student learning? Did the PLC process consider how to best support learners who were
struggling with the acquisition of class content and basic skills while at the same time
designing learning experiences for students who already had mastery over the same class
content? This action research project would lead to a greater understanding of the
structures, resources, and conditions in the PLC framework that contribute to teacher

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

4

growth. Finally, the research revealed the need for appropriate and differentiated
professional learning experiences based on the data collected through the administration
of the Professional Learning Communities Assessment – Revised and semi-structured
teacher interviews.
Research Questions
Indicators of effectiveness will be determined based upon the three research
questions that have been established for this study:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning communities (PLCs) in
terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices?
2. When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within academic content areas,
how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement?
3. What supportive structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for
teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?
Fiscal Implications
Growth in pedagogical practices and improved student learning are anticipated
outcomes from the successful implementation of the PLC framework at Avon Grove
High School and this capstone project. Valuable professional development opportunities
related to the PLC framework are integral to sustaining and building upon these
outcomes. Professional learning needs will be identified through the administration of
the Professional Learning Communities Assessment – Revised, responses to the semistructured interview questions, and analysis of the Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT)
performance by students. The identified professional learning opportunities could be
delivered by an independent organization or by personnel from the Chester County

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

5

Intermediate Unit. In this case, there would be a cost associated with the training. In the
instance where professional learning topics could be delivered by professional educators
within the district, there would be little to no cost associated with the delivery of
instruction.
By answering the research questions associated with this action research project,
new understandings about the PLC process at Avon Grove High School will be gained.
In 2018, interested teachers came together to develop a guide – or handbook – to support
every professional employee with the implementation of the PLC framework in all
content areas at Avon Grove High School. Another cost will be related to the updating,
reprinting, and redistribution of this handbook to educators at the high school.
As with any endeavor there are also indirect costs associated with this capstone
project. The PLC framework relies on time in the Avon Grove High School master
schedule to allow PLCs to meet during the school day. Furthermore, the ability of all
teachers in a PLC to meet during the school day means that the teachers cannot be
scheduled for any student supervision or duties during this time. During the meeting time
of each PLC these responsibilities will need to fall to building administrators or other
teachers in the building.
In addition to providing time in the master schedule for PLCs to meet during the
school day, for this project to be successful professional development time needs to be set
aside in a purposeful and deliberate manner. By consistently allotting professional
development time to the work of PLCs, this could result in other initiatives not being
pursued. Or, it could result in the building administration needing to find other time (e.g.
faculty meetings) for other initiatives or professional development experiences.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

6

Summary
PLCs guide teachers in working collaboratively to analyze student learning. Prior
research shows that the successful implementation of the PLC framework leads to
increased student achievement and growth in the effective pedagogical practices used by
teachers. The data collected in answering the research questions associated with this
project will lead to a greater understanding of the influence PLCs have on the
pedagogical practices of teachers, how the challenges and benefits of PLCs impact
student achievement, and what structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable
for teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

7

Chapter II
Review of Literature
The purpose of this study is to examine how a focus on the professional learning
community (PLC) framework will impact the pedagogical practices of teachers and
student academic achievement in a public high school. The structures, resources, and
conditions within the PLC framework that are most favorable for teacher growth will also
be investigated. The three research questions that will be investigated to determine the
impact of PLCs are as follows: What are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning
communities (PLCs) in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices? When it
comes to the implementation of PLCs within academic content areas, how do the
challenges and benefits impact student achievement? What supportive structures,
resources, and conditions are most favorable for teacher growth in the implementation of
PLCs?
Avon Grove High School initiated the implementation of the PLC framework in
the 2017-2018 school year. During that school year professional learning was focused on
defining PLCs, providing an overview of the major concepts and practices related to
PLCs, and implementing a common planning time for content area teachers. Professional
learning has more recently been dedicated to the development of common assessments
and rubrics. While the ongoing pandemic has disrupted teaching and learning and
interrupted the professional learning focus on PLC development at Avon Grove High
School, the renewed emphasis on PLCs and the impact on both student achievement and
teacher practices will be the focus of this action research project. This literature review
will focus on the following areas: the history of school reform efforts, PLCs and teacher

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

8

collaboration, the characteristics of effective PLCs, teacher perceptions of PLCs, the
benefits of PLCs, and the cautions related to PLCs.
History of School Reform Efforts
The focus on greater access to educational opportunities and increased
achievement by public school students is not a new concept. The Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was passed by the United States Congress in 1965 and
increased funding for schools. Last reauthorized in 2015, the act included guides
developed to provide accountability across schools and close achievement gaps in math,
reading, and writing (Caffey, 2020). Congress enacted the Education Consolidation and
Improvement Act (ECIA) in 1981. The purpose of the ECIA was to consolidate federal
programs and shift more control back to states and local school boards. A particular
emphasis was placed on aiding migratory students, students with special needs, and
students experiencing poverty with basic skills in reading and math (Dougherty, 1985).
A Nation at Risk was produced in 1983 by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education. This report asserted that America’s schools were failing and in
need of great reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). The
report further defined academic content, emphasized more stringent admissions standards
at post-secondary schools, and focused on teacher preparation programs (Blake, 2008).
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 substantially increased accountability standards
for schools and measured academic progress for students and various subgroups. States
were required to develop rigorous standards and tests to measure student progress
towards meeting these standards (Linn et al., 2002). More recently, the Every Student
Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into legislation by President Obama in 2015. With an

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

9

emphasis on preparing students for college and careers, ESSA required high academic
standards for all students, prescribed annual assessments to provide information on
student progress to educators, caregivers, and communities, and maintained “an
expectation that there will be accountability and action to effect positive change in our
lowest-performing schools, where groups of students are not making progress, and where
graduation rates are low over extended periods of time” (United States Department of
Education, n.d., ESSA Highlights section). Legislative actions are only one step towards
achieving reform in schools.
School reform literature delineated two broad models for achieving school
improvement. One model emphasized the use of scientific or research-based curriculum
and instructional methods to improve student growth and achievement. O’Neill (2004)
described a decentralized model that focused on preparation for mandated standardized
tests and a shift away from the local control of curriculum. In this model, teachers were
expected to follow the curriculum and use instructional strategies to prepare students for
the mandated test; their purpose is not to determine student needs and individualize
curriculum and instruction to meet such needs (O’Neill, 2004). Student growth and
achievement tended to be measured through the use of summative assessments developed
at the state or federal level.
Another model featured an approach that is characterized by teams of
professionals working together within schools. Schmoker (2004, p. 48) shared that
improvement in schools:
starts with a group of teachers who meet regularly as a team to identify essential
and valued student learning, develop common formative assessments, analyze

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

10

current levels of achievement, set achievement goals and then share and create
lessons to improve upon those levels.
Structured collaboration by teachers is the best method for improving pedagogy and
influencing student learning. Teachers meeting regularly “to share, refine and assess the
impact of lessons and strategies continuously to help increasing numbers of students learn
at higher levels” (Schmoker, 2004, p. 48) described the type of collaboration that was to
occur.
While the models of school reform are distinct there are commonalities between
the two. One commonality is the importance of the classroom teacher in the success of
all students. Schmoker (2018) pointed to three fundamental elements that require the
skills of a strong educator in the classroom: coherent curriculum, structured lessons, and
purposeful reading and writing in all content areas.
A second commonality between the school reform approaches is the emphasis on
student outcomes – the identification of performance measures. The planning process
needed to start with a focus on learning outcomes and determine what success will look
like when students achieve these outcomes (Bradley et al., 2015).
Another commonality of both school reform approaches is the focus on the value
of systemic improvement. As systems improve and are aligned the achievement of all
students will improve. Leadership development, improvement in teacher practices, and
updated legislation all impact the level of systemic reform (Fullan, 2009).
While the importance of the classroom teacher, the emphasis on learning
outcomes, and the value of systemic improvement have been identified as commonalities
among the two broad models for school improvement, there are differences in these

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

11

models as well. While not a comprehensive list, the differences between the model that
described a decentralized model that focused on preparation for mandated standardized
tests and a shift away from the local control of curriculum (O’Neill, 2004) and
Schmoker’s (2004) model emphasizing structured teacher collaboration include,
respectively:
● a positivist view versus a constructivist view,
● the use of summative assessments versus formative assessments, and
● the importance of external resources versus internal resources.
Positivists, as described by O’Neill (2004, p. 142), believe that “science
objectivity is the ‘gold standard’” and the use of scientific and research-based practices
confirmed through the improvement of scores on standardized tests is a true commitment
to learning for all students. Furthermore, the focus on annual test scores will lead to a
greater level of proficiency by all learners (O’Neill, 2004). The positivist view aligns
with the use of scientific or research-based curriculum and instructional methods to
improve student growth and achievement.
Constructivists characterize learning as a process by which students develop and
build their own meaning. The teachers’ role is not to outline a specific formula or to
provide students with facts and answers. Rather, the teacher asks questions and poses
problems to lead students to a solution. Finally, students draw upon their prior
knowledge and experiences to guide their learning and, eventually, modify their own
understanding (Kretchmar, 2021). The constructivist theory of learning can also include
the contribution of others to the learning process and the importance of understanding
both culture and context (Peppers, 2015). The constructivist view matches the school

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

12

reform approach that is characterized by teams of professionals working together within
schools.
Summative evaluation is used at or near the conclusion of a teaching unit in order
to grade or certify students or evaluate a curriculum (Black & Wiliam, 2003). No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) is an example of a reform model that required summative testing of
students in certain grade levels on an annual basis. The goal of this legislation and
summative assessment strategy was to have all students score at or above predetermined
proficiency levels by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. Criticisms of NCLB and the
summative evaluation strategy were that the tests did not adequately reflect the
curriculum taught in schools and that the feedback provided to students and educators
was not helpful in making educational decisions (Zimmerman & Dibenedetto, 2008).
The use of summative evaluation strategies matches O’Neill’s (2004) focus on using the
results of such assessments to measure student growth and achievement.
Formative assessment strategies are used by teachers to provide feedback to
students and adjust instruction to meet their specific needs. Formative assessment is
often used by teacher teams in professional learning communities or similar models of
collaboration. Such strategies are responsive and support the day-to-day learning process
(Black & Wiliam, 2003). Reeves (2003) argued that appropriate assessment strategies
“can be provided at the school and classroom level throughout the year, accompanied by
immediate feedback” (p. 16) followed by the necessary adjustments to teaching
strategies. The formative approach involves teachers using multiple assessments in order
to support student learning and truly determine if students have met the learning
standards. This approach aligns with a collaborative teaching model.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

13

The use of scientific or research-based curriculum and instructional methods to
improve student growth and achievement was a requirement of NCLB. Another
requirement of NCLB directed the United States Department of Education to create an
organization “that would review and evaluate research as a means to assist states and
school districts in meeting their obligation to adopt materials that have been demonstrated
to be effective” (Edyburn, 2008, p. 60). The What Works Clearinghouse was the result of
this directive. Concerns related to this reliance on external methods and resources
include a dependence on the “knowledge of experts external to school environments”
(Horn, 2004, p. 199) and the possibility that research would be directed towards issues of
limited importance to the overall educational community (Horn, 2004).
The opposite approach involves teachers working together on an established set of
standards that are taught on a very similar schedule. These teacher teams utilize common
assessments to help them provide ongoing feedback to students and make appropriate
instructional decisions (Schmoker, 2006). While the use of scientific or research-based
materials and resources may be a component of the work done by such teams, the
formative assessment process guides the instructional decision-making procedure. Fullan
and Miles (1992) emphasized the importance of reform happening locally when they
stated, “local implementation by everyday teachers, principals, parents, and students is
the only way that change happens” (p. 752). It is important to understand what exactly a
professional learning community looks like in definition and practice in order to
understand the potential impact on teacher practices and student achievement.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

14

Professional Learning Communities and Teacher Collaboration
There is a close relationship between schools that learn (Senge, 2012) and schools
that define themselves as professional learning communities (DuFour, 2010). The
purpose of this section of the literature review is to describe that relationship and the
characteristics of each. The terms professional learning community and collaborative
model can be used interchangeably.
Senge (2012) defined a school that learns as one in which all involved in the
system work together toward a commonly understood goal or outcome. Five disciplines
can be practiced and leveraged to create organizations that learn. These disciplines systems thinking, personal mastery, working with mental models, building shared vision,
and team learning – provide a great deal of leverage for those who want to foster and
build better organizations and communities. Specifically, Senge (2012) defined team
learning as “a discipline of practices designed, over time, to get the people on a team
thinking and acting together” (p. 115). Learning organizations are characterized by trust,
complementary strengths, selflessness, common goals, and the achievement of significant
results (Senge, 2006).
Hord (1997) spoke to the value of teachers feeling supported through
collaboration and networking with colleagues as it created a greater sense of efficacy.
The concept of shared decision-making is a significant factor in planning instruction and
sharing feedback. Structured time is provided for teachers to work together around a
focus on improved student learning. Other benefits of this collaborative environment
included greater teacher morale and a reduction in absenteeism (Hord, 1997).

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

15

Such teams are most commonly referred to as professional learning communities
(Hord, 1997). There is a great deal of literature that describes the characteristics of these
collaborative groups of educators. DuFour et al. (2010) defined a professional learning
community as an “ongoing process in which educators work collaboratively in recurring
cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students
they serve” (p. 11). DuFour et al. (2010) identified six elements of the PLC process:
● a focus on learning created by a clear vision, collective commitments, and
goal-setting,
● a collaborative culture with a focus on learning for all,
● collective inquiry into best practice and current reality,
● action orientation: learning by doing,
● a commitment to continuous improvement, and
● a results orientation. (p. 11)
All learning organizations make a commitment to the learning of all students.
Hord (1997) shared five attributes of learning communities:
● shared and supportive leadership,
● collective creativity,
● shared values and vision,
● supportive conditions, and
● shared personal practice. (p. 15)
While educational reform is focused on improved student outcomes, educators also need
an environment where they can share about their practice, take risks, and grow as
professionals (Hord, 1997).

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

16

DuFour (2004) identified three core principles that define the PLC process and
lead to PLCs becoming a sustained part of a school’s culture and practice. The first
principle - or “big idea” (p. 8) - is to ensure that “all students learn” (p. 8). To achieve
this principle, schools must shift from a focus on teaching to a focus on student learning.
Schools find themselves asking and continually looking for answers to the following
questions:
What school characteristics and practices have been most successful in helping all
students achieve at high levels? How could we adopt those characteristics and
practices in our own school? What commitments would we have to make to one
another to create such a school? What indicators could we monitor to assess our
progress? (DuFour, 2004, p. 8)
Schools that effectively and successfully engage in PLCs are deliberate about how
they respond when students are struggling with their learning. The staff in these schools
make sure there are strategies in place to guarantee that students receive the support that
is needed. Such intervention is characterized by being “systematic, timely, and directive”
(DuFour, 2004, p. 8).
DuFour (2004) identified the second core principle as “a culture of collaboration”
(p. 9). Such collaboration is much more than a spirit of collegiality, a consensus on
school rules, and the formation of committees. PLCs are characterized by:
a systematic process in which teachers work together to analyze and improve their
classroom practice. Teachers work in teams, engaging in an ongoing cycle of
questions that promote deep team learning. This process, in turn, leads to higher
levels of student achievement. (DuFour, 2004, p. 9)

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

17

While the second core principle, effective and successful PLCs cannot last if such a
culture does not exist.
This collaborative culture concentrates on the use of frequent formative
assessments to analyze the progress of individual students and determine who needs
additional time and support. DuFour (2004) described an environment in which
educators “make public what has traditionally been private” (p. 9) by deliberately
discussing their classroom practice. According to DuFour (2004), educators in a
collaborative culture find themselves asking each other, “How will we know when each
student has learned?” (p. 9).
DuFour (2004) defined the third core principle as a focus on results. Each teacher
on the collaborative team identifies the learning goal, works together so the goal can be
achieved, and periodically reviews progress. This focus on results is characterized by the
development of common formative assessments. Teachers compare results and work
with their colleagues when student learning did not meet the specified goals. An
outcome of this process is that “each teacher has access to the ideas, materials, strategies,
and talents of the entire team” (DuFour, 2004, p. 10).
The three core principles of a PLC are: ensuring that all students learn, a culture
of collaboration, and a focus on results (DuFour, 2004). DuFour et al. (2010) shared four
key questions educators use to meet these core principles and achieve a purposeful focus
on student learning:
1. What is it we want our students to learn?
2. How will we know if each student is learning each of the skills, concepts, and
dispositions we have deemed most essential?

