A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning

ARTICLE IN PRESS

0742-051X/$ - s

doi:10.1016/j.ta

$The prepa

Lastinger Cent

earlier version

Research Foru�Correspond

fax: +1352 392

E-mail addr

Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 80–91

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

A review of research on the impact of professional learningcommunities on teaching practice and student learning$

Vicki Vescio�, Dorene Ross, Alyson Adams

School of Teaching and Learning, University of Florida, 2403 Norman Hall, P.O. Box 117048, Gainesville, FL 32611-7048, USA

Received 7 October 2006; received in revised form 9 January 2007; accepted 10 January 2007

Abstract

After an overview of the characteristics of professional learning communities (PLCs), this manuscript presents a review

of 10 American studies and one English study on the impact of PLCs on teaching practices and student learning. Although,

few studies move beyond self-reports of positive impact, a small number of empirical studies explore the impact on

teaching practice and student learning. The collective results of these studies suggest that well-developed PLCs have

positive impact on both teaching practice and student achievement. Implications of this research and suggestions for next

steps in the efforts to document the impact of PLCs on teaching and learning are included.

r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Professional development; School culture; Teaching practice; Student achievement; Teacher collaboration

1. Introduction

Over the past 20 yr there has been a paradigmshift gathering momentum with regard to theprofessional development of teachers. Fueled bythe complexities of teaching and learning within aclimate of increasing accountability, this reformmoves professional development beyond merelysupporting the acquisition of new knowledge andskills for teachers. In their article on policies thatsupport professional development, Darling-Ham-mond and McLaughlin (1995) write, ‘‘The vision of

ee front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

te.2007.01.004

ration of this review was supported by the

er for Learning at the University of Florida. An

was presented at the National School Reform

m, January 2006.

ing author. Tel.: +1 352 3392 0751;

9193.

ess: [email protected] (V. Vescio).

practice that underlies the nation’s reform agendarequires most teachers to rethink their own practice,to construct new classroom roles and expectationsabout student outcomes, and to teach in ways theyhave never taught before’’ (para 1). DarlingHammond and McLaughlin go on to note thathelping teachers rethink practice necessitates pro-fessional development that involves teachers in thedual capacities of both teaching and learning andcreates new visions of what, when, and how teachersshould learn. This most recent model of profes-sional development ultimately requires a funda-mental change in the institutional structures thathave governed schooling, as it has traditionallyexisted.

One model that has evolved as a way of supportingthis paradigm change is that of professional learningcommunities (PLCs). Although, current professionaldevelopment literature is replete with articles that

.

www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004

mailto:[email protected]

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Vescio et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 80–91 81

extol the virtues of learning communities as anessential way to organize schools in order tomaximize time spent in professional development(e.g. Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993; Louis & Marks,1998), only recently has the focus of this literatureshifted to examining empirically the changes inteachers’ practices and students’ learning as aresult of PLCs. Although, teachers’ perceptionsabout the value of PLCs are both valid and valuable,understanding the outcomes of these endeavorson teaching practice and student learning is crucial,particularly in today’s era of scarce resourcesand accountability. With this in mind, the purposeof this manuscript is to provide a review ofthe research available on the impact of PLCs onteaching practices and student learning. In anattempt to create a comprehensive picture we firstprovide an overview of the essential characteristics ofPLCs. After developing this foundation, we examinethe current literature as it relates to two basicquestions:

�
In what ways does teaching practice change as aresult of participation in a PLC? And, whataspects of the PLCs support these changes? �
1Although beyond the scope of this review, it is important to

note that PLC reform is almost exclusively described as a school-

based reform. Even when implemented across a number of

schools or a whole district, there is little or no discussion of

parallel district level reforms consistent with PLC principles. Our

experience in establishing PLCs suggests the reforms are fragile

when district actions undermine PLC principles. Broadening the

PLC framework to include district level principles will be an

important next step in the conceptualization of the framework.

Does the literature support the assumption thatstudent learning increases when teachers partici-pate in a PLC? And, what aspects of the PLCssupport increased student learning?

We conclude with the implications of this researchand suggestions for next steps in the efforts todocument the impact of PLCs on teaching andlearning.

2. Essential characteristics of professional learning

communities

The concept of a PLC is based on a premise fromthe business sector regarding the capacity oforganizations to learn. Modified to fit the world ofeducation, the concept of a learning organizationbecame that of a learning community that wouldstrive to develop collaborative work cultures forteachers (Thompson, Gregg, & Niska, 2004).Learning communities are grounded in two assump-tions. First, it is assumed that knowledge is situatedin the day-to-day lived experiences of teachers andbest understood through critical reflection withothers who share the same experience (Buysse,Sparkman, & Wesley, 2003). Second, it is assumedthat actively engaging teachers in PLCs will increase

their professional knowledge and enhance studentlearning.

