Implementing Change Through Professional Learning Communities

Implementing Change Through PLCs 1

IMPLEMENTAL CHANGE THROUGH PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES

IMPLEMENTING CHANGE THROUGH PROFESSIONAL LEARNING COMMUNITIES

by

Michael Phan

UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX SCHOOL OF ADVANCED STUDIES

© 2011 by Michael Phan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED


Introduction

This essay contains a discussion of implementing change through professional learning

communities (PLCs or PLC). I will write the proposal from the perspective of an instructional

leader at a public high school tasked with creating a PLC and pay special attention to the

following points: (a) Defining and justifying PLCs; (b) explaining the logistics and infrastructure

of PLC creation; (c) describing professional development activities crucial to the building of a

PLC; and (d) a rough timeline for action.

Background: What are PLCs and Why Do They Matter?

According to Fogarty and Pete (2006), a PLC is a construct that allows teaching

professionals to improve their skills, invigorate their spirits, obtain helpful feedback from trusted

peers, learn more, and learn how to keep learning. A PLC is a way to use the proven dynamics of

support and feedback from peers, overseen by a trusted leader (such as a principal), to make

teachers better at their jobs and more inclined to remain in their profession rather than burning

out (Caffarella & Zinn, 1999). PLCs also raise organizational morale and generate a

collaborative culture (Borko, 2004). As such, PLCs ought to be supported and funded at all

levels, from the individual school all the way up to the national education budget. Research has

demonstrated that such investments pay off by improving teacher performance and retention, and

student improvement (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham 2004).

Logistics and Infrastructure of PLC Creation

In many ways, the heart of any PLC is the set of professional activities in which teachers

indulge. However, before a PLC can begin to take advantage of these value-added activities, it is

important to lay a proper infrastructure and take care of logistical and planning matters. Without

this kind of foundation, even a PLC with sound pedagogical design will falter.


According to Abdal-Haqq (1996), “the greatest challenge to implementing effective

professional development is lack of time” (p. 1). The main reason that lack of time becomes a

problem is that there is disconnect between the logistical requirements of the PLC and the actual

schedule of teachers. For this reason, as soon as a PLC enters design stage, it is necessary for

administrators and other managerial personnel to accommodate the PLC time commitment

within teachers’ schedules. The PLC must be treated as a mandatory activity that is going to take

time out of a teacher’s working hours, not as a wishy-washy sort of volunteer activity that the

teacher herself is responsible for finding the time to attend.

Although there are many other infrastructural components of PLC success, I would pay

the most attention to ensuring that the PLC’s time requirements are fully budgeted into teacher

schedules.

Key Professional Development Activities for the PLC

Developing professional development activities for the PLC ought to be done with four

goals in mind: (a) Creating time and infrastructural opportunity for development; (b) choosing

activities that are proven to be pedagogically effective in improving teachers’ skills and

motivation; (c) measuring change; (d) defining success; and (e) making necessary adjustments to

put the PLC back on track if it is not achieving the desired results in the desired timeframe. This

general model has been offered by Dufour, Dufour, and Eaker (2008) as a means for creating

highly effective and responsive PLCs.

In terms of (b), there is no one fixed set of development activities that is appropriate for

all communities. However, there is consensus on how to identify and enact development

activities that are customized to the needs of teachers. Bransford (2000), for example, has argued

that PLC development activities ought to be learner-centered, knowledge-centered, assessment-


centered, and community-centered (p. 188). There are many different interpretations of how

these four Bransford foci can be best captured in a PLC. For example, Beyerbach, Weber, Swift,

and Gooding (1996) emphasized that the knowledge focus of PLC design ought to have a

practical component, so that members of the community understand the practical applications of

what they are being taught (pp. 101-102). For teachers, this practical component can be satisfied

by understanding why, in the context of real-world problem solving, it is necessary for them to

develop a new skill or refine an existing one.

Another recent emphasis in coaching design for community-centered learning is the

utilization of collaborative software, particularly blogs and wikis, which have the potential to

span each of Bransford’s (2000) focus areas for coaching design. Higdon and Topaz (2009)

stated that blogs and wikis had an important role in creating a more centered learning

environment, specifically by creating a shared virtual space to which all participants had to keep

returning.

My focus would not be on the electronic component of the PLC, although I would

certainly create and support blogs, web sites, and other helpful repositories to supplement and

extend the PLC experience. Instead, I see the core professional development activity of the PLC

as being teacher (a) observation and (b) critique of other teachers in practice. This activity yields

the most bang for the buck in a public education setting, which does not have the luxury of

waiting years for results (see Knight 2005 and Killion 2007 for evidence that practical

observation- and critique-oriented PLCs exercise rapid and significant impact on teacher skills

and morale).