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

18

3. How will we respond when some of our students do not learn?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are already
proficient? (p. 15)
In answering these questions, educators review curriculum standards in order to
determine what students must learn during each unit, make decisions about the pace at
which instruction is to occur, and individually determine the instructional strategies to be
used.
There are similar terms used to describe the work educational professionals
engage in with the goal of improved student learning. The concept of professional
learning teams (PLTs) most closely mirror the PLC process. PLTs reflect and work
collaboratively, examine student learning, and make changes to teaching and learning
based on this information (Sather & Hord, 2009). These teams consist of four to six
teachers from the same academic department or grade level, although teams can form
based on a common instructional interest. PLTs select one or two instructional strategies
to use for the year based on their review of student data. They also collaborate to
determine how the effectiveness of the strategies will be evaluated. Successful strategies
are shared school-wide in an effort to have other staff members adopt the instructional
strategies as well (Sather & Hord, 2009).
Whole-faculty study groups (WFSG) were started in 1987 with the purpose of
supporting teachers with the implementation of new strategies in their classrooms (Lick
et al., 2007). The WFSG process “is a job-embedded, self-directed, student-driven
approach to professional development” (Lick et al., 2007, p. 3). The goal of the groups is
to improve schools and student achievement through a continuous process of professional

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

19

development and learning. Groups are small (approximately three to eight faculty
members) and often cross-discipline and cross-grade level. Participation in a WFSG is
mandatory. Study groups share responsibility among all members of the group.
However, it is possible for each study group to have a different focus (Blankenship &
Ruona, 2007). There are five principles that guide the WFSG process:
● students are first,
● everyone participates,
● leadership is shared,
● responsibility is equal, and
● the work is public.
WFSG has been described as a “comprehensive framework for implementing the concept
of professional learning communities” (Blankenship & Ruona, 2007, p. 3).
Brown and Duguid (1991) shared that organizations need to see themselves as
being made up of many groups. Work, learning, and innovation can come from the
informal structures within these “communities of practice” (Brown & Duguid, 1991, p.
40). Compared to PLCs and WFSGs, the communities of practice described by Brown
and Duguid are much more informal and membership is voluntary (Blankenship &
Ruona, 2007). Not limited to educational organizations, these communities of practice
are narrative, collaborative, and socially constructed (Brown & Duguid, 1991).
Offering a slightly different definition of communities of practice, Wenger et al.
(2002) explained that “communities of practice are groups of people who share a
concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge
and expertise in the area by interacting on an ongoing basis” (p. 1). Communities of

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

20

practice can take place in any type of organization. Wenger et al. (2002) shared that they
are often informal and leadership can come from individuals inside or outside of the
organization. Knowledge sharing and innovation are valued in these communities of
practice (Blankenship & Ruona, 2007).
The critical friends group (CFG) concept is another example of individuals within
an organization coming together to influence practice and growth. Franzak (2002)
described a CFG as a diverse group of teachers coming together “to prompt and support
one another’s professional growth” (p. 259). Such groups come together to question, to
challenge, to collaborate, and to dialogue around their teaching practice (Carlson, 2019).
A typical CFG consists of approximately twelve teachers who meet monthly to discuss
their practice and student learning. The group uses protocols to examine student
learning, conduct peer observations, and measure student growth (Franzak, 2002).
Supovitz and Christman (2003) used the term communities of instructional
practice to refer to teams of teachers working with a specific group of students. One
school they studied consisted of teams of three to five teachers working with students
over several years. Another school also worked with students over several years, but had
a larger number of teachers on the team than the first group. In both cases the researchers
found that the structure used did not create an increased instructional focus. Supovitz and
Christman (2003) noted that “Practitioners working in communities need ongoing
opportunities to reflect on and analyze their teaching as well as strategies that will help
them plan, assess, and revise their individual and collaborative efforts” (p. 651).

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

21

Characteristics of Effective Professional Learning Communities
Necessary Conditions for Instructional Improvement
A review of research for school reform efforts, as well as collaborative teams,
shows that a number of characteristics need to be present in order for instructional
improvement to occur. This section will review the literature that identifies the
conditions for instructional improvement, the influence of school leadership, the
importance of teacher leadership, the usefulness of real and relevant professional
learning, and the sustainability of the integration of PLCs into the fabric of the school
community.
Senge (2012) maintained that “it is possible to create organizations that learn
through the ongoing practice of five ‘learning disciplines’ for changing the way people
think and act together” (p. 5). These five disciplines can be used interconnectedly to
create better school organizations and communities. The five disciplines are personal
mastery, shared vision, mental models, team learning, and systems thinking. Senge
(2012) defines personal mastery as “the practice of developing a coherent image of your
personal vision – the results you most want to create in your life – alongside a realistic
assessment of the current reality of your life today” (p. 7). All learners – students and
adults - in the school community need to be engaged in the learning process in order to
develop a commitment to lifelong learning (Thompson et al., 2004). Shared vision
involves the coming together of people with a common purpose or goal. Schools with a
shared vision have a common understanding of a preferred future expressed in strategies
or practices (Senge, 2012). A shared vision must be just that – shared – and not just the
idea of a charismatic leader (Thompson et al, 2004). A mental model allows a learner to

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

22

“more clearly and honestly define current reality” (Senge, 2012, p. 8). Mental models
allow educators to have the fortitude to try new strategies and programs. Similarly,
mental models can be obstacles to change in individuals and organizations (Thompson et
al., 2004). Team learning relates to the interaction between individuals in the learning
process. Not limited to classrooms, this can be cultivated outside of the classroom, inside
the classroom, and between other members of the school community (Senge, 2012). The
foundation of team learning is the use of “techniques such as dialogue and skillful
discussion” (Senge, 2012, p. 8). The fifth discipline, systems thinking, is defined as “a
body of knowledge and tools that help us see underlying patterns and how they can be
changed” (Thompson et al., 2004, p. 4). Individuals come to understand how variables
are related and can be changed within a system or systems. Senge (2012, p. 8) stated,
“Systems thinking is a powerful practice for finding the leverage needed to achieve the
most constructive change.” The successful integration of these five disciplines can be
leveraged by all members of the school community in order to grow and recreate schools
to best serve students who will be entering “a postindustrial and increasingly connected
world” (Senge, 2012, p. 9).
In addition to Senge’s description of a learning organization, others offered
insight into the necessary conditions for improving classroom instruction through
collaborative efforts. Supovitz and Christman (2003) outlined what school leaders and
systems can do to support teachers in learning communities to impact instructional
outcomes. First, professional learning experiences that emphasize systems and protocols
to analyze student learning need to be provided for all educators. While these systems
and protocols are essential they will not prove beneficial if teachers are not provided with

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

23

“blocks of protected time together in order to engage in conversations about standards for
student performance and how their instruction produces the student learning that they
find represented in their students’ work” (Supovitz & Christman, 2003, p. 7). Second,
districts and schools need to provide information about student learning to teachers
through access to meaningful student data. Without access to quality data, collaborative
teams are missing an essential ingredient to the PLC process. Third, a process needs to
be in place to provide feedback to teacher teams to promote a cycle of continuous
improvement and identify areas where professional learning can support team growth and
development. Supovitz and Christman (2003) also identified two elements essential to
the strength of collaborative teams in terms of leadership and scope. In terms of
leadership, a team leader should be identified to guide team decision-making and
determine team roles and responsibilities. Teams will also benefit from both a horizontal
and vertical component. Teams benefit from members teaching at the same grade level
(horizontal component) in order to collaborate around the same curriculum with a similar
group of students. A vertical component exists when teachers can collaborate around
curricular and instructional objectives over several grade levels.
Similar to Senge’s (2012) identification of disciplines in learning organizations,
Huffman et al. (2001) described characteristics that are foundational to a school’s
readiness to become a professional learning community. The themes of “proactive
principal and teacher leadership, purposeful decision making, and job-embedded
professional development” (Huffman et al., 2001, p. 454) were identified by schools and
teachers. School leaders were purposeful in building a context for PLCs in schools and
formed a culture of collaboration by producing structures for such teams. Teachers in

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

24

these schools were actively involved in decision-making about curriculum, instruction,
and improvement planning. As Supovitz and Christman (2003) found in their work,
principals in schools identified as having the elements to work as effective PLCs
reorganized time in the school day to allow teachers time to collaborate about student
learning. Principals were careful to give support to teachers by providing appropriate
instructional materials and even placing certain classrooms near one another to allow
teachers to capitalize on collaborative opportunities. Teachers and principals in these
schools worked together to identify programs that met the school’s vision and helped
teachers increase their effectiveness. Consequently, professional learning tended to focus
around student learning and was led by educators within the school. This professional
learning took the shape of formal training sessions, coaching relationships, and group
studies (Huffman et al., 2001).
Influence of School Leadership
School leaders need to take an active role in establishing and sustaining learning
communities. Whether through the development of a shared vision (Senge, 2012), the
“provision of time and resources” (Supovitz & Christman, 2003, p. 7), or the
implementation of professional learning (Huffman et al., 2001), effective school
leadership is foundational to effective PLCs. Thompson et al. (2004) described a school
leader who develops a strong learning organization (Senge, 2012) as one who provides
job-embedded professional learning opportunities based on teacher feedback and input.
Such a learning organization is also characterized by a team decision-making model
where all stakeholders have the opportunity to play a role. A leader who “understands
and encourages the five disciplines, along with data informed decisions, relationships,

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

25

and risk taking” (Thompson et al., 2004, p. 12) is one who creates a learning organization
that positively impacts student outcomes.
Grissom et al. (2021) shared similar insight about principal leadership. To
support student learning, school principals must understand high-quality instruction, be
able to evaluate the extent to which it can be observed in a school, and provide actionable
feedback to teachers. To support high-quality instruction, principals must understand
adult learning and provide “high-impact professional development offerings” (p. 54).
Professional learning that creates and sustains PLCs needs to be prioritized. To support
and foster productive collaboration, principals must be able to provide teachers with data
about student learning and growth. As with Senge’s (2012) discipline of shared vision,
Grissom et al. (2021) identified the cultivation of a shared sense of responsibility by
principals when teachers were provided with time to collaborate, access to data in order
to analyze student learning, and the ability to make decisions about curriculum,
instruction, and assessment practices.
Fullan et al. (2014) validated the importance of the school principal in improving
student learning through the PLC process. Teachers working together in “purposeful
ways” (Fullan et al., 2014, p. 65) over time can produce improvement in student learning.
The school principal is integral in making this practice explicit and creating the link to
student learning. If the school principal is unable to make this link then a PLC will fail.
The way the school principal creates this link is through providing professional learning
experiences that allow teachers to analyze learning data in order to meet the individual
learning needs of students (Fullan et al., 2014).

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

26

Importance of Teacher Leadership
The importance of the teacher as the heart of any school improvement process –
whether PLCs or any other type of reform – is obvious. Teachers often are the first to
recognize the change that is needed and can identify what is necessary to improve student
learning outcomes. Shared leadership allows teachers to see greater meaning in the work
of PLCs (Wilson, 2016). Teacher leaders are able to support collaboration and “are the
backbone of a purposeful and sustainable professional learning plan” (McBrayer et al.,
2018, p. 32). When teacher leaders are trusted with facilitating the PLC process and
professional learning experiences, teacher buy-in and ownership of the process then leads
to “purposeful and sustainable” (McBrayer et al., 2018, p. 42) PLCs. Teacher leaders are
further supported when school leaders are transparent with the entire school about the
purpose of the work of such leaders within PLCs (Wilson, 2016). This teacher leadership
is further entrenched in the culture of the school and in PLCs as teachers identify their
expertise in school improvement and increasingly share their instructional practices
(Berry et al., 2005).
Professional Development and Adult Learning
Professional learning is integral to the development of a learning organization
particularly as it can lead to greater personal mastery, shared vision, mental models, team
learning, and systems thinking (Senge, 2012). Schools have used a variety of methods to
contribute to professional learning with mixed results. Westover (2009) described that
effective professional learning experiences for adult learners involve a needs assessment,
and consider “motivation, reinforcement, retention, transference, and evaluation” (p.
436). Educators are more likely to participate in professional learning when they can see

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

27

the value of the learning on their practices and student experiences in their classrooms.
Similarly, if a professional learning experience is developed specifically to help provide
solutions for a current problem, educator motivation to participate will be increased.
While educators have not always given positive feedback on workshops, this model of
professional learning is effective when research-based practices are shared, the
participants take an active role in the learning, and teachers are given the opportunity to
apply the learning to their own settings (Guskey & Yoon, 2009). Professional learning
experiences need to be consistent and consider the prior knowledge of the adult learner
(Westover, 2009). Guskey and Yoon (2009) reinforced this idea of consistent follow up
on professional learning experiences and stated positive improvements occur in student
learning when such experiences are both structured and sustained over a significant
amount of time. Analysis shows that at least 30 or more contact hours – hours spent
specifically focused on content or instructional improvement in an organized and
purposeful manner - are critical to the success of a professional learning initiative or
program (Guskey & Yoon, 2009).
Sustainability of Effective PLCs
In order to sustain the PLC process at an effective level, it needs to become part
of the culture of the school (Hipp et al., 2008; Roy & Hord, 2006; Willis & Templeton,
2017) and be supported at a high level by school leadership (Hargreaves & Fink, 2004;
Hipp et al., 2008; Raywid, 1993; Roy & Hord, 2006; Willis & Templeton, 2017).
Sustainable and effective PLCs are characterized by a transparency of practice as
educators review lessons with one another, provide feedback, and continually seek to
learn more about the progress of their students. A sustainable PLC process requires

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

28

teachers to share openly with one another, ask for support from colleagues, and observe
teacher practices throughout the school (Roy & Hord, 2006). As schools develop and
embed a shared vision (Senge, 2012), a shared experience and common language
develops and leads to collective learning through the PLC process (Hipp et al., 2008). In
such an environment, conflict over ideas and philosophies is inevitable. Members of a
sustainable PLC are able to manage and resolve conflicts over educational philosophy,
school and student learning goals, and improvement strategies (Roy & Hord, 2006).
Trust among PLC members is paramount to this process. Furthermore, the element of
trust needs to exist throughout the learning organization. Principals identify the ability to
trust teachers as foundational to the PLC process. Principals need to trust that teachers
will fulfill their responsibilities inside and outside of the classroom. Teachers also
identify that principals need to listen to teacher input and feedback as this practice leads
to feelings of mutual respect and value (Willis & Templeton, 2017). The culture of a
school is not static but is continually changing over time. The school culture impacts the
sustainability of PLCs as the established norms, values, and relationships influence the
PLC process. The establishment of the PLC process becomes rooted in school culture
and becomes a guide for strategies, goals, and outcomes (Hipp et al., 2008).
In addition to the establishment of a trusting culture throughout the school,
sustainable PLCs are characterized by supportive and shared leadership (Roy & Hord,
2006). Supovitz and Christman (2003) identified that school leaders who provide
structures, strategies, and supports positively influence the sustainability of PLCs.
Structures are identified as practices that protect time and create conditions that lead to
collaboration and involvement. School leaders must share strategies and techniques that

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

29

link instruction and student performance. Supports include job-embedded professional
learning that improves instruction and equips teachers with impactful skills (Hipp et al.,
2008). The concept of shared leadership includes teachers in the facilitation of the PLC
process. Mutual trust is a hallmark of shared leadership in that school principals trust
teachers in their PLC work and teachers trust principals in their leadership of the school.
Mutual trust creates buy-in from teachers as well (Willis & Templeton, 2017).
Sustainability of leadership is also important as a school strives to become a PLC
and is a key factor in long-term change (Hargreaves & Fink, 2004). The school leader is
a driving factor in continuous improvement. Principals who “maintain learning and
growth over time embrace change and provide supports for staff and students throughout
the change process” (Hipp et al., 2008, p. 176). Willis and Templeton (2017) found that
some school leaders believe “that consistent leadership was the most important element
to the sustainability of PLCs” (p. 34).
Sustainable and effective PLCs have time built-in to the school day so teachers
can focus on student learning, analyze data, and review the results of their instruction
(DuFour et al., 2010). Raywid (1993) noted that the time provided for this important
work must be part of the school day and must occur for a sustained interval – it cannot be
divided or interrupted by teacher duties or related tasks. The allotted time must be
adequate enough to provide the opportunity for reflection, the identification of corrective
action when necessary, and the ability to respond to new decisions. Teachers and school
leaders share agreement about the importance of time to collaborate around student
learning. Principals must find and create time in the schedule in order for PLCs to be
effective and sustainable (Willis & Templeton, 2017).

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

30

Teacher Perceptions of PLCs
As described previously, there is a close connection between the definition of a
learning organization (Senge, 2012) and a professional learning community (DuFour,
2004). A professional learning community is defined as “an ongoing process in which
educators work collaboratively in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action
research to achieve better results for the students they serve” (DuFour et al., 2010, p. 11).
As introduced earlier in this review, DuFour et al. (2010) identify six elements of the
PLC process:
● a focus on learning created by a clear vision, collective commitments, and
goal-setting,
● a collaborative culture with a focus on learning for all,
● collective inquiry into best practice and current reality,
● action orientation: learning by doing,
● a commitment to continuous improvement, and
● a results orientation. (p. 11)
Senge (2012) define a learning organization as one in which all involved in the system
work together toward a commonly understood goal or outcome. Five disciplines are
practiced and leveraged to create organizations that learn. These disciplines - systems
thinking, personal mastery, working with mental models, building shared vision, and
team learning – provide a great deal of leverage for those who want to foster and build
better organizations and communities (Senge, 2012).
Research suggests that teachers generally perceive involvement in PLCs to
address the six elements of a PLC (DuFour et al., 2010) and the disciplines involved in

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

31

learning organizations (Senge, 2012). Teachers report an increase in collegiality and a
greater shared learning environment when engaging in a learning community.
Professional dialogue increased and job-embedded professional learning occurs in a more
consistent manner. Teachers also shared that active engagement in PLCs led to greater
professional knowledge and the ability to achieve greater student outcomes (Peppers,
2015). Stollar (2014) noted that teachers had a positive perception of PLC
implementation in the sense that the process created a common language, vision, and
goals around student outcomes and learning, increased feelings of teacher effectiveness,
and made the use of data for instructional decision-making a more common practice.
Stollar (2014) also explained that teachers felt a greater level of trust with their
colleagues. Teachers also perceive that collective responsibility and shared decisionmaking in the PLC process is correlated with the involvement of the school leader in
creating a shared vision and purpose (Davis, 2017).
As teachers report a greater sense of effectiveness, increased collaboration, and
collective responsibility, they also report a greater confidence in their capability to
positively impact student learning. This effect, defined as collective efficacy, fosters a
greater commitment to student learning (Goddard et al., 2004). Collective efficacy has
been identified to be one of the most powerful predictors of student success (Donohoo et
al., 2018).
Benefits of PLCs
Vescio et al. (2008) conducted a comprehensive review of the literature to
examine the impact of PLCs on teacher practice and student learning. The following
questions guided their research:

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

32

1. In what ways does teaching practice change as a result of participation in a
PLC? What aspects of the PLCs support these changes?
2. Does the literature support the assumption that student learning increases
when teachers participate in a PLC? And, what aspects of the PLCs support
increased student learning? (Vescio et al., 2008, p. 81)
In this review, it was concluded that instructional practices of teachers became more
student-centered over time. Teachers utilized more flexible student groupings and
adjusted the pace of instruction in order to accommodate the varying needs of students.
Staff members are more likely to identify where students are struggling and prioritize
intervention strategies (Roy & Hord, 2006). The presence of PLCs in schools has been
shown to increase the social support for greater achievement while also increasing the use
of higher ordering thinking and depth of knowledge observed in classrooms (Louis &
Marks, 1998). Strahan (2003) described in a case study analysis that teachers reported a
change in attitude regarding student learning and a greater receptiveness by teachers to be
more transparent about their instructional practices. Another positive change to teacher
practice is the sense of a greater authority by teachers in making decisions around
curriculum, instructional strategies, and methods of assessment (Vescio et al., 2008).
Supovitz and Christman (2003) found that giving teachers the power to be decision
makers in the learning process was integral to achieving greater student learning
outcomes. Another element of PLCs that impact the overall school culture is the
participation in continuous learning (Vescio et al., 2008). Vescio et al. (2008) indicated
that “participation in learning communities facilitates professional development that is

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

33

driven by the needs of teachers as they are naturally engaged in efforts to accomplish
their goals” (p. 86).
Berry et al. (2005) described the evidence of the impact on student achievement in
an elementary school over a 4-year period. Assessment results from this school indicate
that just more than 50% of students were at or above grade level at the onset of the case
study. After four years of PLC implementation, greater than 80% of students were
reported to be at or above grade level (Berry et al., 2005). Further evidence of student
learning growth can be found in a comparison between elementary-aged students in a
district where a target school implemented PLCs and another school did not. Hollins et
al. (2004) reported an increase of 28% of second-grade students that scored above the
25th percentile on a state assessment in the target school over a two-year period. The
other school in the district only reported a 12% increase over the same period of time.
Similar results were reported by third-grade students in the target school (Hollins et al.,
2004). Supovitz and Christman (2003) cited evidence that “those communities that did
engage in structured, sustained, and supported instructional discussions and that
investigated the relationships between instructional practices and student work produced
significant gains in student learning” (p. 5) in the two sites they studied. Specifically, it
was noted that student literacy gains were evident. To achieve such growth, teachers
implemented learning centers and provided targeted assistance to all students.
Professional learning occurred within the PLC structure along with creating a shared
purpose among the teachers (Supovitz & Christman, 2003). To summarize, participation
in PLCs is shown to impact teaching practice as instruction becomes more studentcentered over time. Increased collaboration, greater teacher authority, an intense focus

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

34

on student learning, and professional learning experiences positively influence the school
culture. Students are also impacted as an improvement in student achievement can be
linked to the focus on student learning and growth in the PLC process (Vescio et al.,
2008).
Professional learning communities provide teachers with the opportunity to
discuss learning as it applies to specific academic content areas. Teachers share lesson
plans, discuss instructional strategies, and engage in curriculum writing. In one school,
teachers reported growth in curriculum writing and professional development
opportunities. It was also shared that there was greater alignment in the curriculum since
the teachers had been meeting weekly (Battersby & Verdi, 2015).
Cautions Related to PLCs
While positive impacts in teacher practices and student outcomes can be
identified in the literature, the implementation of the PLC process does have challenges
and obstacles of which to be aware. While a learning organization is defined by personal
mastery, shared vision, the development of mental models, team learning, and systems
thinking (Senge, 2012), conflict can exist at any point and at any place in the
organization.
Achinstein (2002) defined conflict as “a situation and an ongoing process…
whereby individuals or groups come to sense that there is a difference, problem, or
dilemma and thus begin to identify the nature of their differences of belief or action” (p.
425). Conflict over ideas and information is not to be avoided. A learning organization
needs to be able to manage and navigate conflicts of philosophies, goals, and strategies
(Roy & Hord, 2006). Simply working towards a collaborative culture can naturally lead

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

35

to conflict. The practice of reflection may reveal differing philosophies and values which
could result in ongoing conflicts (Achinstein, 2002). A clear challenge in collaborative
work is the idea of conflict. PLC members need to engage in transparent and honest
discussions and not allow these discussions to elicit tension between group members
(Dooner et al., 2008).
Conflict can also be created when borders are defined within the PLC – some
members are considered to be insiders while other members are considered to be
outsiders. This process can lead to a definition of opposing groups or ideas. Conversely,
this type of conflict can lead to an expansion of ideas or the consideration of alternative
philosophies by group members. How the PLC responds to this type of conflict often
dictates if the conflict builds or inhibits the development of the collaborative team
(Achinstein, 2002). More research needs to be undertaken in order to fully comprehend
the challenges associated with starting PLCs (Dooner et al., 2008).
Another caution related to the implementation of PLCs is the thought that the
process can lead to a positivist approach to reform (Servage, 2009). Positivists believe in
the use of scientific and research-based practices confirmed through the improvement of
scores on standardized tests is a true commitment to learning for all students (O’Neill,
2004). PLCs emphasize three core principles or ideas:
● a focus on student learning,
● a culture of collaboration, and
● a focus on results (DuFour, 2004, p. 8).
DuFour et al. (2005) also shared four key questions educators use to meet these core
principles and achieve a purposeful focus on student learning:

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

36

1. What is it we want our students to learn?
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?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are already
proficient? (p. 15)
While the focus on the three core principles and the responses to the four questions
maximize the efficiency of the PLC process and create evidence of work, this can be
viewed by educators as too limiting and not trusting teachers to engage in work on the
behalf of students without this level of structure (Servage, 2009). Peppers (2015) shared
that this process can stifle teacher creativity. The concern becomes that educators will
reject this approach and the PLC process due to the focus on standardization of
“assessments, reporting practices, intervention protocols, and pedagogical best practices”
(Servage, 2009, p. 164). Teachers are also sensitive to the time that meetings take in the
PLC process which can take away from time to plan for instruction and to intervene with
struggling students (Peppers, 2015).
Another caution has been identified with implementing PLCs in the academic
department structure of American high schools. Talbert and McLaughlin (1994)
described that the traditional culture sometimes developed in the department structure
makes it hard for teachers to consider alternative ways to support the academic growth of
students. The beliefs teachers hold about the ability of all students to learn can help to
facilitate the PLC process or “actively undermine” (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994, p. 140)
the implementation of PLCs. High school departments vary greatly in their culture and,

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

37

consequently, the successful implementation of PLCs can be inconsistent. Those
departments which embrace traditional instructional practices and have differing
philosophies on the ability of all students to learn often find that their thinking interferes
with a “commitment to meeting the needs of growing proportions of nontraditional
students who are often unprepared to learn” (Talbert & McLaughlin, 1994, p. 143).
As schools of all sizes consider implementing the PLC process, there is a question
about how to meet the collaboration needs of those teachers who are the only teacher of a
specific subject (Hansen, 2015) in the school. Similarly, a teacher could teach multiple
grades or a number of different courses which limit time for or the ability to participate in
collaboration (Willis & Templeton, 2017). In these cases, it can be commonplace for
educators in these situations to be excluded from the PLC process. Naturally, these
teachers tend to become resistant to the implementation of PLCs in the organization
(Hansen, 2015). Or, these educators are placed in learning communities that are tailored
to teachers of other subjects. Such an approach is a missed opportunity for teacher
development (Battersby & Verdi, 2015).
Summary
As long as schools have existed, there has been a focus on improving student
outcomes. Hallmarks of reform efforts in the United States of America include the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, No Child Left Behind, and the Every Student
Succeeds Act. A Nation at Risk asserted that America’s schools were failing and in need
of great reform (National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983). Over time
both a positivist model of reform, characterized by the use of scientific and researchbased practices confirmed through the improvement of scores on standardized tests, and a

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

38

constructivist model of reform, defined as a process by which learners develop and build
their own meaning, have been general approaches to improving student learning
outcomes.
Teams of teachers, defined as professional learning communities, have taken a
constructivist approach to school reform by ensuring that all students learn, creating a
culture of collaboration, and focusing on results (DuFour, 2004). When implemented,
facilitated, and grown effectively PLCs have created the elements found in a successful
learning organization (Senge, 2006). Huffman et al. (2001) included the components of
supportive school leadership, shared decision-making, and authentic professional
development as conditions that improve instruction and student outcomes in schools.
Successful PLCs have supportive structures such as time in the school day for
collaboration, consider trust as a characteristic of their collaborative teams, and are
transparent about their instruction and the corresponding impact on student learning.
When such components are evident within PLCs and are a part of the overall
school culture, student experiences are prioritized in the learning environment. Trust and
transparency among the members of the PLC leads to an identification of successful
instructional strategies and a positive impact on student learning. Furthermore, educators
in the learning organization are able to identify the structures, resources, and conditions
necessary in PLCs that lead to favorable teacher and student growth.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

39

CHAPTER III
Methodology
This chapter will describe the surveys, interviews, and data used in this mixedmethods research study to answer research questions related to the professional learning
community (PLC) framework being utilized in a large public high school. Included in
the chapter is an explanation of the research setting and a description of those who
participated in the study.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to determine how the focus on the professional
learning community (PLC) framework impacts both the pedagogical practices of teachers
and student academic achievement. The structures, resources, and conditions within the
PLC framework that are most favorable for teacher growth will also be investigated. The
results of this study will be shared with professional educators in the school, district level
administrators responsible for teaching and learning, and building level administrators in
other schools within the district. The outcomes of this study will aid in strengthening the
PLC framework, positively impacting student academic achievement, and identifying
professional learning experiences that will grow and expand the effectiveness of PLCs
throughout the school.
The review of literature revealed a significant amount of research that described
the characteristics of PLCs. DuFour et al. (2010) defined a professional learning
community as an “ongoing process in which educators work collaboratively in recurring
cycles of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students
they serve” (p. 11). Additionally, DuFour et al. (2010) identified six elements of the PLC

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

40

process. All learning organizations make a commitment to the learning of all students.
Hord (1997) identified five attributes of professional learning communities.
While educational reform is focused on improved student outcomes, educators need an
environment where they can share about their practices, take risks, and grow as
professionals (Hord, 1997).
DuFour (2004) outlined the three core principles of a PLC as: ensuring that all
students learn, a culture of collaboration, and a focus on results. DuFour et al. (2010)
shared four key questions educators use to meet these core principles and achieve a
purposeful focus on student learning:
1. What is it we want our students to learn?
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?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are already
proficient? (p. 15)
In answering these questions, educators review curriculum standards in order to
determine what students must learn during each unit, make decisions about the pace at
which instruction is to occur, and individually determine the instructional strategies to be
used. These elements, attributes, and principles provided the foundation for the
implementation of PLCs at Avon Grove High School.
The literature review also outlined the change in teacher practices and impact on
student achievement through teacher participation in a PLC. Roy and Hord (2006) shared
that school staff members are more likely to identify where students are struggling and

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

41

prioritize intervention strategies through PLC involvement. Another change in teacher
practice is the greater sense of authority by teachers in making decisions around
curriculum, instructional strategies, and methods of assessment (Vescio et al., 2008).
Evidence of student learning growth can be found in a comparison between elementaryaged students in a district where a target school implemented PLCs and another school
did not. In the target school, Hollins et al. (2004) reported a 28% increase of secondgrade students that scored above the 25th percentile on a state assessment over a two-year
period. The other school in the district, which did not implement PLCs, only reported a
12% increase over the same period of time. Similar results as those realized by secondgrade students were reported by third-grade students in the target school (Hollins et al.,
2004).
Research and the literature review done as part of this study supported the use of
the PLC framework to grow teacher practices and increase student achievement.
Through a shared mission and collective commitment to collaboration and student
learning, PLCs provide a framework for continuous improvement. The researcher is
interested in learning how teacher practice has changed in a public high school and how
student academic achievement has been impacted since the implementation of the PLC
framework four years prior to the start of this study. Additionally, the analysis of this
information will allow the researcher to describe the structures, resources, and conditions
conducive to the successful implementation of PLCs and to identify professional learning
experiences to better support teachers and PLCs throughout the school.
Within the PLC framework, structures are identified as practices that protect time
and create conditions that lead to collaboration and involvement. Conditions that support

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

42

the PLCs include the components of supportive school leadership, shared decisionmaking, and authentic professional development as conditions that improve instruction
and student outcomes in schools (Huffman et al., 2001). Resources can be defined as the
provision of timely and authentic professional learning experiences and access to data
that will guide instructional decision-making.
Research Questions
The three research questions that will be investigated to determine the impact of
PLCs are as follows:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning communities (PLCs)
in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices?
2. When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within academic content areas,
how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement?
3. What supportive structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for
teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?
Research Setting and Participants
Avon Grove High School is the lone high school in the Avon Grove School
District. The school is located in a suburban area in the southeastern region of
Pennsylvania. Students who attend the school reside in two boroughs and five
surrounding townships. The enrollment consists of 1,743 students in grades nine to
twelve. There are 107 classroom teachers in the school. Over 5,000 students are enrolled
in the entire school district.
Over 90 classroom teachers completed the survey used as part of this study.
Those who completed the survey represented each academic content area in the school.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

43

Follow up interviews were conducted with nine classroom teachers. As with the survey,
all academic content areas were represented in this portion of the study. Also included
were students who completed the Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT) as part of the
benchmarking data collected in each class with a year-end Keystone Exam. Those
classes are Algebra One, Biology, and tenth grade English/Language Arts. Data from the
CDT was collected for the last five school years.
Project History
The implementation of PLCs at this school started formally at the beginning of
the 2017-2018 school year. In the previous year (2016-2017) the school’s bell schedule
was changed and created the opportunity for academic departments to have a common
planning time. This time was not available with the bell schedule used prior to the 20162017 school year.
First Year of Implementation
The concept of initiating PLCs at the school was identified as a building goal for
the 2017-2018 school year. In order to prepare to meet this goal, nine staff members
including the principal, assistant principal, teachers, instructional coaches, and a
technology specialist traveled to Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, in
May, 2017. The purpose of this trip was to attend a professional learning experience that
examined the policies and procedures Adlai Stevenson High School used to support
professional learning communities. Dr. Richard P. DuFour, considered a pioneer of
PLCs, was principal and superintendent of this school from 1983 to 2002 (Adlai
Stevenson High School, n.d.). The group that went to Adlai Stevenson High School met
throughout the summer of 2017 in order to consider how to best implement professional

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

44

learning communities at Avon Grove High School. This committee continued to meet
throughout the 2017-2018 school year to determine goals, identify ongoing professional
learning needs, and facilitate professional learning experiences for the faculty and staff of
the school.
At the start of the 2017-2018 school year the four questions of the PLC
framework were shared to form the foundation of PLC work at the school. Those
questions are:
1. What is it we want our students to learn?
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?
4. How will we enrich and extend the learning for students who are already
proficient? (DuFour, 2005, p. 15)
Additionally, in order to support the understanding of the four questions and the PLC
framework, school faculty members learned about the six essential characteristics of a
PLC (DuFour et al., 2010).
As this was the first time academic departments were working together in a
sustained and collaborative manner, each PLC established group norms within the first
few weeks of the school year. These norms included commitments to being fully present
during team meetings and listening to each other respectfully. Each PLC also developed
collective commitments to describe specific behaviors educators would exhibit as
members of a PLC. Examples of collective commitments determined by PLCs in the

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

45

school included a commitment to use a variety of data sources in making instructional
decisions and a commitment to administering common assessments whenever possible.
Working towards a collaborative culture can naturally lead to conflict. Strong
teams will recognize this conflict and work to face conflict as a productive struggle. Roy
and Hord (2006) noted that a learning organization needs to be able to manage and
navigate conflicts of philosophies, goals, and strategies. The development of norms and
collective commitments are a proactive step towards productively and appropriately
responding to obstacles and challenges. Once determined by each PLC, norms and
collective commitments were shared with the school’s administrative team.
Each PLC reviewed protocols to keep meetings focused on student learning.
Meeting protocols focused on five areas that related to the four questions of the PLC
framework. Those areas were further broken down with guiding questions (DuFour et
al., 2010). The PLC focus areas and guiding questions were:
1. Reflection
a. What’s working?
b. What are instructional challenges?
2. What do students need to know and be able to do?
a. What is the task or instructional focus?
b. What is the standard or learning target?
c. What are the instructional strategies?
3. How will we know that they learned it?
a. How is the task supporting the learning outcome?
b. What student samples or data are we reviewing?

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

46

c. What is our common formative assessment?
4. What will we do when they haven’t learned it?
a. Which changes in instructional practices do we need to consider?
b. What Tier 1 academic or behavioral supports shall we consider?
5. What will we do when they already know it?
a. What instructional practices or academic extensions will we consider to
enrich learning?
To further focus the work on student learning, each PLC developed SMART
(specific, measurable, attainable, results-based and relevant, and time-bound) goals.
Each SMART goal specified what students would be able to do (a specific, measurable
action) and what would be the evidence of students reaching that goal. PLCs shared their
SMART goals with two other PLCs in order to receive feedback prior to sharing them
with the building administrative team.
Early feedback from teachers and academic department chairpersons indicated
that PLCs were struggling with determining specific learning targets from curricular
standards. In order to address this concern, a professional learning experience was
designed by building administrators, instructional coaches, and teachers to support all
educators with this work. Teachers who had experience writing curriculum and
developing learning targets were asked to model the process of determining learning
targets for their peers. Several teacher pairs were identified so the learning groups could
be as small as possible to promote the sharing of ideas and a safe environment for
inquiry. The following process and guiding questions were used to unpack the standards,

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

47

determine the depth of knowledge associated with the standard, and identify performance
tasks linked to the standard (Boyles, 2018):
1. Identify the standard.
a. What would student mastery of this standard look like?
b. Are there any released items for this standard (SAS, College Board, etc.)?
2. Based on number 1, what is the depth of knowledge (DoK) of this standard?
a. DoK 1 - What Is “The Knowledge”?
i. What, who, when, where?
ii. Acquisition and gathering of knowledge, but does not involve much
processing or creation?
iii. Questions are usually asked in a way to arrive at a correct or incorrect
answer?
iv. Recall or reproduction of a procedure?
b. DoK 2 - How Can “The Knowledge” Be Used?
i. Demonstrate and communicate concepts and procedures?
ii. Students think critically about how they could use the concepts to
answer questions or address problems?
iii. Emphasis is on the application of ideas and concepts, not just the content
itself?
c. DoK 3 - Why Can “The Knowledge” Be Used?
i. Shift from application to analysis and evaluation?
ii. Not just how to use a concept or procedure, but why it can/should be
used?