Schools interested in implementing this reformbegan to shift the organization and structure oftheir professional development efforts toward in-tegrating teacher learning into communities ofpractice with the goal of meeting the educationalneeds of their students through collaborativelyexamining their day-to-day practice. Newmann etal. (1996) describe five essential characteristics ofPLCs. First, shared values and norms must bedeveloped with regard to such issues as the group’scollective ‘‘views about children and children’sability to learn, school priorities for the use of timeand space, and the proper roles of parents, teachers,and administrators’’ (p. 181). A second essentialcharacteristic is a clear and consistent focus onstudent learning (p. 182). DuFour (2004) reiteratesthis notion when he writes that the mission ‘‘is notsimply to ensure that students are taught but toensure that they learn. This simple shift—from afocus on teaching to a focus on learning—hasprofound implications’’ (para 5). The third char-acteristic is reflective dialogue that leads to ‘‘ex-tensive and continuing conversations amongteachers about curriculum, instruction, and studentdevelopment’’ (Newmann et al., 1996, p. 182).Deprivatizing practice to make teaching publicand focusing on collaboration are the last twocharacteristics of a PLC (Newmann et al., 1996).Although expressed slightly differently, these fivecharacteristics (along with three additional char-acteristics) were confirmed as critical to PLCs in alarge-scale, multi-site study of professional learningin England (Bolam, McMahon, Stoll, Thomas, &Wallace, 2005). Bolam et al. (2005) synthesize thesecharacteristics to define a PLC as a community‘‘with the capacity to promote and sustain thelearning of all professionals in the school commu-nity with the collective purpose of enhancingstudent learning’’ (p. 145).1

The trend toward establishing PLCs in schoolshas not been without its struggles. DuFour (2004)

ARTICLE IN PRESSV. Vescio et al. / Teaching and Teacher Education 24 (2008) 80–9182

laments the fact that all combinations of individualswith any interest in schools are now callingthemselves PLCs. Everyone from grade level teamsto state departments of education is framing theirwork in terms of PLCs. Yet, using the term PLCdoes not demonstrate that a learning communitydoes, in fact, exist. DuFour (2004) cautions, ‘‘theterm has been used so ubiquitously that it is indanger of losing all meaning’’ (para 2). In order toprevent the PLC model from the same dismal fate asother well intentioned reform efforts, DuFour(2004) recommends that educators continuallyreflect on the ways they are working to embedstudent learning and teacher collaboration into theculture of the schools. Ultimately, however, educa-tors must critically examine the results of theirefforts in terms of student achievement. To demon-strate results, PLCs must be able to articulate theiroutcomes in terms of data that indicate changedteaching practices and improved student learning,something they have not yet established as commonpractice. With these two outcomes as our focus, wenow turn to an examination of the empiricalliterature that attempts to document these vitalresults.

3. Parameters for the review of the research

The studies for our review come from two keysources. First, we searched the US research andpublications links on the websites of organizationsthat are at the forefront of work with school-basedlearning communities. Specifically, we searched thewebsites of the Annenberg Institute for SchoolReform, the National School Reform Faculty, theCoalition of Essential Schools, and the WisconsinCenter for Education Research. Our second sourceof literature comes from searches on both ERIC andEBSCO databases for articles published between1990 and 2005. Because of the nebulous terminol-ogy associated with PLCs, several search terms wereused. These included the following: PLCs, teachercommunity, teachers and learning communities,critical friends groups, communities of practice,and then communities of practice with qualifiersthat included: and teachers, and schools, andstudent achievement. The results of this search,although by no means exhaustive, produced 55books, papers, and articles that included someefforts to connect learning communities with teach-ing practice and/or student achievement. In select-ing material for this literature review, we decided to

limit the review to published articles or bookchapters that included data about the impact ofschool-based PLCs on teaching practice and/orstudent learning. Using these parameters the searchprovided only 10 empirical studies of the work ofteachers in learning communities. In addition, wedecided to include one large multi-site researchreport commissioned and published by the GeneralTeaching Council of England, Department forEducation and Skills. Although not refereed andpublished in an edited journal, this report con-ducted by faculty at the Universities of Bristol, Bathand London has been vetted and published by theDepartment for Education and Skills in England.These 11 studies are the focus of our analysis. Theother 44 books or articles provided non-empiricaldescriptions of existing programmes, reported self-reflective accounts of teachers’ participation, wereempirical but unpublished (e.g. papers presented atconferences or dissertations), or were empirical butdid not document the essential characteristics of aPLC previously mentioned. These documents wereused only as additional support for a comprehensivepicture of PLCs.

The 11 primary sources used for our review canbe grouped into two broad categories that corre-spond to the original questions we asked in ourintroduction. In addition, these 11 sources alldescribed efforts by schools that either explicitlyor implicitly demonstrated the five essential char-acteristics of a PLC previously discussed. Whenlooking across these studies, all attempted to makeconnections between learning communities and theclassroom practices of teachers. Drawing on thesesources we provide a synthesis of the research onhow teaching practices or student achievementchange due to teachers’ participation in a learningcommunity and what aspects of the learningcommunity support these changes. Additionally,eight of the 11 studies attempted to add the elementof student achievement data to their results. Howthe researchers accomplished this varied from usingstandardized test results to reporting interview dataabout achievement.

4. Professional learning communities and teaching

practice

At its core, the concept of a PLC rests on thepremise of improving student learning by improvingteaching practice. As a result it is important to lookacross the reviewed studies to discern the connections


between participation in a learning communityand teachers’ classroom practices. As a way oforganizing this part of our review, we will focus onour guiding questions: In what ways does teachingpractice change as a result of participation in aPLC? And, what aspects of the PLC support thesechanges?