As such, the PLC would have two main components in terms of development activity.

The first would be observation. Teachers in the PLC would have time off to attend classes taught


by other members of the PLC. The second component would be critique. In an environment

facilitated by the professor and selected educational consultants who can guide the teachers in

articulating and framing their critiques helpfully and positively, teachers would then give each

other feedback on how to improve, reinforce what they like, and suggest alterations to what they

do not like. This feedback can serve as ‘homework’ for teachers in either altering their practices

or keeping their practices the same, but with more awareness of why these practices work. All

teachers would be responsible for providing feedback and also being subject to feedback. I

would structure the PLC so that it met only twice a month. Making teachers give each other

constant feedback would be stressful and also a means of generating inaccurate data, as teachers

would eventually feel under pressure to make comments just for the sake of seeming involved in

the PLC.

The reality is that, although it is possible to create elaborate PLC plans that are built

around pedagogical interventions, group learning, and the like, teachers are tired and under

stress, and cannot make a major time or mental commitment to a second tier of learning. It is

therefore necessary to structure a PLC as an institution that, for a relatively low commitment in

terms of time, offers big returns by addressing the most important components of teacher

performance. My PLC would be goal-oriented; it would not exist for the purpose of idealized and

unrealistic forms of group learning, but rather to diagnose and treat pedagogical approaches in

the classroom and to provide motivation for teachers to do well. A second outcome of the PLC

would be to generate an espirit de corps in a school that is sorely lacking one. It would be

unwise to turn the PLC into yet another motivation-sucker by turning it into an abstract and time-

consuming exercise with no clear goals in sight.


Timeline for Action

The PLC’s timeline for action is open-ended, because, once the PLC is up and running, it

will be meeting continuously. However, this section will discuss the timeline for all steps leading

up to the actual first meeting of the PLC.

Table 1

PLC Timetable for Action

Timeframe Actions

-12 months to -9 months before go live date Create fact-finding committee to deal with

logistical matters relating to restructuring of

teacher schedules. Identify consultants to

facilitate PLC. Determine if principal needs

additional training in terms of PLC leadership.

-9 months to -6 months before go live date Begin to circulate the idea of the PLC among

teachers so as to acclimate them to the idea in

advance. Settle on school-approved

methodologies for giving and receiving

feedback in the PLC. Determine how

participation in the PLC will fit alongside other

development activities and also teacher

evaluation.

-6 months to 0 months before go live date Run a dummy PLC. Send teachers to other

PLCs to observe critique in action. Identify

teachers who will champion the PLC to other


teachers. Create written collateral to serve as a

guide to the PLC. Decide on what metrics will

be used to assess the success of the PLC (e.g.,

improvement in student test scores, increase in

teacher retention rates, etc.). Create flowchart

plan for adjusting the PLC when, after a fixed

period of time, it is not being observed to have

the requisite level of success.

Conclusion

Change in public school is unavoidable, given the complexities that exist and challenges

that continue to pervade our schools. This research supports the premise that school leaders’

understanding of their staff and the leaders’ humanistic ability to lead their staff through change

is imperative. Huffman and Hipp (2003) stated: “A community of continuous learners—

professional learners—is a key element of school capacity, a way of working, and the most

powerful professional development and change strategy available for improving our educational

system“ (p. vii). If we believe that it is important to create communities of learners both in our

teachers and students it is important to determine the most effective role principals should play in

creating these communities.


References

Abdal-Haqq, I. (1996). Making time for teacher professional development. ERIC Digest, 1996-

10-00, 1-7.

Beyerbach, B.A., Swever, S., Swift, J.N., and Gooding, C.T. (1996). A school/business/

university partnership for professional development. The School Community Journal,

6(1), 101-112.

Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain.

Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.

Bransford, J. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington,

D.C.: National Academies Press.

Butler, D.L., Lauscher, H.N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and

self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education,

20(5), 435-455.

Caffarella, R.S. and Zinn, L.F. (1999). Professional development for faculty: a conceptual

framework of barriers and supports. Innovative Higher Education, 23(4), 241-254.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

work. San Francisco, CA: Solution Tree.

Fogarty, R. & Pete, B. (2006). From staff room to classroom: A guide for planning and

coaching professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Higdon, J. & Topaz, C. (2009). Blogs and wikis as instructional tools: A social software

adaptation of just-in-time teaching. College Teaching, 57(2), 105-110.

Huffman, J., & Hipp, K.(2003). Reculturing schools as professional learning communities.

Lanham, MA: Scarecrow Education.


Killion, J. (2007). Assessing impact: Evaluating staff development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.

Knight, J. (2005). A primer on instructional coaches. Principal Leadership, 5(9), 16-21.

Documents

Implementing Change Through Professional Learning Communities