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

48

iii. Thinking can become more creative and strategic, as well as critique the
thinking and points of view of others?
3. Based on number 1 and number 2, what performance task would show
mastery of this standard?
4. What would student progress look like (sub-steps) throughout the learning
(variety of experiences and DoK)?
a. What then are the student look-fors on the way to mastery for this
standard?
b. Are these then the learning targets for this standard?
Near the conclusion of the 2017-2018 school year another group of educators and
administrators from the school visited Adlai Stevenson High School. While the purpose
of this visit was the same as the initial experience – to examine the policies and
procedures this school used to support PLCs - a secondary purpose was to gain additional
capacity to build, grow, and sustain PLCs in the school.
Through the development of PLC norms and collective commitments, the use of
meeting protocols, and the practice of unpacking standards to determine learning targets
and performance tasks, a great deal was accomplished in the first year of implementation
at the school. Identified priorities for the second year of implementation included the
production of a PLC handbook for all educators in the school, further development of
common assessments, and the connection of a SMART goal to a student learning
objective (SLO). This work was overseen by a group of building administrators,
instructional coaches, and district administrators. The team met weekly to plan, facilitate,
and assess the professional learning goals and practices of the school.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

49

Second Year of Implementation
Similar to the start of the previous year, all PLCs redeveloped their norms and
collective commitments. There were two main reasons for this:
● Most PLCs had new and different team members
● The learning and experience from the first year of implementation may lead to
adaptations and adjustments to the norms and collective commitments.
A team of educators representing both groups who had visited Adlai Stevenson
High School came together in the summer prior to the start of the school year to develop
a resource that would promote common language and a common purpose for the PLC
framework throughout the school. This group researched materials, resources, and best
practices in order to develop a tool that would be helpful and useful to all educators in the
school. This information was put in a binder and provided to each professional staff
member at the opening inservice session of the school year. The binders were expected
to be taken by professional staff members to each PLC meeting. The following topics
were covered in the handbook:
I. Overview
A. Six essential characteristics of a PLC
B. Three big ideas
C. Four essential questions
D. Team building
E. Roles and expectations
II. Launching your PLC
A. Norms

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

50

B. Assessing your current reality (PLC self-evaluation rubric)
C. Dealing with consensus and conflict in Your PLC
III. Engaging in the PLC Cycle
A. SMART goals
B. Plan collaboratively (meeting agenda examples)
C. Guaranteed and viable curriculum
D. Common formative assessment (using an assessment calendar)
E. Data analysis (process/protocol examples)
F. Plan and provide intervention and/or enrichment (Multi-tiered Systems of
Support)
IV. Reflection and self-evaluation tools
V. Frequently asked questions
SMART goal development was emphasized and planned for each unit of
instruction. From the SMART goals, PLCs constructed common formative assessments
when possible. A challenge to this process was noted by those PLCs where teachers did
not teach the same or similar classes as their colleagues. For example, a single art teacher
teaches only ceramics classes while another art teacher teaches only graphic design and
digital arts.
Teachers were encouraged to tie their SMART goal and common assessments to
the SLO development. A SLO is “the implementation of a long-term academic goal or
set of goals created by a teacher or group of teachers using data about students and their
learning over a defined period of time” (National Education Association, 2022, What are
SLOs? section). In order to support teachers and PLCs with this process, SMART goals

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

51

and SLOs were shared with the building administrative team. The building
administrative team reviewed both the SMART goals and the SLOs and suggested, when
necessary, revisions to one or both.
In the spring of this year another group of professional educators from the school
attended a professional learning experience at Adlai Stevenson High School in
Lincolnshire, Illinois. Similar to the previous trips, the purpose of this visit and
professional learning experience was to examine the policies and procedures this school
used to support PLCs and the secondary purpose was to gain additional capacity to build,
grow, and sustain PLCs in the school.
Third Year of Implementation
A group of building administrators, instructional coaches, and district
administrators met weekly to plan, facilitate, and assess the professional learning goals
and practices of the school. The implementation goals for PLCs this year were:
● continued unpacking of curriculum standards to determine learning targets
and performance tasks
● continued development of common assessments
● the development of an asynchronous professional learning course focusing on
the characteristics of high-performing PLCs.
Inservice time was provided to teachers in the fall of this year to allow them to
work together on the continued goals of unpacking curriculum standards and developing
common assessments. PLCs were encouraged to use their meeting times to continue this
work as the unpacking of standards supports the first question of the PLC framework
(What is it we want our students to learn?) and the development of common assessments

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

52

supports the response to the second question of the PLC framework (How will we know
if each student is learning each of the skills, concepts, and dispositions we have deemed
most essential?).
The asynchronous course was developed by the building principal and was
required of all professional educators in the school. Participants accessed the course via
the learning management system utilized by the school district. The course considered:
● What are the indicators of effective teams?
● What does teacher autonomy look like in a high-performing PLC?
● How do high-functioning teams spend their time?
● What does data collection look like in a high functioning PLC?
In this course, professional educators:
● reviewed research on teacher collaboration,
● considered teacher autonomy as it relates to curriculum, instructional
strategies, formative assessment, and summative assessment,
● learned about the practices of high-performing teams,
● described the connection between the four questions of the PLC
framework and the use of data.
This course was delivered and completed in the spring of that year.
In summary, the focus of the third year of PLC implementation in the school was
a commitment to continuous improvement as identified by DuFour et al. (2010, p. 11).
Unfortunately, the progress towards these goals was interrupted by the suspension of inperson learning in the school on March 13, 2020, due to the coronavirus pandemic.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

53

Fourth Year of Implementation
As the coronavirus pandemic continued during the school year, the transitions
between virtual, hybrid, and in-person learning were the focus of educators in all schools.
PLCs continued to meet during this time. Naturally, the focus was more on adapting to
the variety of instructional challenges being faced due the pandemic. However, educators
found it helpful to meet with PLC colleagues as this time was still provided as part of the
school’s daily schedule – regardless of the mode of instruction.
Research Plan
Teams of teachers, defined as professional learning communities, have taken a
constructivist approach to school reform by ensuring that all students learn, creating a
culture of collaboration, and focusing on results (DuFour, 2004). When implemented,
facilitated, and grown effectively PLCs have created the elements found in a successful
learning organization (Senge, 2006). Huffman et al. (2001) included the components of
supportive school leadership, shared decision-making, and authentic professional
development as conditions that improve instruction and student outcomes in schools.
Successful PLCs have supportive structures such as time in the school day for
collaboration, consider trust as a characteristic of their collaborative teams, and are
transparent about their instruction and the corresponding impact on student learning.
PLCs are in their fifth year of implementation at Avon Grove High School. The
purpose of this study is to measure the impact of PLCs on teacher pedagogical practices
and student achievement. In order to determine the answers to the research questions,
participants completed a survey twice during the school year. Some participants also
participated in a semi-structured interview. The impact on student achievement was

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

54

measured by comparing cohort scores on the Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT) for each
year of PLC implementation.
The researcher administered the Professional Learning Communities Assessment
– Revised (PLCA–R) survey to teachers in October and May during a faculty meeting.
The PLCA-R measured staff perceptions of school practices related to six dimensions of
a PLC and its related attributes. The survey consisted of statements about practices that
can occur in schools. Respondents used a 4-point scale to indicate the extent to which
they agree or disagree with each statement.
The PLCA-R reports scores along the following six dimensions:
1. Shared and Supportive Leadership
2. Shared Values and Vision
3. Collective Learning and Application
4. Shared Personal Practice
5. Supportive Conditions-Relationships
6. Supportive Conditions-Structures
A semi-structured interview was conducted with teachers participating in this
action research project. Questions in the interview specifically sought to understand the
perception of teachers on the impact of PLCs on their pedagogical practices. These
interviews were conducted in March.
The Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT) was administered to students in courses
with end-of-course Keystone Exams. The CDTs are a series of assessments administered
in all Algebra 1, Biology, and 10th-grade English/Language Arts classes in order to
provide educators with information to guide instruction and identify areas for

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

55

intervention or enrichment. The CDTs are administered up to three times per year.
These assessments provide quantitative data that measure student achievement and
growth over time. These results were compared to the growth of cohorts from the four
previous school years in order to determine any change in academic achievement since
PLCs have been implemented in this school.
Research Design
This mixed-methods research study used surveys, semi-structured interviews, and
student achievement data to answer the following research questions:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning communities (PLCs)
in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices?
2. When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within academic content areas,
how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement?
3. What supportive structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for
teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?
The mixed-methods approach allowed the researcher to use both quantitative and
qualitative data in order to answer these research questions. Quantitative research is used
“to investigate a particular topic or activity through the measurement of variables in
quantifiable terms” (Mertler, 2019, p. 92). Qualitative research is used “to investigate the
quality of a particular topic or activity” (Mertler, 2019, p. 77). The strengths of using a
mixed-methods approach include: (a) the possibility to provide more clarity than using
only one research methodology, (b) the ability to use both types of data to thoroughly
answer the research questions, and (c) the weaknesses present in one type of data can be
limited due to the strengths associated with another type of data (Mertler, 2019).

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

56

One strategy for collecting quantitative data used in this study was through the
administration of the Professional Learning Communities Assessment – Revised (PLCA–
R) survey. The PLCA-R is included in Appendix A. The PLCA-R was administered
online to research participants twice during the school year. The PLCA-R measures staff
perceptions of school practices related to six dimensions of a PLC and its related
attributes. The survey consisted of 52 statements about practices that can occur in
schools. Respondents used a four-point scale to indicate the extent to which they agree or
disagree with each statement.
The PLCA-R provided data to answer research question one (What are teachers’
perceptions of PLCs in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices?) and research
question three (What supportive structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable
for teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?). As the PLCA-R is an online survey
all collected data is available only to the researcher through a secure server on a
password-protected website.
Additional quantitative data was collected by examining the performance of
student cohort groups on the Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT). The CDT was
administered to students in courses with end-of-course Keystone Exams. The CDT are a
series of assessments administered in all Algebra One, Biology, and 10th-grade
English/Language Arts classes that provide educators with information to guide
instruction and identify areas for intervention or enrichment. The CDT are typically
administered three times per year. These assessments provided data that measured
student achievement and growth over time. The results of the final CDT administration
for each student cohort group were compared for the five years of PLC implementation in

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

57

the school. The CDT answered research question two: When it comes to the
implementation of PLCs within academic content areas, how do the challenges and
benefits impact student achievement? As the CDT is administered in an online format,
all collected data is available only to the researcher through a secure server on a
password-protected website.
The qualitative portion of this mixed-methods study sought to answer all three
research questions: What are teachers’ perceptions of PLCs in terms of the impact on
their pedagogical practices? When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within
academic content areas, how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement?
What structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for teacher growth in the
implementation of PLCs? The interview consisted of seven open-ended questions. The
researcher asked additional clarifying questions when necessary in order to promote the
understanding of the interviewee's responses. The interview questions were developed
by the researcher and reviewed by both the internal committee member and the external
committee member. The interview questions are included in Appendix B. Each
interview was recorded and transcribed. The transcriptions were reviewed by the
researcher and themes in interviewee responses were identified. Table 1 describes the
alignment of the research questions, the data collection methods, and the data sources.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

58

Table 1
Alignment of Research Questions, Data Collection Methods, and Data Sources
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
What are teachers’ perceptions of
professional learning communities
(PLCs) in terms of the impact on their
pedagogical practices?
What supportive structures, resources,
and conditions are most favorable for
teacher growth in the implementation
of PLCs?
When it comes to the implementation
of PLCs within academic content
areas, how do the challenges and
benefits impact student achievement?

What are teachers’ perceptions of
PLCs in terms of the impact on their
pedagogical practices?
When it comes to the implementation
of PLCs within academic content
areas, how do the challenges and
benefits impact student achievement?

DATA COLLECTION
METHOD
Quantitative (52
questions), Qualitative
(comments from
respondents are
available for each
dimension)

Quantitative

Qualitative

DATA SOURCES
Questions 1 – 52 on the
Professional Learning
Communities Assessment
– Revised (PLCA–R).

Results from the
Classroom Diagnostic
Tool (CDT) administered
to students in courses with
end-of-course Keystone
Exams. Five years of
results were analyzed.
Semi-structured interview
questions 1 – 7.
Additional clarifying
questions may be asked to
deepen understanding.

What structures, resources, and
conditions are most favorable for
teacher growth in the implementation
of PLCs?
Prior to conducting any research, approval was obtained from the California
University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board. The Avon Grove School District
also reviewed and approved the request to conduct research within the school district.
The potential participants were each provided with a letter that outlined the purpose of
the study, the anticipated level of involvement by research participants, the expectation of

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

59

anonymity, the ability to withdraw from the study at any point, and the potential benefits
of participating in the study. All potential participants were asked to complete two
electronic surveys – a pre-survey in September and a post-survey in April – and to take
part in an interview. The electronic communication from the California University of
Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board indicating that a request for approval was
submitted by the researcher and approved is in Appendix C.
A cost to the researcher associated with this study was the purchase of 100 online
versions of the PLCA-R survey. This $200 cost allowed the researcher to administer the
PLCA-R to up to 100 participants at the start of the study and at the conclusion of the
study. An additional cost was incurred by the researcher through the transcription of the
interviews completed as part of the study.
There are also indirect costs associated with this study. The implementation of
PLCs relies on time in the school’s master schedule to allow PLCs to meet at during the
school day. Furthermore, the ability of all teachers in a PLC to meet at during the school
day means that the teachers cannot be scheduled for any student supervision or duties
during this time. During the meeting time of each PLC these responsibilities fall to
substitute teachers, other teachers in the building, and building administrators.
The provision of consistent and purposeful professional learning time is important
to the implementation and growth of PLCs. Consistently allotting professional learning
time to the work of PLCs can potentially result in other initiatives not being pursued or
being provided with an appropriate amount of professional learning. Or, it could result in
the building administration needing to find other time (e.g. faculty meetings) for other
initiatives or professional development experiences.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

60

Validity
Action research is depended upon to be useful to its intended audience. Mertler
(2010) defines this level of usefulness or quality as rigor. In action research, rigor is
determined by checking to ensure a lack of bias in results and that the outcomes of the
research are representative of only the perspective of the researcher (Stringer, 2007).
This action research project included data compiled from two administrations of the
Professional Learning Communities Assessment – Revised (PLCA-R), results from the
Classroom Diagnostics Tool (CDT) administered over the last five years, and information
derived from a semi-structured interview. The collection of data from multiple sources
using a variety of methods is referred to as triangulation (Mertler, 2010).
The Professional Learning Community Assessment (PLCA) was developed to
assess how classrooms and schools function as PLCs across a variety of dimensions. The
initial version of the PLCA was revised in 2010 in order to include more items that
allowed for “the collection, interpretation, and use of data in order to focus improvement
efforts” (Hipp & Huffman, 2010, p. 37). Subsequently, a revised version of the PLCA,
the PLCA-R, has replaced the original PLCA. Hipp and Huffman (2010) describe the
following in terms of the internal consistency of the PLCA-R:
Our most recent analyses of this diagnostic tool has 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); Shared Personal Practice (.87); Supportive Conditions –
Relationships (.82); Supportive Conditions – Structures (.88); and a one-factor
solution (.97). (Hipp & Huffman, 2010, p. 37)

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

61

The PLCA-R asks participants to respond to 52 questions using a four-point scale
to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each statement. The PLCA-R
allowed the researcher to collect data related to research questions one and three: What
are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning communities (PLCs) in terms of the
impact on their pedagogical practices? What supportive structures, resources, and
conditions are most favorable for teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?
Following the first administration of the PLCA-R, the data was reviewed with the
participants. In addition to allowing participants to share their thinking about survey
results and a connection to desired future professional learning, the researcher was able to
assess if the participants felt that the PLCA-R results matched their expectations.
According to Mertler (2010), the “rigor of the research is enhanced by allowing
participants to verify that various aspects of the research process adequately and
accurately represent their beliefs, perspectives, and experiences” (p. 145).
The Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT) is a series of online assessments
administered in the content areas of Algebra One, Biology, and 10th grade
English/Language Arts. The assessment is a computer adaptive test meaning the items
adjust to a student’s instructional level based on how that student responds to the first few
items. The CDT data can be used in conjunction with other data to determine how a
student is progressing with acquiring eligible content. According to the Pennsylvania
Department of Education website (n.d., Purpose section), since the CDT is “composed of
multiple-choice items, the CDT is designed to provide real-time results, ensuring valid
and reliable measures of student’s skills.”