In a general sense, all 11 research articles used inthis analysis supported the idea that participation ina learning community leads to changes in teachingpractice. Because of this, it is imperative that welook more specifically at what the research conveysabout how teaching practice is changed. Analyzingthe literature for these specific changes was arelatively elusive activity; however, as only fivestudies (Dunne, Nave, & Lewis, 2000; Englert &Tarrant, 1995; Hollins, McIntyre, DeBose, Hollins,& Towner, 2004; Louis & Marks, 1998; Strahan,2003) mentioned specific changes teachers made intheir classrooms. One of these articles (Dunne et al.,2000) documented the findings of a 2-year study oncritical friends groups commissioned by the Annen-berg Institute for School Reform. In this study, theresearchers used interview and observation data tocompare the practices of non-participants to thepractices of teachers who participated in criticalfriends groups. The authors concluded that thepractices of participants became more student-centered over time. The authors state that partici-pants increased the use of techniques such as addedflexibility of classroom arrangements and changes inthe pace of instruction to accommodate for varyinglevels of student content mastery. However, theresearchers did not provide data about practices atthe beginning of the study, which decreases thepower of the reported findings. Englert and Tarrant(1995) studied changes in practice for three teacherswithin a learning community. One teacher inparticular made substantive changes in her practice.Prior to her work with the learning community thisteacher’s literacy instructional practices ‘‘consistedof discrete skill sheets or tasks that requiredstudents to read or write isolated words andsentences’’ (p. 327). Through participation in thecommunity this teacher implemented changes suchas developing an author’s center with mixed agegroups, implementing a new group story format,and utilizing choral reading strategies.

In the study by Hollins et al. (2004), althoughinitial teaching practices were not specificallydescribed, the authors talked about how earlymeetings of the 12 participating teachers focused

primarily on the challenges of trying to teach lowachieving African-American students successfully.They noted that by the tenth meeting, the teachershad shifted to a more strategic focus as theydesigned a new ‘‘approach to language arts instruc-tion that involved letter writing, a poetry projectand class books, and employed the writing process’’(p. 258). As a part of this process teachers usedstrategies that included, ‘‘visualization techniques’’to help children understand their reading, manip-ulation of site words using flash cards, and differentstrategies for having the children change words tomake new ones (p. 259).

Using a combined quantitative/qualitative designLouis and Marks (1998) conducted a multi-sitestudy of the impact of PLCs. These researchersfocused on eight elementary schools, eight middleschools and eight high schools (24 total). Thestudied schools were a nationally selected sampleof restructuring schools. These researchers lookedat both pedagogy and the social structure of theclassrooms in examining teaching practice. Inparticular, through classroom observations andinterviews with teachers they documented thepresence of the structural support for and thecharacteristics of authentic pedagogy, a term thatis defined in their study. Briefly, authentic pedagogyemphasizes higher order thinking, the constructionof meaning through conversation, and the develop-ment of depth of knowledge that has value beyondthe classroom. These researchers examine theconnection between the quality of classroom peda-gogy and the existence of the core characteristics ofPLC. Louis and Marks (1998) documented that thepresence of professional community in a schoolcontributes to higher levels of social support forachievement and higher levels of authentic peda-gogy. In fact, they note that their model accountsfor 36% of the variance in the quality of classroompedagogy providing robust support to demonstratethe impact of PLC on classroom practice.

A final example comes from one of Strahan’s(2003) case studies of an elementary school where allof the teachers participated in efforts to improvestudent achievement in reading. This case studydoes not document specific teaching practices priorto the attempted changes, but it does provideinterview data from the principal regarding theinitially negative attitudes of the teachers towardstudent learning. As a part of the change processteachers worked collaboratively to develop a sharedschool mission around four guiding values that


included integrity, respect, discipline, and excellence(p. 133). The author concluded that this led to thedevelopment of stronger instructional norms andmade the teachers receptive to working with acurriculum facilitator in the areas of changingpractices for guided reading, writing, and self-selected reading.

The other seven studies we reviewed did notprovide significant detail on the changes made toteachers’ practices; instead change was alluded towithout explicit documentation or detail. Forexample, Andrews and Lewis (2002) indicated thatteachers who participated in a learning communityknown as Innovative Design for EnhancingAchievement in Schools (IDEAS) reported changesin their practices. The authors provided severaldirect quotes to support these claims. The followingquote is representative, ‘‘I find that my teaching hasimproved, I find that I understand more about whatI’m doing, why I’m doing things, and I find that’sbeen an improvement’’ (p. 246). Note that althoughthe researchers provided a teacher’s self-reporteddata that indicated change in practice, the teacherprovided no specific information about the natureof changes in practice or thinking. This generaltrend was pervasive in the research studies, whetherincluded in or excluded from this literature review.Instead of descriptions of specific changes inpedagogy, the researchers reported that teachersperceived their practices had changed. What theresearchers typically provided was more specificinformation on how the teaching culture changed asa result of teachers’ participation in a PLC.

5. Professional learning communities and school

culture

Although many of the 11 studies failed to describespecific changes in pedagogy, change in the profes-sional culture of a school is a significant findingbecause it demonstrates that establishing a PLCcontributes to a fundamental shift in the habits ofmind that teachers bring to their daily work in theclassroom. All 11 of the studies cited empirical datasuggesting a change in the professional culture ofthe school had occurred. Six of the studies drewupon quotes from participants to document thisfinding (Andrews & Lewis, 2002; Berry, Johnson, &Montgomery, 2005; Englert & Tarrant, 1995;Hollins et al., 2004; Phillips, 2003; Strahan, 2003).Three of the studies used survey data that comparedparticipants to non-participants (Dunne et al., 2000;

Supovitz, 2002; Supovitz & Christman, 2003); onedrew on both interview quotes and survey data todocument three different levels of implementationof a PLC and to report teachers’ perceptions abouthow the level of participation in PLCs wasimpacting their work environment (Bolam et al.,2005); and one used survey data to document thedifferences in core characteristics of PLC acrossschools (Louis & Marks, 1998).

Looking across our sample, there seemed to becharacteristics inherent in learning communitiesthat worked to promote changes in teachingcultures. These can be broadly organized into fourcategories that include: collaboration, a focus onstudent learning, teacher authority, and continuousteacher learning. It is important to note that even aswe attempt to compartmentalize the processes thatare integral to the goals of PLC, we recognize thecomplexity of this process as it plays out in differentlived contexts. For the purposes of our review weare pulling out aspects of these 11 studies andputting them into discrete categories, however, inreality there is a multifaceted interweaving of howthese factors come together to change teachingcultures. Unfortunately, our only avenue for analy-sis lies in the less than desirable actions ofsimplifying and compartmentalizing what is actuallycomplex and contextual.

5.1. Collaboration

We first turn our attention to elements ofcollaboration that promote changes in teachingcultures. In general, the research tells us thatsuccessful collaborative efforts include strategiesthat ‘‘open’’ practice in ways that encouragesharing, reflecting, and taking the risks necessaryto change. For example, Louis and Marks (1998)created a ‘‘professional community index’’ thatdemonstrated that effective PLCs included bothcollaborative activity and the deprivatization ofpractice. Despite a relatively vague description oftheir methodology, Berry et al. (2005) reported thata learning community structure helped teachers in arural elementary school examine their practicethrough such collaborative structures as sharinglessons, using protocols for decision making, andrelying on systematic note taking to inform collea-gues about their work. In another example, Phillips(2003) drew on interviews with teachers in onemiddle school to report that funding from reforminitiatives allowed the teachers to collaborate in


ways that included observing each other in theclassroom, videotaping and reviewing lessons,investigating teaching problems and collectivelygenerating new ideas for practice, engaging inliterature study circles, and participating in criticalfriends groups. In the most comprehensive study ofPLCs, Bolam et al. (2005) examined survey datafrom 393 schools that included early childhood,elementary and secondary schools and interview-based case study data from 16 school sites. Bothsurvey and case study data suggest a positive impacton teaching practice and morale as a result ofparticipation in collaborative activities. Across thereviewed studies, teachers reported an increase incollaboration as they worked in learning commu-nities. This type of change in teacher culture, whichhas traditionally been described as isolationist,seems likely to lead to fundamental shifts in theway that teachers approach their work.

5.2. A focus on student learning

Each of the studies reported above focuses on thesignificance and nature of teacher collaboration. Itis equally important to note that most of the studiesdocument the specific focus of the teachers’collaborative efforts (Berry et al., 2005; Bolamet al., 2005; Dunne et al., 2000; Englert & Tarrant,1995; Hollins et al., 2004; Louis & Marks, 1998;Phillips, 2003; Strahan, 2003; Supovitz, 2002;Supovitz & Christman, 2003). In the middle schoolcase study of teachers collaborating to createinnovative curriculum, the goal of the teachers’work was to improve learning for low and under-achieving students (Phillips, 2003). The teachers instudies by Strahan (2003), Hollins et al. (2004), andEnglert and Tarrant (1995) all had an underlyingfocus of improving student literacy. Bolam et al.(2005) found that in effective PLCs the ‘‘pupillearning was the foremost concern’’ (p. 146) andthat PLCs at higher levels of development hadstronger linkages between student achievement andteachers’ professional learning. Similarly, two over-lapping studies (Supovitz, 2002; Supovitz & Christ-man, 2003) powerfully demonstrated theimportance of focus in teachers’ collaborativeactions. In their report about reform efforts in bothCincinnati and Philadelphia, the authors state thatteachers who participated on teams or in smallcommunities that focused on instructional practicereported changes in instructional culture. Theteachers who reported that they did not use

designated meeting times to focus on teachingpractice did not report changes in the instructionalculture. These findings reinforce the importance ofpersistently pursuing an instructional focus asteachers engage in their work in learning commu-nities.

5.3. Teacher authority

Another element of a PLC that helps to fosterchanges in teaching cultures is teacher authority. Byteacher authority we mean the ability of teachers tomake decisions regarding both the processes of theirlearning communities and aspects of school govern-ance. A specific example demonstrating the impor-tance of teacher authority in the overall success of alearning community came in a case study reportedby Englert and Tarrant (1995). In this collaborativeendeavor between three special education teachersand seven university researchers to provide ‘‘mean-ingful and beneficial’’ (p. 325) literacy instructionfor students with mild disabilities, the researchersencouraged the teachers to take control of thecurriculum. ‘‘Teachers were given leadership in theirchoices about curriculum development, so that thepower over the topics and change agenda might beshaped by the teachers’ concerns, interests, andquestions’’ (p. 327). In the end, at least one teachernoted the significance of being given this authoritywhen she spoke of how it transformed her sense ofownership over the curriculum.

At the beginning, I didn’t like that [parity] at all.I wanted Carol Sue to say, ‘‘Try this,’’ and ‘‘Dothis.’’ And there was none of thaty. Now I cansee why that was a really good way of doing thatbecause I feel that I’ve [speaker’s emphasis] doneit, as opposed to taking somebody else’s [ideas].Even though I’ve used hundreds of other people’sideas and so forth, it’s still mine, you know(p. 335).

In a second example, Supovitz (2002) reportedsurvey data comparing team-based and non-team-based teachers’ perceptions of school culture on 33items that were grouped into five key indicators ofschool culture. He found ‘‘strong and persistentevidence’’ that team-based teachers ‘‘felt moreinvolved in a variety of school-related decisions’’(p. 1604). He concluded that giving teachers thepower to be decision makers in their own learningprocess was essential to improving students’ learn-ing. Finally, case study data from Bolam et al.