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

62

While training is available to educators who may be administering the CDT, it is
unknown how many take advantage of this resource. Consequently, it is hard for the
researcher to conclude that each administration of the CDT follows best practices for test
administration. The procedure for CDT question development is facilitated by the
Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE). A team of teachers participates in a
repeated process to produce test questions that are fair and sensitive, are field-tested, and
modified as necessary.
The collection of student cohort group CDT scores over the five years that PLCs
have been implemented in the school allowed the researcher to analyze data in response
to research question number two: When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within
academic content areas, how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement?
Keystone Exams are end-of-course assessments given to students at the end of Algebra 1,
Biology, and 10th-grade English/Language Arts classes. The researcher chose not to use
this data in response to research question number two as Keystone Exams were not
administered to students at the end of the 2019-2020 school year. Thus, there would be a
gap in the necessary data.
The qualitative portion of the action research was a semi-structured interview.
The interview consisted of 7 open-ended questions developed in conjunction with and
reviewed by the researcher’s internal committee member and external committee
member. The semi-structured format allowed the researcher to ask the same questions to
all participants while following up with an additional question or questions depending on
the situation. The semi-structured interview consisted of questions that provided
responses to research questions one, two, and three: What are teachers’ perceptions of

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

63

professional learning communities (PLCs) in terms of the impact on their pedagogical
practices? When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within academic content areas,
how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement? What supportive
structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for teacher growth in the
implementation of PLCs? The data derived from the semi-structured interview has a
great degree of generalizability as one can conclude the results can be extended to other
public high school settings.
The process of using a variety of instruments, methods, and sources to collect data
is referred to as triangulation (Mertler, 2010). The three sources of data utilized in this
study – the PLCA-R, the CDT, and semi-structured interviews – allowed for multiple
responses to the three research questions of this study. Such triangulation of the data
enhanced the findings related to these research questions.
Summary
This mixed-methods research study used surveys, semi-structured interviews, and
student achievement data to answer the research questions. The study took place during
the fifth year of PLC implementation at Avon Grove High School. Quantitative data was
collected through the administration of the PLCA-R to educators in the school.
Additional quantitative data was gathered by analyzing the CDT scores of students over
the last five years. Qualitative data was gathered through semi-structured interviews
conducted with educators in the school. The following chapter will provide a description
of the results of this research as well as an interpretation of the findings based on an
analysis of the data.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

64

CHAPTER IV
Data Analysis and Results
The purpose of this project was to determine how the PLC framework impacted
the pedagogical practices of teachers and student learning. Were the academic
departments within the high school truly using the PLC framework to drive student
learning? Did the PLC process consider how to best support learners who were
struggling with the acquisition of class content and basic skills while at the same time
designing learning experiences for students who already had mastery over the same class
content? This action research project would lead to a greater understanding of the
structures, resources, and conditions in the PLC framework that contribute to teacher
growth. Finally, appropriate and differentiated professional learning experiences can be
designed based on the data collected through the administration of the Professional
Learning Communities Assessment – Revised and semi-structured teacher interviews.
This chapter will describe the data collection methods for this mixed-methods
project. The quantitative and qualitative data collected will allow the researcher to
answer the research questions listed below.
Research Questions
The research questions that have been established for this study are:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning communities (PLCs)
in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices?
2. When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within academic content areas,
how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement?

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

65

3. What supportive structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for
teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?
Data Analysis
A mixed-methods research design was utilized to collect quantitative and
qualitative data in order to respond to each of the research questions. The first
quantitative measurement was the administration of the Professional Learning
Communities Assessment – Revised (PLCA-R). The PLCA-R was administered to high
school educators at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year and near the conclusion
of the 2021-2022 school year. During the first administration in October, 2021, 92
participants completed the PLCA-R and 80 participants completed the PLCA-R in May,
2022.
For the purpose of this study, specific statements from the PLCA-R were selected
for analysis due to their relevancy to the research questions. The same statements were
analyzed on the first and second administration of the PLCA-R. The strength of
agreement was determined by finding the sum of the number of responses indicating
either “agree” or “disagree” on each analyzed statement and dividing that number by the
total number of responses. The strength of agreement was expressed as a percentage for
each statement. Then, the percent change from the first administration to the second
administration for each selected statement was measured. Of particular interest to the
researcher were those statements with the greatest increase in percent change and the
greatest decrease in the percent change from the first administration to the second
administration.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

66

The overall results for the two administrations of the PLCA-R are listed in Figure
1.
Figure 1
Overall PLCA-R Results by Dimension and Administration

Table 2 describes the mean scores and standard deviations for the six dimensions
measured by the PLCA-R.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

67

Table 2
PLCA-R Mean Scores and Standard Deviations by Dimension
Dimension

First Administration

Shared and Supportive Leadership

Mean
3.07

SD
.68

Second
Administration
Mean
SD
2.79
.67

Shared Values and Visions

2.98

.62

2.86

.60

Collective Learning and
Application

3.03

.64

2.92

.59

Shared Personal Practice

2.83

.78

2.69

.72

Supportive Conditions –
Relationships

3.01

.68

2.90

.67

Supportive Conditions – Structures

2.86

.73

2.80

.72

A second quantitative measurement involved the collection of student
achievement data from the Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT). The CDT is administered
to high school students as part of the benchmarking data collected in each class with an
end-of-course Keystone Exam. Those classes are Algebra One, Biology, and 10th grade
English/Language Arts (Literature). Performance data was collected for a five-year
period in order to assess student growth. It is important to note that each year of data
represented a different cohort of students. The quantitative research methods allowed for
a large amount of data to be collected and minimized the researcher’s bias. The sample
size for the CDT is indicated in Table 3.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

68

Table 3
CDT Sample Size by Year and Content
Content Area

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

2020-2021

2021-2022

Algebra

314

305

289

285

262

Biology

480

401

447

292

275

Literature

616

773

726

431

730

Student scores on the CDT are reported as a scale score. For the purpose of this
research study, student scale scores from the first year of PLC implementation (20172018) were compared with the scale score in each year of PLC implementation
concluding with the current year of PLC implementation (2021-2022) for the Algebra,
Biology, and Literature CDT. In order to determine if a change in student achievement
occurred, an average score on the Algebra, Biology, and Literature CDT was determined
and compared for each school year.
Individual interviews were conducted with high school teachers in order to collect
qualitative data related to the three research questions. The interview followed a semistructured format to allow the researcher to follow up on interviewee responses with
additional questions when necessary. Nine participants completed an interview.
The researcher recorded and transcribed the responses for each interviewee.
Then, the responses to each individual interview question were analyzed in order to
identify the common themes expressed through the interview process. The researcher
highlighted and categorized the common themes and was able to use this data in

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

69

combination with the responses to the statements on the PLCA-R and the student scale
scores from 2017-2018 to 2021-2022 on the Algebra, Biology, and Literature CDT.
This study examined three research questions in order to measure the impact of
teacher participation in PLCs on teacher practices and student learning. Multiple data
sources were included in this study in order to triangulate the data. For the first research
question, the change in strength of agreement to statements on the PLCA-R and
responses to the semi-structured interview were considered. This allowed the researcher
to examine the quantitative data from the PLCA-R and add to this data with the
qualitative data compiled from the semi-structured interviews. The change in student
scale scores on the Algebra One, Biology, and Literature CDT from the 2017-2018
school year through the 2021-2022 school year were analyzed for research question
number two. In order to add to triangulate this data themes identified from specific
questions on the semi-structured interview were included in the analysis. Similar to
question one, for question three the researcher analyzed the change in strength of
agreement to statements on the PLCA-R. Responses to the semi-structured interview and
themes identified from the analysis of the responses added to the data considered for
research question three.
The mixed-methods approach used in this study enhanced the validity of the
research data and findings. Table 4 describes the link between the data collection
instruments and the research questions.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

70

Table 4
Link between Data Collection Instruments and Research Questions
RESEARCH QUESTIONS

DATA
SOURCES

What are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning
communities (PLCs) in terms of the impact on their
pedagogical practices?

PLCA–R, Semistructured
interview

When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within
academic content areas, how do the challenges and
benefits impact student achievement?

CDT, Semistructured
interview

What structures, resources, and conditions are most
favorable for teacher growth in the implementation of
PLCs?

PLCA-R, Semistructured
interview

Results
Research Question One: What are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning
communities (PLCs) in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices?
The goal of programs, structures, methods, and processes implemented in any
organization is to create a positive outcome. In the case of the implementation of PLCs
in the school setting, an indicator of a positive outcome would be the determination of the
impact on the pedagogical practices of educators.
One method used to determine teachers’ perceptions of PLCs in terms of the
impact on their pedagogical practices was the administration of the PLCA-R at the
beginning of the school year and at the end of the school year. As previously described,
the PLCA-R reports scores in six dimensions.
Pedagogical practices are measured in the Collective Learning and Application
dimension and the Shared Personal Practice dimension. Specifically, the following

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

71

statements within these dimensions on the PLCA-R assess the impact of PLCs on
pedagogical practices:
•

Staff members work together to seek knowledge, skills, and strategies and
apply this new learning to their work.

•

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

•

A variety of opportunities and structures exist for collective learning through
open dialogue.

•

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

•

Staff members collaboratively analyze student work to improve teaching and
learning.

•

Staff members provide feedback to peers related to instructional practices.

•

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

•

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

•

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

Strength of agreement can be determined based on the percentage of respondents
who indicated “strongly agree” or “agree” to each statement. The percentage change in
the number of participants who indicated “strongly agree” or “agree” to these statements
from the first administration of the PLCA-R to the second administration of the PLCA-R

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

72

provided one measurement of teachers’ perceptions of professional learning communities
(PLCs) in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices. The change in strength of
agreement for each statement noted above is described in Table 5.
Table 5
Change in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration – Pedagogical
Practices
Statement

October 21
Agreement
94.5%

May 2022 Percent
Agreement Change
90.1%
-4.4%

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

84.7%

90.1%

5.4%

A variety of opportunities and structures exist
for collective learning through open dialogue.

70.4%

77.6%

7.2%

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

74%

75.1%

1.1%

Staff members collaboratively analyze student
work to improve teaching and learning.

74%

77.5%

3.5%

Staff members provide feedback to peers
related to instructional practices.

60.9%

52.4%

-8.5%

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

96.7%

96.3%

-.4%

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

59.8%

62.5%

2.7%

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

85.8%

82.5%

-3.3%

Staff members work together to seek
knowledge, skills, and strategies and apply this
new learning to their work.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

73

The strength of agreement described in Table 5 grew for five of the nine
statements. The greatest increase in agreement was for the statement indicating that a
variety of opportunities and structures exist for collective learning through open dialogue.
Those participants indicating either “strongly agree” or “agree” increased by 7.2%. The
greatest decrease in agreement from the first administration to the second administration
was for the statement indicating that staff members provide feedback to peers related to
instructional practices. Those participants indicating either “strongly agree” or “agree”
with this statement declined by 8.5%.
The PLCA-R does allow respondents to include comments for each of the six
dimensions measured by the survey. Participants did include comments in the
“Collective Learning and Application” dimension and the “Shared Personal Practice”
dimension that should be explored further. Regarding the analysis of student work to
improve teaching and learning a participant shared, “I would have liked a ‘somewhat
agree’ for #30. I feel like this happens sometimes, but often gets pushed to the wayside
because of time constraints.” Another participant responded similarly by adding:
While it has been directed, suggested, and discussed for numerous years – there
is no sharing of student work among the team. There is no shared evaluating of
student samples to ensure common grading practices and then review of student
data.
As with the comments shared previously, in terms of the analysis of student work to
improve instructional practices, a participant indicated:

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

74

We want to do this more! I am hoping as we have 2 (two) PLC days now we will
have more time for this, but am concerned for other departments that 1(one) day
out of 8 (eight) is not often enough to be consistent.
Qualitative data related to the first research question was gathered through
interviews with teachers in the school. Interview participants were asked, “In regards to
your pedagogical practices, do you think they have changed or not based on your PLC
involvement? Why or why not? If so, how? Please explain in detail.”
Participants unanimously expressed that their pedagogical practices had positively
changed based on their PLC involvement during the semi-structured interviews.
Specifically, the manner in which student learning data was gathered and analyzed had
improved since the implementation of PLCs in the school. Participant nine indicated,
“We have common assessments that we look at and it helps me know that I am meeting
the standards and targets that I need to. I feel like a lot of our students have very similar
experiences.” Participant one shared, “We are looking at the data to change our practices
within the classroom so we can meet the standards and learning targets.” Another
interview participant explained that the assessments her colleagues give to their students
are “comprehensive and very standardized” which allows for consistent data analysis
within the department. This level of analysis has also led the department to offer targeted
intervention to small groups of students based on identified learning needs. One
interview participant noted that 100% of her students in one class “grew on the second
round of the CDT” as a result of a focus on student data.
In addition to the implementation of common assessments and the development of
a data culture, interview participants shared the growth in new teaching strategies based

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

75

on their PLC involvement. “Collaboration has really allowed us to change some of the
things that we do and the way we think about how we are going to instruct the students”
was mentioned by participant four. In speaking about the growth of teaching practices
and pedagogy, participant seven shared that due to involvement in the PLC process one
feels that they are “working from a broader base of knowledge” and have learned about
different perspectives and strategies from colleagues.
Research Question Two: When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within
academic content areas, how do the challenges and benefits impact student
achievement?
The impact on student achievement was a second question posed as part of this
research project. While PLCs are in the fifth year of implementation, has a positive
impact on student achievement data been realized during this time period?
To make such a determination student achievement data were collected over a
five-year time period on the CDT. The CDT is administered to high school students as
part of the benchmarking data collected in each class with an end-of-course Keystone
Exam. Those classes are Algebra One, Biology, and 10th grade English/Language Arts
(Literature). The assessment includes multiple-choice questions and selected response
questions. The CDT provides “a picture or snapshot of how students are performing in
relation to the Pennsylvania Assessment Anchors & Eligible Content and Keystone
Assessment Anchors & Eligible Content” (PDE, 2022). Scale scores were gathered for
this research as scale scores are most useful when comparing scores over time (PDE,
2021). Scale scores on the CDT range from a low scale score of 200 to a high scale score
of 2000.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

76

Table 6 shows the data generated from the Algebra One CDT over the last five
school years. The average scale score was determined from the final assessment taken by
a student during that school year.
Table 6
Algebra One CDT Average Scale Score, Median, Mode, and Range
Sample Size

2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020
314
305
289

2020-2021
285

2021-2022
262

Average Scale
Score

1142

1065

1052

975

1130

Median

1177

1108

1096

1002

1146

Mode

1,186

1176

1225

943

1146

624 - 1326

611 - 1411

Range

680 - 1408 626 - 1555 547 - 1349

The data in Table 6 shows that following the highest average scale score in the
2017-2018 school year (1142) with decreases the next three school years, the 2021-2022
scale score was the highest average scale score year since the first year this data was
gathered. It is likely that the average scale score in the 2019-2020 school year was
impacted by the interruption to in-person learning initiated on March 13, 2020.
Furthermore, it is likely that the average scale score in the 2020-2021 school year was
impacted by both the interruption to in-person learning in the 2019-2020 school year and
the different mode of teaching and learning incorporated that school year. During the
2020-2021 school year caregivers were able to select if they wanted their children to
learn virtually by participating in classes via zoom or by engaging in in-person learning.
Classroom teachers taught students engaging in their learning by zoom or in-person at the

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

77

same time. The 2021-2022 school year is the first year of full in-person learning since
the 2018-2019 school year.
Table 7 shows the data generated from the Biology CDT over the last five school
years. The average scale score was determined from the final assessment taken by a
student during that school year.
Table 7
Biology CDT Average Scale Score, Median, Mode, and Range
Sample Size

2017-2018
480

2018-2019 2019-2020
401
442

2020-2021
292

2021-2022
275

Average Scaled
Score

1057

999

983

1017

1042

Median

1072

1016

1008

1036

1046

Mode

1066

984

1052

1034

973

Range

578 - 1389

476 - 1337

582 - 1465

630 - 1254 611 - 1329

Similar to the data attributed to the Algebra One CDT, the data in Table 7 shows
that following the highest average scale score in the 2017-2018 school year (1057) with
decreases the next three school years, the 2021-2022 scale score was the highest average
scale score year since the first year this data was gathered. As with the results on the
Algebra One CDT, it is likely that the average scale score in the 2019-2020 school year
was impacted by the interruption to in-person learning that school year. It is also likely
that the average scale score in the 2020-2021 school year was impacted by both the
interruption to in-person learning in the 2019-2020 school year and the hybrid mode of
teaching and learning incorporated that school year.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

78

Table 8 shows the data generated from the Literature CDT over the last five
school years. As with the Algebra One CDT and the Literature CDT, the average scale
score was determined from the final assessment taken by a student during that school
year.
Table 8
Literature CDT Average Scale Score, Median, Mode, and Range
Sample Size

2017-2018
616

2018-2019 2019-2020
773
726

2020-2021
431

2021-2022
730

Average Scaled
Score

1161

1080

1052

1087

1027

Median

1153

1101

1075

1118

1056

Mode

1058

1109

1082

1159

1104

Range

1033 - 1435

622 - 1409

582 - 1394

635 - 1440 617 - 1455

The average scale scores by content area for the last five school years are depicted
in Figure 2. As described in the details provided above, the highest average scale score
for each content area was achieved in the 2017-2018 school year. Both Algebra One and
Biology achieved their next highest average scale score in the 2021-2022 school year.
Algebra One had the lowest average scale score in the 2020-2021 school year. Biology
had the lowest average scale score in the 2019-2020 school year. Both content areas
could have feasibly been impacted by the interruption to in-person learning that occurred
in the 2019-2020 school year due to the pandemic. However, the lowest average scale
score in Literature occurred during the 2021-2022 school year. This may be an area for
further research and will be explored in Chapter Five.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

79

Figure 2
Average CDT Scale Scores by Content Area

CDT Average Scale Scores by Content Area
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000
950
900
850

17-18

18-19
Algebra One

19-20
Biology

20-21

21-22

Literature

Qualitative data was collected related to research question two by asking
interview participants to respond to the following questions related to student
achievement:
•

What are the benefits of PLCs and how do those benefits impact student
achievement?

•

What are the challenges of PLCs and how do these challenges impact student
achievement?

•

Do you believe that your participation in a PLC has positively impacted the
academic achievement of your students? Why or why not?

Several themes can be identified by the responses to these questions. Interview
participants described that a benefit of PLCs was the ability to address the first two
questions of the PLC framework. Those questions are:
1. What is it we want our students to learn?