(2005) demonstrated that the mobilization of leader-ship within strong PLCs enabled faculties andadministrators to develop innovative strategies foruse of financial and personnel resources to increasestudent learning and the strength of the professionallearning context.

5.4. Continuous teacher learning

The final element of PLCs that supports overallchanges in teaching cultures is that of continuousteacher learning. Participation in learning commu-nities facilitates professional development that isdriven by the needs of teachers as they are naturallyengaged in efforts to accomplish their goals. Theimportance of continuous teacher learning wassupported throughout the reviewed literature (Berryet al., 2005; Bolam et al., 2005; Englert and Tarrant,1995; Hollins et al., 2004; Phillips, 2003; Supovitz,2002). More specifically, Hollins et al. (2004)documented that teachers involved in efforts toimprove literacy in African-American studentssought out scholarly literature on culturally relevantteaching. Berry et al. (2005) reported that teachersin one learning community searched for outsideideas to help them solve their teaching dilemmas.Bolam et al. (2005) indicated teachers saw a clearconnection between their own professional learningopportunities within the PLC and changes in theirpractices and student learning. And in a finalexample, Englert and Tarrant (1995) noted thatresearchers brought new ideas and strategies rootedin scholarly literature to three special educationteachers attempting to change their reading instruc-tion for students with mild disabilities.

6. Professional learning communities and student

achievement

The literature provides modest evidence thatPLCs impact teaching. What, however, does theevidence tell us about the effects on students? In aneducational climate that is increasingly directed bythe demands of accountability, the viability of PLCswill be determined by their success in enhancingstudent achievement. This makes it incumbent uponeducators to demonstrate how their work inlearning communities improves student learning.Of the 11 studies reviewed for this analysis, eightattempted to make those connections.

6.1. Evidence of increases in student achievement

All eight studies (Berry et al., 2005; Bolam et al.,2005; Hollins et al., 2004; Louis & Marks, 1998;Phillips, 2003; Strahan, 2003; Supovitz, 2002;Supovitz & Christman, 2003) that examined therelationship between teachers’ participation in PLCsand student achievement found that student learn-ing improved. Berry et al. (2005) documented theprogress of a rural elementary school over a 4-yearperiod. During this time, the results of grade leveltesting indicated that students improved fromstruggling—with slightly more than 50% perform-ing at or above grade level—to improving rapidlywith more than 80% of students meeting grade levelstandards. In a case study documenting the effortsof a middle school faculty engaged in learningcommunity efforts to target low and underachievingstudents, Phillips (2003) reported that achievementscores increased dramatically over a 3-year period(p. 256). More specifically, in this middle school,ratings on a state-wide standardized test went fromacceptable in 1999–2000 with 50% of the studentspassing subject area tests in reading, writing, math,science, and social studies, to exemplary in2001–2002 with over 90% of the students passingeach subject area test. In Strahan’s (2003) accountof three struggling elementary schools over a 3-yearperiod, results also demonstrated dramatic improve-ment. In each of these schools student test scores onstate achievement tests rose from 50% proficiencyto more than 75%.

Results from the research conducted by Hollinset al. (2004) also document improvement inachievement. Hollins et al. (2004) report that atboth levels assessed (second and third grade),struggling African-American students in the targetschool increased their achievement significantlymore than comparable students in the district. Forexample they report:

In 1998, 45% of second graders [at the targetschool] scored above the 25th percentile ascompared with 64% in 1999, and 73% in 2000.This is a 28% overall gain. District-wide, 48% ofsecond graders scored above the 25th percentilein 1998, 61% in 1999 and 56% in 2000, an overallgain of 12% (p. 259).

Similar gains are reported for third graders. Inaddition, the percentage of students moving into the50 percentile or higher in target schools exceededdistrict gains at both grade levels.


In their large-scale study conducted in England,Bolam et al. (2005) compared PLC characteristics ofschools (as reported in school surveys) with studentoutcome data from a national pupil assessmentdatabase. Links between the strength of PLCcharacteristics and student achievement were statis-tically significant at both the primary and secondarylevels. Although, the relationships were not robustthe authors were encouraged to find clear positiverelationships when they used valued added mea-sures (used to make comparisons between relativestudent progress in the PLC schools and that ofstudents in the non-targeted schools). The authorsconcluded that, ‘‘the greater the extent of reportedstaff involvement in professional and pupil learning,the higher was the level of pupil performing andprogress in both primary and secondary schools’’(p. 132).

Finally, the studies conducted by Bolam et al.(2005), Louis and Marks (1998), Supovitz (2002),and Supovitz and Christman (2003) are particularlyimportant in helping to discern the value of PLCs.In these studies, results of student achievementgains varied with the strength of the PLC in theschool (Bolam et al., 2005; Louis & Marks, 1998) orwith the specific focus of the efforts of teams orsmall communities of teachers (Supovitz, 2002;Supovitz & Christman, 2003). After adjusting forgrade level and student background Louis andMarks (1998), found that student achievement wassignificantly higher in schools with the strongestPLCs. This effect was so strong that the strengthof the PLC accounted for 85% of the variancein achievement in this study. In both sites studiedby Supovitz (2002) and Supovitz and Christman(2003) ‘‘there was evidence to suggest that thosecommunities that did engage in structured, sus-tained, and supported instructional discussionsand that investigated the relationships betweeninstructional practices and student work producesignificant gains in student learning’’ (p. 5). Itis important to note, however, that in the commu-nities where teachers worked together but did notengage in structured work that was highly focusedaround student learning, similar gains were notevident.

Although few in number, the collective results ofthese studies offer an unequivocal answer to thequestion about whether the literature supports theassumption that student learning increases whenteachers participate in PLCs. The answer is aresounding and encouraging yes.

6.2. A focus on student learning is the key to

increased achievement

Inquiry about how learning communities pro-duced the improvement in student learning isimportant to the continued and future work ofeducators. When analyzing these eight studies thereseemed to be a common feature that facilitatedsuccess. This feature was a persistent focus onstudent learning and achievement by the teachers inthe learning communities. All eight studies docu-mented that the collaborative efforts of teacherswere focused on meeting the learning needs of theirstudents. In this section of our analysis we examineseven of the reviewed studies to highlight thesignificance of this common thread for the successof PLCs.

Initially, the work of Supovitz (2002) andSupovitz and Christman, 2003) demonstrated in-consistent student achievement results. As notedabove, this occurred because there was not auniform effort by teachers in teams or smallcommunities to focus on student learning. In bothof the sites where the research was conducted, theauthors found evidence of improved achievementbut only for students whose teachers worked inteams or communities that focused on instructionalpractices and how they impacted student learning.Berry et al. (2005) reported consistent improvementfor students. In this study, the teachers worked inprofessional learning teams to develop instructionalstrategies that were based on student data andreinforced by professional literature, to lead tomeaningful student achievement. Hollins et al.(2004) stressed the importance of a facilitator whohelped teachers maintain a focus on the goal ofimproving literacy for African-American studentsduring all group meetings. Additionally, the facil-itator worked to ensure that the efforts of theircollaborations were always rooted in improving testscores and other measures of student achievement.Similarly, Strahan (2003) noted that the reformefforts of the three elementary schools he studiedwere driven by data-directed dialogue. He explainedthat this meant teachers’ collaborative efforts werealways focused on data about student learning anddirected toward increasing that learning. Louis andMarks (1998) examined the nature of impact ofPLC on pedagogy and achievement to conclude thatthe focus on the intellectual quality of studentlearning within PLCs boosts achievement because itpushes teachers toward the use of authentic


pedagogy. Finally, in the case study by Phillips(2003), interview data indicated that the teachers inthis middle school continually analyzed data fromeach child to identify ways to affect his/her successboth cognitively and affectively. Phillips concludedthat the teachers ‘‘knew their students’ populationwell, and they deliberately created culturally rele-vant programs to make learning more meaningful’’(p. 258). In the long run, the data across thesestudies indicated that a key element of successfulPLCs is their pervasive attention to meeting thelearning needs of their students.

7. Summary

The use of professional learning communities(PLCs) as a means to improve teaching practice andstudent achievement is a move that educatorssupport and value, as indicated by teachers’perceptions of impact as cited in this review. Thereis also some limited evidence that the impact ismeasurable beyond teacher perceptions. To sum-marize the findings across the reviewed literature interms of our two initial research questions: (1)participation in learning communities impactsteaching practice as teachers become more studentcentered. In addition, teaching culture is improvedbecause the learning communities increase colla-boration, a focus on student learning, teacherauthority or empowerment, and continuous learn-ing; (2) when teachers participate in a learningcommunity, students benefit as well, as indicated byimproved achievement scores over time. All sixstudies reporting student learning outcomes indi-cated that an intense focus on student learning andachievement was the aspect of learning communitiesthat impacted student learning. Together, thesefindings from the literature provide preliminaryevidence of the benefit of learning communities forteachers and their students.

A final question we considered was whether thesebenefits could be the result of the Hawthorne Effect,that is, were the positive findings a result of theinterest and involvement of the teachers in aninnovation as opposed to a benefit specifically tiedto participation in a PLC. The small number ofstudies makes it impossible to discount the possibi-lity of the Hawthorne Effect, however, four of thestudies report a differential impact on teachingpractice or student learning as a result of participat-ing in a PLC and therefore would contradict theHawthorne Effect. Bolam et al. (2005) and Louis

and Marks (1998) found that higher studentachievement was related to the extent that schoolshad strong professional communities. Supovitz andChristman (2003) and Supovitz (2002) found thatmeasurable improvement in student achievementonly occurred in PLCs that focused on changing theinstructional practices of their teachers.

8. Conclusions

Reviewing literature is essentially an act ofinterpretation. That is, the reviewers elect whichliterature to include and which to exclude basedupon the guiding questions for the review. Thosedecisions shape the conclusions from the review. Inthis review we have not reported the findings of themany reports that describe work within PLCs norhave we reported the results of reflective self-reportsof the value of this work. In part, this is because weaccept as valid and significant the perspectives ofteachers and administrators that this work is valuedand perceived positively (Bambino, 2002; Carver,2004; Olson, 1998; Slick, 2002). Our focus in thisreview has been to look at the empirical literatureon PLCs that might validate these perceptions. Thatis, we reviewed the empirical studies that connectPLCs with changes in teaching practices and studentlearning. This review is further limited by ourdecision to report only published or vetted researchbecause the review process is a strategy fordetermining the quality of a research report. Thisfocus clearly limited the scope of the review as fewpublished studies have looked at the impact of PLCson teacher practice or student learning. However,studies which have been done clearly demonstratethat a learning community model can have positiveimpact on both teachers and students. Just asimportant, our act of interpreting the literaturehas led us to draw conclusions that are significant tofuture research.