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

80

2. How will we know if each student is learning each of the skills, concepts, and
dispositions we have deemed most essential? (DuFour, 2005, p. 15)
Specifically, one participant shared, “We are really fleshing out what that actually looks
like and identifying just what does that mean. How do we know if they actually achieved
it so that we can actually see student growth?” Related to measuring student learning,
another participant indicated that, through common assessments, the members of the PLC
are able to “compare apples to apples instead of apples to oranges.” Multiple interview
participants described that they have witnessed students experiencing greater success as
teachers have expanded their knowledge of impactful instructional strategies due to their
PLC involvement.
In terms of the challenges of PLCs and how these challenges impact student
achievement, the common themes of mindset and time emerged from the interviews.
Difficulties adapting to change, circumstances – whether new or previously existing –
that lead PLC members not to trust one another and difficulties when PLC members do
not teach the same course were described by the interview participants. Participant six
shared, “Humans who do not like change and who do not embrace change for the benefit
of the students” was a challenge of PLCs that impacts student achievement. Participant
five noted, “I think the challenges can be mindset. I think there are teachers that just do
not really understand the purpose of PLCs.” Participant four summarized the challenges
of PLCs related to mindset by stating, “Sometimes the challenge can be getting everyone
on board.”
Another challenge identified through the interviews was related to the lack of time
in the daily schedule for PLC members to meet. When referring to the lack of time

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

81

participant one stated, “I would say it is impacting student achievement. They are not
getting the benefits that we could by having more time together. For example, we could
use additional time planning together and delving into our common assessments.”
Participant four shared, “I am glad that the Chemistry department was able to add a PLC
meeting to our cycle. I do not know how other departments are productive meeting once
every eight (school) days.” A respondent to the PLCA-R shared “One PLC every week
and a half is not enough time to begin to collect and analyze data. Meetings are too
spread out to then initiate a plan using the collected data.”
Sharing, discussing, and evaluating student work is a function of PLCs. It can be
an obstacle for those departments where PLC members do not teach the same courses to
be able to take this step. “That is a big challenge. What do you do when it is not as easy
to compare your work with other teachers?” was a concern expressed by participant three.
Comments shared by respondents on the PLCA-R also reflected a concern related to
evaluating student work by writing, “I am not sure how beneficial it is to see artifacts of
students work for students that are not on a teacher's roster.” Another respondent stated,
“There is no shared evaluating of student samples to ensure common grading practices.”
Greater exploration into this theme will be explored in Chapter Five.
While benefits and challenges of PLCs and their impact on student achievement
were identified, interview participants agreed about the positive impact on learning
through participation in a PLC.
I have continued to develop summative assessments over the years. Just the other

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

82

day I was discussing formative assessment results with my peers. Because of that
discussion my students will now get a better product in class. I think that impacts
what they are able to do. (Participant four)
Participant one mentioned, “We can talk about academic growth in PLCs. But the
pandemic has taught us that there all so many other factors, too.” This teacher also
described the academic growth observed in her classes since the pandemic by stating, “I
definitely see it – especially more so in the classes where I collaborate with other
teachers.”
In summary, the quantitative data collected by analyzing the Algebra One,
Biology, and Literature CDT results indicated somewhat contradictory information
related to positive student achievement. In the 2021-2022 school year, the Algebra One
and Biology CDT average student scale scores were the highest since the 2017-2018
school year. However, the average student scale score on the Literature CDT for the
2021-2022 school is the lowest it has been in five years. It is important to consider the
further information provided through the teacher interviews in order to fully assess the
responses to research question two.
Through the interviews participants indicated agreement that the benefits of PLCs
positively impact student achievement. These benefits include the ability to specifically
address the first two questions of the PLC framework and learn about impactful
instructional strategies from their colleagues. Interview participants also noted that the
mindset of team members and the overall lack of time for PLC meetings are challenges to
the PLC process and could negatively impact student achievement.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

83

Research Question Three: What supportive structures, resources, and conditions are
most favorable for teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?
In order to promote the growth of teachers through their participation in the PLC
process, it is important to understand the structures, resources, and conditions that are
necessary for such growth. Within the PLC framework, structures are identified as
practices that protect time and create conditions that lead to collaboration and
involvement. Conditions that support PLCs include the components of supportive school
leadership, shared decision-making, and authentic professional development. These
conditions improve instruction and student outcomes in schools (Huffman et al., 2001).
Resources can be defined as the provision of timely and authentic professional learning
experiences and access to data that will guide instructional decision-making.
One method used to determine which structures, resources, and conditions are
most favorable for teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs was the administration
of the PLCA-R at the beginning of the school year and at the end of the school year. As
mentioned previously in this chapter, the PLCA-R reports scores along six dimensions.
Items on the PLCA-R that address structures, resources, and conditions are in the
following three dimensions:
•

Shared and Supportive Leadership

•

Supportive Conditions-Relationships

•

Supportive Conditions-Structures

The statements listed below within these three dimensions on the PLCA-R
specifically assess the structures, resources, and conditions most favorable for teacher
growth in the implementation of PLCs:

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

•

84

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

•

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

•

A culture of trust and respect exists for taking risks.

•

Outstanding achievement is recognized and celebrated regularly in our school.

•

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.

•

Time is provided to facilitate collaborative work.

•

The school schedule promotes collective learning and shared practice.

•

Fiscal resources are available for professional development.

•

Appropriate technology and instructional materials are available to staff.

•

Resource people provide expertise and support for continuous learning.

•

The proximity of grade level and department personnel allows for ease in
collaborating with colleagues.

•

Communication systems promote a flow of information among staff members.

•

Communication systems promote a flow of information across the entire
school community including: central office personnel, parents, and
community members.

•

Data are organized and made available to provide easy access to staff
members.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

85

The percentage change in the number of participants who indicated “strongly
agree” or “agree” to these statements from the first administration of the PLCA-R to the
second administration of the PLCA-R provided one measurement of what supportive
structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for teacher growth in the
implementation of PLCs. This change is described in Table 9.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

86

Table 9
Change in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration – Structures,
Resources, and Conditions
Statement

October 21
Agreement
92.4%

May 2022 Percent
Agreement Change
90.0%
-2.4%

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

97.8%

90.0%

-7.8%

A culture of trust and respect exists for taking
risks.

88.1%

81.2%

-6.9%

Outstanding achievement is recognized and
celebrated regularly in our school.

85.8%

83.8%

-2.0%

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

58.7%

68.8%

10.1%

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

81.8%

75.1%

-6.7%

Time is provided to facilitate collaborative
work.

87.0%

78.8%

-8.2%

The school schedule promotes collective
learning and shared practice.

76.1%

78.8%

2.7%

Fiscal resources are available for professional
development.

69.5%

72.6%

3.1%

Appropriate technology and instructional
materials are available to staff.

93.5%

90.1%

-3.4%

Resource people provide expertise and support
for continuous learning.

82.6%

77.5%

-5.1%

The proximity of grade level and department
personnel allows for ease in collaborating with
colleagues.

77.2%

73.8%

-3.4%

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

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

87

Communication systems promote a flow of
information among staff members.

78.2%

80.0%

1.8%

Communication systems promote a flow of
information across the entire school community
including: central office personnel, parents, and
community members.

70.7%

86.3%

15.6%

Data are organized and made available to
provide easy access to staff members.

67.4%

77.6%

10.2%

The strength of agreement described in Table 9 grew for six of the 15 statements.
The greatest increase in agreement was for the statement indicating that communication
systems promote a flow of information across the entire school community including:
central office personnel, parents, and community members. Those participants indicating
either “strongly agree” or “agree” with this statement increased by 15.6%. The greatest
decrease in agreement from the first administration to the second administration was for
the statement indicating that time is provided to facilitate collaborative work. Those
participants indicating either “strongly agree” or “agree” with this statement declined by
8.2%.
The PLCA-R does allow respondents to complete comments for each of the six
dimensions measured by the survey. Participants did include comments in the
“Supportive Conditions – Structures” dimension and the “Shared Personal Practice”
dimension that have need for further exploration. Regarding collaborative time for
collective learning and shared practice one participant indicated, “Special education
rarely gets to meet altogether to discuss issues like all of the rest of the departments.”
Another participant commented, “PLC time is not enough in duration or frequency to

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

88

begin to analyze student data.” Additionally, another response related to the
collaborative time available for collective learning and shared practice was:
If I need to collaborate with a staff member in a different department, this can be
difficult (depending on schedules). I realize it is impossible to accommodate
everyone in this way. Sometimes when we have our Wednesday department time,
it is right after a PLC meeting. Perhaps this would be time to consider interdepartmental meetings (when appropriate).
Qualitative data related to the third research question was gathered through
interviews with teachers in the school. Interview participants were asked, “What
structures and conditions in our school are most favorable for PLCs? What structures and
conditions are missing?” In addition, interview participants were asked, “What resources
have been beneficial to the implementation of PLCs? What resources are missing or
would be helpful to you and/or your PLC?”
The structure that exists in the school providing time for PLCs to meet as a
scheduled part of the school day was commonly shared as a favorable condition for PLC
implementation. One interviewee shared that “having the time together, during our
planning time, it has been phenomenal to us.” The value of having PLC time as part of
the schedule was further emphasized as another interviewee commented “the fact that we
prioritize it and have it built into the schedule is helpful.” Building further on the theme
that having PLC time as part of the school day is favorable another teacher added, “There
was an emergency situation and we couldn’t meet on our PLC day. There were two other
days we could meet because we all had prep the same time.” To further stress the value
of having PLC time as part of the school day another teacher indicated:

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

89

I think the block scheduling has been very helpful – the dedicated time is huge.
When you’re meeting so regularly you can get in a groove and decide on what
you’re going to work on the next time and have a consistent flow. (Participant
seven)
A second theme that emerged from the answers to this question considered the
effectiveness of the PLC meetings. One interview participant shared that the emphasis on
developing norms for meetings “has been accepted across the building.” Having a
protocol to follow and a written agenda for each meeting is another condition the
interviewees mentioned that adds to the effectiveness of the PLC meeting time.
In response to the second part of the interview question – “What structures and
conditions are missing?” – the issue of time was again prevalent. Two large content
areas, Science and Math, arranged their schedules so that the PLCs within these
departments were able to meet twice every eight school days. However, the majority of
the PLCs in the building were only able to meet once every eight school days. In all
cases, PLC meetings were scheduled for 45 minutes. “Time this year just hasn’t been
enough” was expressed in different ways by several interviewees.
Strong agreement can also be found in the struggle faced by those PLCs where
teachers share a content area (e.g., Art) but all teach different courses within that content
area. Interview participants mentioned that since they did not administer common
assessments it was difficult to respond to the four questions of the PLC framework.
Leadership became more of a need in these PLCs and one interviewee expressed, “there
can be a lack of communication and we tend to go back to doing our own thing.”

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

90

Additionally, the logistics of team dynamics was seen as an obstacle by some of
the teachers interviewed. “I think sometimes teachers are not held accountable for their
lack of an ability to work with others” was mentioned by participant nine. This
individual noted that their curriculum work has been held up “because there was a lot of
conflict.” In terms of conflict, another interviewee commented that a norm in one PLC
within the school is to make decisions based on a majority vote. However, this individual
also mentioned “I don’t want people to do what they think they shouldn’t be doing. I am
hoping we can get on the same page with our curriculum and that the conflict will
dissipate.” Participant five mentioned that “attitude really plays into it” and that a
“growth mindset” needs to be adopted by PLC members.
Interview participants were also asked to answer the question, “What resources
have been beneficial to the implementation of PLCs? What resources are missing or
would be helpful to you and/or your PLC?” Again, multiple themes emerged from their
responses.
The use of the PLC handbook by PLCs was mentioned unanimously in response
to this question. During the second year of PLC implementation a group of teachers
researched materials, resources, and best practices in order to develop a tool that would
be helpful and useful to all educators in the school. This information was put in a binder
and provided to each professional staff member at the opening inservice session of the
school year. “The binder was especially helpful at the beginning of the process” and
“The binder is a great resource” were some of comments mentioned. Interviewees
mentioned specifically that they used the guidance from the handbook to create norms,
meeting agendas, and PLC goals.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

91

Mentioned as both a beneficial resource and one that was missing was the
knowledge gained by those educators who had the opportunity to visit Adlai Stevenson
High School. On three separate occasions educators attended professional development
experiences at the school for the purpose of learning about the policies and procedures
Adlai Stevenson High School used to support professional learning communities.
Interview participants mentioned that “this was very beneficial” and that “we saw a
model of what a PLC looked like, what it sounded like in an authentic way, and learned
what is the ultimate goal of a PLC.” The interviewees also expressed that this would be a
beneficial resource to their colleagues. Participant seven mentioned that this experience
would “help others develop a vision” for a PLC. Similarly, participant four mentioned
that “being able to see what a high-functioning PLC looked like” was helpful and that
anyone leading a PLC “could go out and see what a well-functioning PLC looks like in
order to know where they’re aiming” was a resource missed by others.
Comments on the PLCA-R also helped identify a missing resource that would be
beneficial to the implementation of PLCs. One respondent to the PLCA-R shared,
“There are a lot of resources for the data which sometimes feels overwhelming, honestly
I don't think there is a good way to compile it all.” In terms of the organization of data,
another respondent mentioned it could be, “possibly better organized or better awareness
of the data might help.” Another comment stated, “Available information is not
centralized but rather found in various places (pages, slideshows, emails) that are difficult
to hunt down and locate.”

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

92

Summary
Chapter Four has presented the results of this study and a discussion of those
results. The data were generated from the administration of the PLCA-R to educators at
the high school at the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year and the end of the 20212022 school year, the collection of five years of student achievement data from the CDT,
and individual interviews with high school teachers.
Chapter Five will state conclusions of the effectiveness of PLCs related to the
research questions and detail how this learning will be applied to both this school and the
entire school district. Limitations in terms of research design and external factors will be
described. Finally, recommendations for future research will be will be shared.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

93

CHAPTER V
Conclusions and Recommendations
Chapter Five will discuss the conclusions that can be derived from the data that
was collected in response to each research question. The fiscal impact of PLCs within
the school and the school district will also be reviewed. Recommendations will be
discussed for both the school where the research was conducted and for the entire school
district. Limitations of the research project will be shared in terms of the impact they
may have had on the research outcomes. Finally, recommendations for further research
and consideration will be described.
Avon Grove High School is the lone high school in the Avon Grove School
District. The enrollment consists of 1,743 students in grades nine to twelve. There are
107 classroom teachers in the school. PLCs are in their fifth year of implementation in
the high school and are being implemented to varying degrees in the three other schools
in the district. The purpose of this research study was to consider the impact of teacher
participation in PLCs on teacher practices and student achievement.
In order to meet the purpose of the study, the following three research questions
were developed:
1. What are teachers’ perceptions of professional learning communities (PLCs)
in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices?
2. When it comes to the implementation of PLCs within academic content areas,
how do the challenges and benefits impact student achievement?
3. What supportive structures, resources, and conditions are most favorable for
teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

94

A mixed-methods approach consisting of a survey, a review of student
achievement data for the five years of PLC implementation, and teacher interviews was
used to provide data related to each question. The three sources of data utilized in this
study – the PLCA-R, the CDT, and semi-structured interviews – allowed for multiple
responses to the three research questions of this study. Such triangulation of the data
enhanced the findings related to these research questions.
Conclusions
As noted previously, PLCs are in the fifth year of implementation in this school.
As resources such as time in the daily schedule and continued professional learning
experiences have been a key part of the implementation, it is important to assess the
impact of these resources on teacher practices and student achievement.
Research Question One
Research question one asked, “What are teachers’ perceptions of professional
learning communities (PLCs) in terms of the impact on their pedagogical practices?” In
order to assess these perceptions, teachers were asked to complete the PLCA-R in
October, 2021, and May, 2022. Additionally, nine teachers also participated in a semistructured interview with a specific question related to the impact on pedagogical
practices. That question asked, “In regards to your pedagogical practices, do you think
they have changed or not based on your PLC involvement? Why or why not? If so,
how?”
There were nine statements within the Collective Learning and Application
dimension and the Shared Personal Practice dimension on the PLCA-R that addressed
pedagogical practices. The growth in the number of participants who indicated “strongly

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

95

agree” or “agree” to these statements from the first administration of the PLCA-R to the
second administration of the PLCA-R provided one measurement of teachers’
perceptions of professional learning communities (PLCs) in terms of the impact on their
pedagogical practices. The strength of agreement was determined by finding the sum of
the number of responses indicating either “agree” or “disagree” on each analyzed
statement and dividing that number by the total number of responses. The strength of
agreement was expressed as a percentage for each statement. Table 10 describes the
growth in strength of agreement on five of these statements.
Table 10
Growth in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration – Pedagogical
Practices
Statement

October 21
Agreement
70.4%

May 2022 Percent
Agreement Change
77.6%
7.2%

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

84.7%

90.1%

5.4%

Staff members collaboratively analyze student
work to improve teaching and learning.

74%

77.5%

3.5%

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

59.8%

62.5%

2.7%

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

74%

75.1%

1.1%

A variety of opportunities and structures exist
for collective learning through open dialogue.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

96

One can conclude that this growth in collective learning is a strong indicator that
pedagogical practices are changing due to PLC involvement by teachers. From the
growth in strength of agreement to the statement, “Staff members plan and work together
to search for solutions to address diverse student needs.” it can be concluded that
pedagogical practices have changed due to PLC involvement. Growth was also realized
based on responses to the following two statements:
1. Staff members collaboratively analyze student work to improve teaching and
learning.
2. Staff members collaboratively review student work to share and improve
instructional practices.
Finally, there was also growth in strength of agreement attributed to the statement, “Staff
members collaboratively analyze multiple sources of data to assess the effectiveness of
instructional practices.” As this agreement relates to “the effectiveness of instructional
practices” it can also be in indicate growth in pedagogical practices.
Strong evidence exists to indicate a change in pedagogical practices based on the
responses provided by interview participants to the question, “In regards to your
pedagogical practices, do you think they have changed or not based on your PLC
involvement? Why or why not? If so, how?” As shared in the previous chapter,
interviewees agreed unanimously that their pedagogical practices had changed based on
their PLC involvement. Interview participants also discussed the growth in the use of
new teaching strategies due to their PLC involvement.
However, the researcher noted only some evidence that teacher pedagogical
practices have changed based on PLC involvement due to the change in strength of

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

97

agreement to specific statements on the PLCA-R as well as some of the comments shared
on the PLCA-R. Four statements decreased in strength of agreement from the October,
2021, administration of the PLCA-R to the May, 2022, administration of the PLCA-R.
Table 11 describes the decrease in strength of agreement for these statements.
Table 11
Decrease in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration – Pedagogical
Practices
Statement

October 21
Agreement
60.9%

May 2022 Percent
Agreement Change
52.4%
-8.5%

Staff members work together to seek
knowledge, skills and strategies and apply this
new learning to their work.

94.5%

90.1%

-4.4%

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

85.8%

82.5%

-3.3%

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

96.7%

96.3%

-.4%

Staff members provide feedback to peers
related to instructional practices.

The decrease in strength of agreement to the statement, “Staff members provide
feedback to peers related to instructional practices.” speaks to the lack of opportunity to
discuss peer observations and feedback during PLC meetings. This will be further
discussed in the recommendations section of this chapter.
Three other statements saw a decrease in strength of agreement from the first
administration of the PLCA-R to the second administration of the PLCA-R. Each of
these statements relate to the need for consistent procedures and protocols to be used

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

98

during PLC meetings. Professional learning opportunities need to be made available to
staff and reinforced through coaching and supervision.
In summary, the data gathered in response to this question show some evidence
that teacher pedagogical practices have changed based on PLC involvement as noted by
the increase in strength of agreement to five statements on the PLCA-R. However, there
were four statements on the PLCA-R with a decrease in strength of agreement from the
first administration to the second administration. There is very strong evidence from the
interview participants that their pedagogical practices have grown and improved due to
their PLC involvement.
Research Question Two
Research question two asked, “When it comes to the implementation of PLCs
within academic content areas, how do the challenges and benefits impact student
achievement?” In order to evaluate this question, five years of assessment data were
captured from the Classroom Diagnostic Tool (CDT). Scale scores were gathered for this
research as scale scores are most useful when comparing scores over time (PDE, 2021).
Three questions were asked of the nine interview participants as well. The three
questions were:
1. What are the benefits of PLCs and how do those benefits impact student
achievement?
2. What are the challenges of PLCs and how do these challenges impact student
achievement? How can these challenges be addressed?
3. Do you believe that your participation in a PLC has positively impacted the
academic achievement of your students? Why or why not?

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

99

For this study, the CDT average scale scores in Algebra One, Biology, and
Literature were collected over a five-year period. The highest average scale scores for
each of the three content areas occurred in the 2017-2018 school year. Following a threeyear decline since the 2017-2018 school year, the Algebra One average scale score
increased in the 2021-2022 school year. The average scale score on the Biology CDT
increased during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years.
The Literature CDT scores followed a somewhat different pattern. As with the
Algebra One and Biology average scale scores, the Literature average score was highest
in the 2017-2018 school year and decreased in both the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 school
year. After an increase in average scale scores in the 2020-2021 school year, the lowest
average score on the Literature CDT over the past five years inclusive occurred in the
2021-2022 school year.
The qualitative information compiled through teacher interviews supports the idea
that PLC involvement positively impacts academic achievement. Teachers identified the
benefits to include the ability to analyze common assessments and “compare apples to
apples instead of apples to oranges.” Teachers are then able to individualize remediation
efforts based on this analysis. Many interview participants communicated that they have
witnessed students experiencing greater achievement due to the growth in the quality and
quantity of impactful instructional strategies being used by teachers due to their
collaboration with peers in PLCs. Regarding greater academic achievement, participant
one mentioned, “I definitely see it – especially more so in the classes that I collaborate
with other teachers.” Such qualitative data supports the growth in student academic
achievement as it related to the PLC involvement of teachers.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

100

However, there was also evidence provided to indicate that there are limiting
factors related to the academic achievement of students. Teachers shared that since some
PLCs meet only once every eight school days it can impact their ability to carefully
analyze student learning information and develop plans based on this analysis. While the
inclusion of PLC time in the daily bell schedule is vital, the frequency of that time is
foundational to the impact of PLCs on student achievement.
Another factor that may limit the academic achievement of students could be the
mindset of educators towards PLC involvement. Interview participants stressed that
educators “who do not like change and who do not embrace change for the benefit of the
students” may not get the full benefit out of their PLC participation and when teachers do
not fully understand the purpose of PLCs or are “not on board” with the implementation
of PLCs student achievement may not be completely realized.
The quantitative and qualitative data gathered through this research provide some
evidence that PLC implementation has positively impacted student achievement.
Average student scale scores on the Algebra One and Biology CDT increased in the
2021-2022 school year to their highest levels since the first year of PLC implementation.
Teachers shared that their PLC involvement has resulted in a greater ability to analyze
data to impact instruction and implement a greater quantity of quality instructional
strategies. However, the decrease in average scale scores on the Literature CDT is
concerning and should be a topic of further research.
Research Question Three
Research question three asked, “What supportive structures, resources, and
conditions are most favorable for teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs?” It is

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

101

necessary that an organization implementing PLCs know the structures, resources, and
conditions that are favorable for teacher growth and be able to assess the quality of each
within the learning organization. Data to respond to this question were collected through
the administration of the PLCA-R twice during the 2021-2022 school year and through
the inclusion of two specific questions included in the semi-structured teacher interviews.
There were fifteen statements on the PLCA-R that assessed the presence of the
structures, resources, and conditions favorable for teacher growth in the implementation
of PLCs. The growth in the number of participants who indicated “strongly agree” or
“agree” to these statements from the first administration of the PLCA-R to the second
administration of the PLCA-R provided one measurement of what structures, resources,
and conditions are most favorable for teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs.
Table 12 describes the growth in strength of agreement on these statements.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

102

Table 12
Growth in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration – Structures,
Resources, and Conditions
Statement

October 21
Agreement
70.7%

May 2022 Percent
Agreement Change
86.3%
15.6%

Data are organized and made available to
provide easy access to staff members.

67.4%

77.6%

10.2%

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

58.7%

68.8%

10.1%

Fiscal resources are available for professional
development.

69.5%

72.6%

3.1%

The school schedule promotes collective
learning and shared practice.

76.1%

78.8%

2.7%

Communication systems promote a flow of
information among staff members.

78.2%

80.0%

1.8%

Communication systems promote a flow of
information across the entire school community
including: central office personnel, parents, and
community members.

From the data shared in Table 12, one can conclude that communication systems
in the school district, the availability of data, and the effort to impact change are
structures, resources, and conditions that improved from the first administration of the
PLCA-R to the second administration of the PLCA-R. To a lesser extent, the availability
of fiscal resources for professional development, the collective learning as a result of the
school schedule, and the communication flow among staff members are favorable
structures, resources, and conditions that also improved from the first administration of
the PLCA-R to the second administration of the PLCA-R.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

103

The two interview questions related to supportive structures, resources, and
conditions favorable to teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs were:
1. What structures and conditions in our school are the most favorable for PLCs?
What structures and conditions are missing?
2. What resources have been beneficial to the implementation of PLCs? What
resources are missing or would be helpful to you and/or your PLC?
Through the responses to these questions, one can conclude the following structures,
resources, and conditions are favorable for teacher growth:
•

the opportunity to have PLC meetings as a scheduled part of the school day

•

the effective and efficient facilitation of PLC meetings

•

the availability of the PLC handbook

•

the ability to visit a school that has successfully implemented PLCs.

Interview participants noted, “I think the block scheduling has been very helpful – the
dedicated time is huge.” and “The fact that we prioritize it and have it built into the
schedule is helpful.” Supported by the responses of interviewees and the PLCA-R, the
availability of time during the school day is an important structure related to the
implementation of PLCs.
The development of norms and the regular use of an agenda contributed to the
effectiveness and efficiency of the PLC meetings according to another teacher.
Unanimous agreement among the teachers who participated in the interview was
indicated for the use of the PLC handbook. Interviewees mentioned specifically the
handbook was helpful for creating norms, meeting agendas, and PLC goals.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

104

The ability to visit and observe at a school where PLCs have been successfully
implemented was also indicated as a favorable resource. Interview participants
mentioned that “this was very beneficial” and that “we saw a model of what a PLC
looked like, what it sounded like in an authentic way, and learned what is the ultimate
goal of a PLC.” In support of additional visits, interviewee seven suggested this
experience would “help others develop a vision” for a PLC.
The statements on the PLCA-R and the responses to the two interview questions
also provided the researcher with details about what supportive structures, resources, and
conditions might be missing. On the PLCA-R, the decrease in the number of participants
who indicated “strongly agree” or “agree” to certain statements is described in Table 13.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

105

Table 13
Decrease in Strength of Agreement from First to Second Administration – Structures,
Resources, and Conditions
Statement

October 21
Agreement
87.0%

May 2022 Percent
Agreement Change
78.8%
-8.2%

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

97.8%

90.0%

-7.8%

A culture of trust and respect exists for taking
risks.

88.1%

81.2%

-6.9%

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

81.8%

75.1%

-6.7%

Resource people provide expertise and support
for continuous learning.

82.6%

77.5%

-5.1%

Appropriate technology and instructional
materials are available to staff.

93.5%

90.1%

-3.4%

The proximity of grade level and department
personnel allows for ease in collaborating with
colleagues.

77.2%

73.8%

-3.4%

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

92.4%

90.0%

-2.4%

Outstanding achievement is recognized and
celebrated regularly in our school.

85.8%

83.8%

-2.0%

Time is provided to facilitate collaborative
work.

The time to meet during the school day was indicated as a favorable condition
related to teacher growth in the implementation of PLCs. However, the decrease in
agreement to the statement “Time is provided to facilitate collaborative work” supports

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

106

the concern voiced through the teacher interviews that some PLCs in the school do not
have enough meeting time.
Statements associated with relationships, trust, and respect in the school saw a
decrease in strength of agreement as well. Each of these statements is related to culture
within the school community and PLCs. As identified in the research about PLCs, trust
is paramount to this process and trust needs to exist throughout the learning organization
(Willis & Templeton, 2017). A focus on relationships, trusts, and the overall culture in
PLCs through professional learning would be beneficial to the entire learning
organization.
The decrease in strength of agreement to the statement, “Resource people provide
expertise and support for continuous learning.” highlights the importance of providing
support to teachers and PLCs. One step already taken to improve this level of support
has been addressed as a third Supervisor of Teaching and Learning position has been
approved for the upcoming school year. The addition of this staff member will provide
more support to teachers through curriculum development, data analysis, and targeted
professional learning experiences.
A high strength of agreement exists for the statements “Appropriate technology
and instructional materials are available to staff.” and “Staff members use multiple
sources of data to make decisions about teaching and learning.” It is important to
recognize a decrease from the first administration of the PLCA-R to the second
administration of the PLCA-R was realized. To support the maintenance of this
agreement to each statement, it is important to review the technology replacement cycle
and the curriculum review cycle.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

107

A decrease in strength of agreement to the statement, “The proximity of grade
level and department personnel allows for ease in collaborating with colleagues.” Will be
addressed through the move of the high school into a new building at the start of the
2022-2023 school year. This move has allowed the high school administration to address
this concern and create greater proximity for both grade level and department personnel.
This proximity will instantly allow for additional collaborative opportunities.
Two interview questions included allowed the opportunity for interview
participants to identify what resources, supports, and conditions for favorable teacher
growth in the implementation of PLCs may be missing. Those questions were:
1. What structures and conditions are missing?
2. What resources are missing or would be helpful to you and/or your PLC?
Confirming what was reported on the PLCA-R, interview participants identified
the need for a greater quantity of time provided for PLC meetings. While two PLCs were
able to meet once every four school days, most PLCs were only able to meet once every
eight school days.
Art, technology education, and music are examples of PLCs where there are no
instances of educators teaching the same classes. In these cases, interview participants
mentioned that PLC members can struggle to collectively address the four questions of
the PLC framework. Leadership became more of a need in these PLCs and one
interviewee expressed, “there can be a lack of communication and we tend to go back to
doing our own thing.” Such concerns highlight the need for professional learning
experiences specific to these PLCs. The topics of this professional learning could include

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

108

developing common rubrics for assessing student work and developing virtual PLCs with
teachers in other schools.
The ability to visit Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, on three
occasions was indicated as a favorable resource by interview participants. Conversely,
the interviewees also noted that the inability of all educators in the school to have this
professional learning experience as a missing resource. Making this opportunity or
similar experiences available to educators in the school will be beneficial.
The two administrations of the PLCA-R during the 2021-2022 school year and
two interview questions provided information to identify the supportive structures,
resources, and conditions that are most favorable for teacher growth in the
implementation of PLCs. The data also supported the identification of those structures,
resources, and conditions related to favorable teacher growth which may be missing.
Survey respondents and interview participants indicated the following supportive
structures, resources, and conditions as being favorable for teacher growth:
•

communication throughout the school district and within the school

•

the opportunity to have PLC meetings as a scheduled part of the school day

•

the availability of student learning data

•

the effective and efficient facilitation of PLC meetings

•

the availability of the PLC handbook

•

the ability to visit a school that has successfully implemented PLCs.

The survey respondents and interview participants also identified the following
supportive structures, resources, and conditions as missing in the school:
•

an increase in the time and frequency for PLC meetings

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

109

•

instances of a lack of trust or accountability in some PLCs

•

the lack of an easily accessible program to track student, school, and district
performance in order to support instructional and operational decisions.

Fiscal Implications
Growth in pedagogical practices and improved student learning are anticipated
outcomes from the successful implementation of the PLC framework at Avon Grove
High School and this capstone project. There are direct and indirect costs associated with
project and the potential for further development and support.
The PLCA-R was administered twice during the school year. The cost for 200
licenses was $400.00. As there were 180 completed surveys, the cost per survey was
approximately $2.22. Based on the amount of information provided by the results, the
school district may consider administering this survey at least once each school year to
the entire faculty. The results could be used to monitor the overall implementation of
PLCs and identify potential professional learning needs. Even if administered to all
educators in the district, the cost is relatively minimal.
Indirect costs associated with administering the survey include the time for
personnel to purchase the survey and prepare the survey for administration in each
school. An additional indirect cost would be incurred related to the time allocated for
survey administration (approximately five to ten minutes). The total indirect costs should
not be considered a reason for not administering the survey to the faculty throughout the
school district as the overall time described above is minimal.
Professional learning needs have been identified from the data collected for this
project. There are direct costs associated with the facilitation of professional learning

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

110

experiences facilitated by an independent organization or by personnel from the Chester
County Intermediate Unit. If professional learning experiences were delivered by
professional educators within the district, there would be little to no cost associated with
the delivery of instruction. There could be direct costs associated with substitute teachers
needed for the classes of the professional learning facilitators and indirect costs
associated with the time to prepare lesson plans for substitute teachers.
The ability to use data to make decisions is critical to creating a learning
organization that positively impacts student outcomes (Thompson et al., 2004).
Additional access to a greater amount of data and training on how to best use the
information could result in the decision to hire additional personnel. Such a decision
would result in greater direct costs than other costs associated with the ongoing
implementation of PLCs.
The implementation of PLCs does have ongoing indirect costs. The PLC
framework requires time in a daily schedule to allow PLCs to meet during the school day.
If all teachers are going to available to meet during the school day, teachers cannot be
scheduled for any student supervision or duties during this time. During the meeting time
of each PLC these responsibilities will need to fall to building administrators or other
teachers in the building. A direct cost would be realized if the decision was made to hire
additional personnel to take on these responsibilities.
In addition to providing time in the master schedule for PLCs to meet during the
school day, indirect costs may be realized by scheduling time for consistent professional
learning. By regularly allotting professional development time for PLCs and related
topics, it could result in other initiatives not being pursued. Or, it could result in the

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

111

building administration needing to find other time (e.g. faculty meetings) for other
initiatives or professional development experiences.
Recommendations
The administration of the PLCA-R twice during the school year, the collection of
five years of student scale scores on the CDT, and the conducting of semi-structured
interviews answered the three research questions associated with this project. The
collection and analysis of this data has led to further recommendations for consideration
at both the school and district level.
As the development of PLCs throughout all schools in the district is being
pursued, administering the PLCA-R annually would provide a great deal of data to
teachers, building administrators, and district administrators. The data could be used to
assess the progress of PLCs in each school, reveal areas of strength and opportunities for
growth, identify professional learning needs, and consider personnel impact and needs.
At a cost of $2 per survey it would only cost the school district approximately $750 to
administer the test to all educators in the district.
Having time for PLCs to meet during the school day was identified as a favorable
condition for teacher growth on responses to the PLCA-R and the interview questions.
An increase in the frequency of these meetings was noted as a potential improvement,
however. In building the schedule for the upcoming school year, the high school
administration should consider strategies that would allow the PLCs in the building to
meet once every four school days instead of once every eight days. While meeting once
every eight days was considered to be adequate, there was a great deal of agreement that

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

112

the frequency of PLC meetings be increased in order to further grow pedagogical
practices and student achievement.
A number of professional learning needs were also identified through this process.
Those identified needs related to PLCs within a content area where all teachers instruct
different topics, creating sustainable PLCs, providing training for PLC facilitators,
allowing time for peer-to-peer classroom observations, and providing training related to
assessment development and data analysis.
Art, technology education, and music are examples of PLCs with fewer teachers
where there are no instances of teachers sharing the same classes. In these cases, PLC
members can struggle to collectively address the four questions of the PLC framework.
Professional learning experiences for these PLCs could include the creation of common
rubrics for assessing student work and development of virtual PLCs with teachers in
other schools teaching the same or similar content.
The elements of trust in one another, accountability, and a common purpose are
all foundational to the success of PLCs (Willis & Templeton, 2017). Ongoing
professional learning to support teachers in building and sustaining these elements is
needed to support the effectiveness and impact of PLCs throughout the school.
Similarly, teacher leadership for each PLC is also considered as foundational to
the success of PLCs (Huffman et al., 2001). Professional learning to improve the skills of
those educators who lead PLCs in the school should be an ongoing consideration. The
potential of such professional learning experiences to grow the number of teacher leaders
within the school should also be considered.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

113

Interview participants discussed the benefits related to having educators from the
school visit Adlai Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire, Illinois, to learn more about
the procedures and practices this school uses with PLCs. The high school administration
can consider additional trips to Adlai Stevenson High School or explore similar
professional learning experiences moving forward in order to increase the leadership
capacity within the school.
Peer observation of teaching can provide valuable insights into effective
instructional strategies and practices (Drew et al., 2017). Data and comments from the
PLCA-R indicated that this type of professional learning experience for teachers would
be valued and impactful. Time could be allotted to conduct such observations by
providing classroom supervision for teachers by school administrators, other personnel,
and substitute teachers. It is suggested that teachers of Algebra One and Biology be
observed as student scores on the CDT increased in those classrooms.
A key to the PLC framework is to be able to properly assess student learning and
analyze the assessment results to provide opportunities for remediation and enrichment.
Common formative and summative assessments are the key to this step. While
professional learning has been initiated on the development and use of common
assessments, this learning experience needs to be maintained due to changes in staffing,
the desire to build and improve skills, and the changing needs of students. Teachers need
to be provided with professional learning experiences to analyze the results of
assessments, provide feedback to their learners, and implement changes in their
instructional strategies related to this analysis. To aid with the data collection and
analysis process, the school district has approved the purchase of a data warehouse that

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

114

will support teachers and administrators with tracking overall student, school, and district
performance in order to simplify instructional and operational decisions. Professional
learning regarding the effective use of the data warehouse will be an important part of the
upcoming school year.
Limitations
While every effort was taken to ensure validity and reliability throughout this
research project, there are limitations to the study that need to be considered.
At the onset of this project, the researcher was the principal of the school where
the research was conducted. In addition to the data that was being collected as part of the
project, the researcher had intended to be regularly attending PLC meetings throughout
the school, providing feedback and support to individual PLCs, and facilitating ongoing
professional learning experiences based on the data provided by the PLCA-R and
personal observation. On January 1, 2022, the researcher was asked to direct efforts
towards the planning of a new high school to be occupied at the beginning of the 20222023 school year. Then, as of March 1, 2022, the researcher was promoted to one of the
two Assistant Superintendent roles in the school district. While the responsibilities are
focused on the secondary schools in the district, it did create an obstacle to accomplishing
the expectations the researcher had for PLC implementation throughout the school year.
The PLCA-R was administered in October, 2021, and May, 2022, at the high
school. Two administrations were considered in order to measure the impact of
professional learning experiences throughout the school year. As previously mentioned,
the changing roles of the researcher throughout the year impacted the quantity and quality
of the professional learning experiences and may have impacted the results on the second

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

115

administration of the PLCA-R. The second administration of the PLCA-R was
completed near the end of May. It is possible that the fatigue associated with the end of a
school year may have impacted the validity of the responses to the PLCA-R statements.
While there is no way to confirm this possibility, it should be considered when looking at
the outcomes associated with the second administration of the PLCA-R.
Average scale scores by cohort were gathered for each of the five years of PLC
implementation on the Algebra One, Biology, and Literature CDT. A limitation
associated with this method of data collection is that the assessed cohorts were comprised
of different students each year. While the sample sizes each year were relatively large,
the fact that the tested cohorts were different each year should be considered when
analyzing this data. Also, the 2021-2022 school year was the first full year of in-person
instruction since the 2018-2019 school year. One can assume that the quality of learning
was higher in the in-person learning environment compared to the virtual or hybrid
learning environment.
There are also limitations related to the data gathered through the semi-structured
interviews. Each of the interviews was conducted by the researcher who, at the time the
interviews were conducted, was either the high school principal or an assistant
superintendent in the school district. As the researcher was in a supervisory role in all
cases, this may have impacted some of the responses to the interview questions. Finally,
the semi-structured interviews were conducted with nine teachers in the high school. One
should consider the smaller sample size of interviewees when compared to the number of
respondents to the PLCA-R and the number students who were administered the CDT as
part of the data collection process.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

116

Implications for Future Research
This project collected quantitative and qualitative data for the purpose of
determining the impact of teacher participation in PLCs on teacher practices and student
learning. Two administrations of the PLCA-R, results on the CDT for the five years of
PLC implementation, and semi-structured interviews were the methods used for data
collection. Future research considerations include:
1. A deeper analysis behind the dramatic increase in scores on the Algebra One
CDT in the most recent school year. The average student scale score rose
from 975 to 1130 in one school year. Classroom observations, teacher
interviews, and PLC meeting attendance could be methods for collecting this
information.
2. A deeper analysis behind the decrease in scores on the Literature CDT in the
most recent school year. The average student scale score dropped from 1087
to 1027 in one school year. Classroom observations, teacher interviews, and
PLC meeting attendance could be methods for collecting this information.
3. Adding the ability to categorize responses on future administrations of the
PLCA-R by department and grade level. Such data will assist educators in
determining specific professional learning needs for departments and grade
levels throughout the school and district.
4. Consideration of the duplication of this study in the other schools throughout
the school district. Following the same methodology in each school will
allow for a better assessment of strengths and opportunities for improvement

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

117

across the school district. It will also allow district administrators to provide
effective and efficient support at the school and district level.
Summary and Conclusion
Chapter Five provided a description of the conclusions that were derived from the
data that was collected for each research question. This mixed-methods research project
did find evidence that teachers pedagogical practices grew and improved due to their
participation in PLCs. The data also provided limited evidence that academic
achievement grew as an outcome of teacher participation in PLCs. Supportive structures,
resources, and conditions were both identified and assessed within the school through
results from the PLCA-R and semi-structured interviews.
While there was evidence to support the growth of pedagogical practices and
student achievement, opportunities for growth were also identified. Included in this
chapter were recommendations to grow the effectiveness of PLCs in the school and
across the district. Additionally, strategies for further developing the supportive
structures, resources, and conditions were highlighted in the effort to plan for the growth
and improvement in the implementation of PLCs throughout the school district.
The research supports the continued implementation of PLCs in the school
district. Teachers, building administrators, and district leaders should consider
purposefully dedicating human resources, professional learning opportunities, and
financial support towards PLCs in an effort to continue the growth of pedagogical
practices to positively impact student achievement.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

118

References
Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher
collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421-455
Adlai Stevenson High School. (n.d.). About. https://www.d125.org/about
Battersby, S. L., & Verdi, B. (2015). The culture of professional learning communities
and connections to improve teacher efficacy and support student learning. Arts
Education Policy Review, 116(1), 22–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/
10632913.2015.970096
Berry, B., Johnson, D., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The power of teacher leadership.
Educational Leadership, 62(5), 56-60.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2003). “In praise of educational research”: Formative
assessment. British Educational Research Journal, 29(5), 623-637.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000133721
Blake, S. (2008). A nation at risk and the blind men. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(8), 601–602.
https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170808900814
Blankenship, S. S., & Ruona, W. E. A. (2007, February 28-March 4). Professional
learning communities and communities of practice: A comparison of models,
literature review [Paper presentation]. Academy of Human Resource
Development International Research Conference, Indianapolis, IN, United States.
Boyles, N. (2018). Reading, writing, and rigor: Helping students achieve greater depth
of knowledge in literacy. ASCD.
Bradley, J., Munger, L., & Hord, S. (2015). Focus first on outcomes: When planning

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

119

change, improved student learning is the ultimate goal. Journal of Staff
Development, 36(4), 44–47.
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice:
Toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation. Organization
Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Caffey, C. (2020). Elementary and secondary education act. Salem Press
Encyclopedia.
Carlson, J. R. (2019). “How am I going to handle the situation?” The role(s) of
reflective practice and critical friend groups in secondary teacher
education. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 13(1), 1-21.
Davis, S. L. (2017). How do teacher perceptions of the six, essential professional
learning community (PLC) criteria impact the effectiveness of a PLC (Publication
No. 10283132) [Doctoral Dissertation, Concordia University]. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1906301384
Donohoo, J., Hattie, J., & Eells, R. (2018). The power of collective efficacy. Educational
Leadership, 75(6), 40–44.
Dooner, A. M., Mandzuk, D., & Clifton, R. A. (2008). Stages of collaboration and the
realities of professional learning communities. Teaching and Teacher Education:
An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24(3), 564–574.
Dougherty, J. C., IV. (1985). Report on changes under chapter 1 of the education
consolidation and improvement act. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Drew, S., Phelan, L., Lindsay, K., Carbone, A., Ross, B., Wood, K., Stoney, S., &

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

120

Cottman, C. (2017). Formative observation of teaching: focusing peer assistance
on teachers’ developmental goals. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher
Education, 42(6), 914–929. https://doi-org.org/10.1080/02602938.2016.1209733
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational
Leadership, 61(8), 6–11.
Dufour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook
for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R. B., Eaker, R. E., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. National Educational Service.
Edyburn, D. L. (2008). Understanding what works and doing what works. Journal of
Special Education Technology, 23(1), 59–62.
Franzak, J. K. (2002). Developing a teacher identity: The impact of critical friends
practice on the student teacher. English Education, 34(4), 258–280.
Fullan, M. G. (2009). Large-scale reform comes of age. Journal of Educational
Change, 10(2/3), 101-113. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-009-9108-z
Fullan, M. G., McKenzie, W. B., Getty, & Hamilton, J. (2014). The principal: Three keys
to maximizing impact. Jossey-Bass.
Fullan, M. G. & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what
doesn’t. The Phi Delta Kappan, 73(10), 744–752.
Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs:
Theoretical developments, empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational
Researcher, 33(3), 3–13.
Grissom, J. A., Egalite, A. J., & Lindsay, C. A. (2021). How principals affect students

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

121

and schools: A systematic synthesis of two decades of research. The Wallace
Foundation. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/principalsynthesis
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi
Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500.
Hansen, A. (2015). How to develop PLCs for singletons and small schools. Solution Tree
Press.
Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2004). The seven principles of sustainable leadership.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 8-13.
Hipp, K. K., & Huffman, J. B. (2010). Demystifying professional learning communities:
School leadership at its best. Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Hipp, K. K., Huffman, J. B, Pankake, A., & Olivier, D. (2008). Sustaining professional
learning communities: Case studies. Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 173–
195.
Hollins, E., McIntyre, L., DeBose, C., Hollins, K., & Towner, A. (2004). Promoting a
self-sustaining learning community: Investigating an internal model for teacher
development. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 17(2),
247–264.
Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous
inquiry and improvement. Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Horn, R. A., Jr. (2004). The new federal definition of educational research: Implications
for educators. Teacher Educator, 39(3), 196–211.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730409555341
Huffman, J. B., Hipp, K. A., Pankake, A. M., & Moller, G. (2001). Professional learning

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

122

communities: Leadership, purposeful decision making, and job-embedded staff
development. Journal of School Leadership, 11(5), 448–463.
Kretchmar, J. (2021). Constructivism. Salem Press Encyclopedia.
Lick, D. W., Murphy, C. U., Brewer, H. M., & Snodgrass, A. (2007). The whole-faculty
study groups fieldbook: Lessons learned and best practices from classrooms,
districts, and schools. Corwin Press.
Linn, R. L., Baker, E. L., & Betebenner, D. W. (2002). Accountability systems:
Implications of requirements of the no child left behind act of 2001. Educational
Researcher, 31(6), 3–16.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional learning community affect the
classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools.
American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575.
McBrayer, J. S., Chance, J., Pannell, S., & Wells, P. (2018). A system-wide,
collaborative, purposeful, and sustainable distributed leadership plan utilizing
teacher leaders to facilitate professional learning communities. Educational
Planning, 25(4), 27–46.
Mertler, C. A. (2019). Introduction to educational research (2nd edition). Sage
Publications, Inc.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. The Elementary School Journal, 84(2), 113–
130.
National Education Association. (2022). The 123s of SLOs: Defining student learning
objectives and how to write one. https://www.nea.org/professional-

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

123

excellence/student-engagement/tools-tips/123s-slos-defining-student-learning
O’Neill, L. (2004). Method’s web: Gadamer’s corrective and educational policy.
Philosophy of Education Yearbook, 142(9), 142–149.
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (n.d.). Classroom diagnostic tools (CDT).
https://www.education.pa.gov/K-12/Assessment%20and%20Accountability/
CDT/Pages/default.aspx
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2018). Future ready PA index: Avon Grove
High School. https://futurereadypa.org/School/
FastFacts?id=071153081233203096087216092016052109026216058011
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2021). 2020-2021 CDT technical report.
https://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K-12/
Assessment%20and%20Accountability/Classroom%20Diagnostic%20Tools/
2020-2021%20CDT%20Technical%20Report.pdf
Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2022). Classroom diagnostic tools: Purpose.
https://www.education.pa.gov/K-12/Assessment%20and%20Accountability/
CDT/Pages/Purpose.aspx
Peppers, G. J. (2015). Teachers’ perceptions and implementation of professional learning
Communities in a large suburban high school. National Teacher Education
Journal, 8(1), 25–31.
Raywid, M. A. (1993). Finding time for collaboration. Educational Leadership, 51(1),
30–34.
Reeves, D. (2003). Take back the standards: A modest proposal for a quiet revolution.
Leadership, 32(3), 16-20.

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

124

Roy, P., & Hord, S. M. (2006). It’s everywhere, but what is it? Professional learning
communities. Journal of School Leadership, 16(5), 490–501.
Sather, S. E., & Hord, S. M. (2009). Leading professional learning teams: A start-up
guide for improving instruction. Corwin Press.
Schmoker, M. (2004). Start here for improving teaching and learning. School
Administrator, 61(10), 48–49.
Schmoker, M. J. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements
in teaching and learning. Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Schmoker, M. (2018). Focus: Elevating the essentials to radically improve student
learning (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning
organization (Revised and updated.). Doubleday/Currency.
Senge, P. M. (2012). Schools that learn: A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators,
parents, and everyone who cares about education. Crown Business.
Servage, L. (2009). Who is the “professional” in a professional learning community?
An exploration of teacher professionalism in collaborative professional
development settings. Canadian Journal of Education, 32(1), 149–171.
Stollar, L. J. (2014). Teachers’ perception of a professional learning community model
and its impact on teaching and learning (Order No. 3580319) [Doctoral
dissertation, Widener University]. ProQuest Dissertations.
Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elementary

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

125

schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 127–
146.
Stringer, E. T. (2007). Action research (3rd edition). Sage Publications, Inc.
Supovitz, J. A., & Christman, J. B. (2003). Small learning communities that actually
learn: Lessons for school leaders. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 649–651.
Supovitz, J. A., & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing communities of
instructional practice: Lessons from Cincinnati and Philadelphia. CPRE Policy
Briefs, RB-39, 1-7.
Talbert, J. E., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school
contexts. American Journal of Education, 102(2), 123–153.
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning communities,
leadership, and student learning. RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level
Education, 28(1), 1–15.
United States Department of Education. (n.d.) Every student succeeds act: ESSA.
https://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., & Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating communities of
practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Harvard Business Review Press.
Westover, J. H. (2009). Lifelong learning: Effective adult learning strategies and

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

126

implementation for working professionals. International Journal of Learning,
16(1), 435–443.
Willis, J. C., & Templeton, N. R. (2017). Investigating the establishment and
sustainability of professional learning communities in rural east Texas: The
principals’ perspectives. Rural Educator, 38(1), 30–37.
Wilson, A. (2016). From professional practice to practical leader: Teacher leadership in
professional learning communities. International Journal of Teacher
Leadership, 7(2), 45–62.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Dibenedetto, M. K. (2008). Mastery learning and assessment:
Implications for students and teachers in an era of high-stakes testing. Psychology
in the Schools, 45(3), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20291

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

Appendix A
Professional Learning Communities Assessment – Revised (PLCA-R)

127

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

128

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

129

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

130

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

131

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

132

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

133

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

134

Appendix B
Interview Questions
NOTE: Additional clarifying questions may be asked by the researcher in the interview to
promote the researcher's understanding of the interviewee's responses.
1. In regards to your pedagogical practices, do you think they have changed or not
based on your PLC involvement? Why or why not? If so, how? Please explain
in detail.
2. What are the benefits of PLCs and how do those benefits impact student
achievement?
3. What are the challenges of PLCs and how do these challenges impact student
achievement? How can these challenges be addressed?
4. Do you believe that your participation in a PLC has positively impacted the
academic achievement of your students? Why or why not?
5. What structures and conditions in our school are the most favorable for PLCs?
What structures and conditions are missing?
6. What resources have been beneficial to the implementation of PLCs? What
resources are missing or would be helpful to you and/or your PLC?
7. What have you learned about student achievement from your participation in a
PLC?

PARTICIPATION IN LEARNING COMMUNITIES

135

Appendix C
California University of Pennsylvania Institutional Review Board Approval
Institutional Review Board
California University of Pennsylvania
Morgan Hall, 310
250 University Avenue
California, PA 15419
instreviewboard@calu.edu
Melissa Sovak, Ph.D.

Dear Scott,
Please consider this email as official notification that your proposal titled
“The Impact of Teacher Participation in Professional Learning
Communities on Teacher Practices and Student Learning” (Proposal #20049) has been approved by the California University of Pennsylvania
Institutional Review Board as submitted.
The effective date of approval is 9/13/21 and the expiration date is 9/12/22.
These dates must appear on the consent form.
Please note that Federal Policy requires that you notify the IRB promptly
regarding any of the following:
(1) Any additions or changes in procedures you might wish for your study
(additions or changes must be approved by the IRB before they are
implemented)
(2) Any events that affect the safety or well-being of subjects
(3) Any modifications of your study or other responses that are
necessitated by any events reported in (2).
(4) To continue your research beyond the approval expiration date of
8/12/22 you must file additional information to be considered for continuing
review. Please contact instreviewboard@calu.edu
Please notify the Board when data collection is complete.
Regards,
Melissa Sovak, PhD.
Chair, Institutional Review Board