8.1. The focus of A PLC should be developing

teachers’ ‘‘Knowledge Of Practice’’ around the issue

of student learning

Traditional models of professional developmenthave focused on providing teachers with the skillsand knowledge necessary to be ‘‘better’’ educators.These models have typically been grounded in theassumption that the purpose of professional devel-opment is to convey to teachers ‘‘knowledge FORpractice’’ (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). That is,


the professional development activity is based onthe premise that knowledge and expertise are bestgenerated by university researchers outside of theday-to-day work of teaching. Through professionaldevelopment, teachers acquire and then implementthis knowledge. In addition, the knowledge pre-sented is usually advocated as a prescription forbetter teaching. The PLCs model represents afundamental shift away from this traditional modelof professional development. PLCs at their best aregrounded in generation of ‘‘knowledge OF Prac-tice’’ (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999). That is, ‘‘it isassumed that the knowledge teachers need to teachwell is generated when teachers treat their ownclassrooms and schools as sites for intentionalinvestigation at the same time that they treat theknowledge and theory produced by others asgenerative material for interrogation and interpre-tation’’ (p. 272).

PLCs honor both the knowledge and experienceof teachers and knowledge and theory generated byother researchers. Through collaborative inquiry,teachers explore new ideas, current practice, andevidence of student learning using processes thatrespect them as the experts on what is needed toimprove their own practice and increase studentlearning. Learning communities are not a prescrip-tive, one-size fits all approach. However, learningcommunities also cannot be insular, focused only onmaking explicit the practical wisdom teachersalready possess about teaching. Instead learningcommunities should support teachers in makingdecisions based on their contexts, their goals,current and new professional knowledge, and theneeds of their students.

In a research study that analyzed teachers’representations of classroom practices, Little(2003) cautioned against the limited nature ofteacher-led collaborative groups. After analyzingthe language of teachers in a high school math andEnglish department, she warned that teachingcommunities could be limited by their own ‘‘hor-izons of observation’’ (p. 917). She defined this termas, ‘‘the extent to which elements of a workenvironment are available as a learning context’’(p. 917). She then used transcripts of meetings toanalyze the discourse of teachers engaged in alearning community to improve instructional prac-tices. Her main point was that teachers constructvisions of teaching and learning based on a picturethat is structured by their very positions as teachers.This can create paradigms of thinking that privilege

certain voices and epistemologies based on precon-ceived notions of right, wrong, good, or bad inschooling. In the end, this horizon of observationcan serve to limit the solutions teachers develop toimprove their own practices or improve studentlearning.

This can also be true for university-basededucators, particularly those who work closely andextensively with schools. As educators, our visionsare limited by our lifetimes spent within educationand Little (2003) makes a strong argument fortaking steps to ensure that teachers working inPLCs broaden the scope of their inquiry toproblematize any and all aspects of the learningenvironment as appropriate. That is, as educators atall levels engage in the work of improving teachingand learning it is important that we seek externalperspectives from other constituents (e.g. families,citizens, educators working outside our immediateenvironment, educational research, sociologicalresearch) so that all aspects of our practice be canbe interrogated as an integral part of our efforts.

Although, it is important for researchers andteachers involved in the work of PLCs to keepLittle’s (2003) caveat in mind, the reviewed studiesclearly show this model is working to shift teachers’habits of mind and create cultures of teaching thatengage educators in enhancing teacher and studentlearning. Additionally, in those studies where thework of PLCs is linked to student achievement, theresearch clearly demonstrated a strong positiveconnection. In each of these cases the key wascollaboration with a clear and persistent focus ondata about student learning. This finding is con-sistent with the findings of other researchers whohave reviewed literature about the importance of afocus on student learning and the analysis ofstudent work (Guskey, 1997; Little, Gearhart,Curry, & Kafka, 2003). The studies in our sampledocumented changes in student achievement overtime, in some cases up to 5 yr. What these studiesshow is that working collaboratively is the processnot the goal of a PLC. The goal is enhanced studentachievement.

8.2. Additional and rigorous research documenting

the impact on teaching practice and student

achievement is imperative

A great deal of the writing about PLCs describesthe work of these communities and/or reportsteachers’ perceptions of the value of this work.


Teachers working within PLCs need to developcollaborative relationships with researchers to helpdocument the impact of their efforts. Although, thenumber of studies reviewed here was not high, whatwe found was encouraging. Clearly future researchmust continue building evidence that supports theimpact of PLCs on teaching practice and achieve-ment.

The studies that formed the basis of this analysiswere mainly qualitative, although some of themadded quantitative data in the form of survey resultsor students’ standardized test results. Two providedmore robust quantitative analysis of survey andachievement data (Bolam et al., 2005; Louis &Marks, 1998). Most of the qualitative data reportedin these studies were from interviews, observations,field notes, and meeting transcriptions that werethen reported in a case study format. Furtherresearch should draw broadly across various meth-odologies to document the creation of PLCs andtheir impact. The following kinds of studies areneeded:

�
Quantitative studies that document changes inteachers’ perceptions of the professional cultureof the school. � Longitudinal observational studies (both quanti-
tative and qualitative) that document changes inteaching practice as teachers work in PLCs.
� In-depth case studies of changes in teaching
practice and student achievement for sampleteachers working in PLCs.
� Qualitative documentation of the nature of the
work teachers do as they analyze student workand how this changes over time.
� In-depth case studies of changes in student
learning for sample students in classrooms ofteachers working in PLCs.
�
2This particular recommendation is easy to make but very

difficult to operationalize. University faculty must publish. As a

result, those of us interested in working with schools find it

essential to research our own efforts to meet the requirements for

tenure and promotion. If external researchers are hired to

document and publish the work of PLCs, this could leave

facilitators with few incentives to engage in the work. Probing

this dilemma is beyond the scope of this paper, however, this

problem deserves attention.

Quantitative documentation of changes in stu-dent achievement over time as teachers engage inwork in PLCs.

Although, the analysis of data about studentachievement is time-consuming, it is essential inbuilding the case that PLCs are powerful types ofreform and with the current demands that schoolscollect and analyze evidence of student achievement;this analysis is less difficult than it once was. Manyteachers and university collaborators note thatachievement tests assess a narrow range of learningand may fail to capture the breadth of impact of aPLC. While we would not argue with the validity of

this observation, it cannot be used as a rationale forfailing to collect evidence of the impact of this workon student achievement. Data from achievementtests can be supplemented with case studies thatexamine changes in student work over time. In fact,these kinds of cases studies done by individualteachers working within learning communitieswould create a powerful picture of impact. At thispoint, we do not have these case studies.

Additionally there are a couple of methodologicalissues researchers should consider. First, researchersshould carefully report research methodology anddata sources. In several of the reviewed studies, thedescription of methodology omitted importantinformation (e.g. the number of teachers whoparticipated in interviews, the nature of interviewquestions, the amount of interview data collected).Rigorous reporting of research methodology isessential if we are to build a credible justificationfor the resources necessary to sustain PLCs. Andsecond, it is important to incorporate viableevaluation designs into our efforts. Seven of the 11research studies used for this analysis are note-worthy because the evaluators were independentfrom those who facilitated the work of the PLC(Andrews & Lewis, 2002; Bolam et al., 2005; Dunneet al., 2000; Louis & Marks, 1998; Phillips, 2003;Supovitz, 2002; Supovitz & Christman, 2003). Nomatter how rigorous the methodology or howunbiased the report, research conducted by thefacilitator will be suspect. To build a strong case, wemust guard against the danger of researchingourselves.2 Conducting this research, like the workitself, will take time. Just as it is difficult to shiftteachers’ thinking to build collaborative cultures, itis difficult to capture the essence of this contextuallydriven process. The studies reviewed here provide amodel for these efforts and a basis for suggestingimprovements. They leave us hopeful that learningcommunities offer an avenue to build the momen-tum of a shifting paradigm in the professionaldevelopment of teachers and the learning ofstudents.


References

Andrews, D., & Lewis, M. (2002). The experience of a

professional community: Teachers developing a new image

of themselves and their workplace. Educational Research,

44(3), 237–254.

Bambino, D. (2002). Critical friends. Educational Leadership,

59(6), 25–27.

Berry, B., Johnson, D., & Montgomery, D. (2005). The power of

teacher leadership [electronic version]. Educational Leader-

ship, 62(5), 56.

Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Stoll, L., Thomas, S., & Wallace, M.

(2005). Creating and sustaining professional learning commu-

nities. Research Report Number 637. London, England:

General Teaching Council for England, Department for

Education and Skills.

Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. E. (1993). Catholic schools and

the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Buysse, V., Sparkman, K. L., & Wesley, P. W. (2003).

Communities of practice: Connecting what we know with

what we do. Exceptional Children, 69(3), 263–277.

Carver, C. L. (2004). A lifeline for new teachers. [electronic

version]. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 58.

Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of

knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. In

A. Iran-Nejar, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in

education (pp. 249–305). Washington, DC: AERA.

Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies

that support professional development in an era of reform.

[electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8).

DuFour, R. (2004). What is a ‘‘Professional Learning Commu-

nity’’? [electronic version]. Educational Leadership, 61(8), 6.

Dunne, F. Nave, B., & Lewis, A. (2000). Critical friends groups:

Teachers helping teachers to improve student learning.

[electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 28.

Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995). Creating collaborative

cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special

Education, 16(6), 325–336, 353.

Guskey, T. R. (1997). Research needs to link professional develop-

ment and student learning. Journal of Staff Development, 18(2).

Hollins, E. R., McIntyre, L. R., DeBose, C., Hollins, K. S., &

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.

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations

of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6),

913–945.

Little, J. W., Gearhart, M., Curry, M., & Kafka, J. (2003).

Looking at student work for teacher learning, teacher

community, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3),

184–192.

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.

Newmann, F. M., et al. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restruc-

turing schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-

Bass Publishers.

Olson, L. (1998). The importance of critical friends: Reform

effort gets teachers talking. Education Week, 17(37),

1–2.

Phillips, J. (2003). Powerful learning: Creating learning commu-

nities in urban school reform. Journal of Curriculum and

Supervision, 18(3), 240–258.

Slick, S. (2002). Teachers are enthusiastic participants in a

learning community. [electronic version]. Clearing House,

75(4), 198–201.

Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional

culture in three elementary schools that have beaten the

odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2), 127–146.

Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional

practice. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1591–1626.

Supovitz, J. A., & Christman, J. B. (2003). Developing commu-

nities of instructional practice: Lessons for Cincinnati and

Philadelphia. CPRE Policy Briefs pp. 1–9. Pennsylvania:

University of Pennsylvania.

Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional

learning communities, leadership, and student learning.

Research in Middle Level Education Online, 28(1), 35, 20.

Documents

A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning