Professional learning communities andsystem improvementAlma HarrisInstitute of Education, London, UK

Michelle JonesTwynrhodyn Primary School, Wales, UK

AbstractThis article outlines the progress and impact of professional learning communities within,between and across schools, as part of the implementation of whole system reform in Wales.It describes the way in which professional learning communities are being developed to sup-port improvement and change across the education system in Wales. The article focuses ona group of schools that piloted a model of professional learning communities that subse-quently have become a key part of the reform process in Wales and it highlights some of thechallenges faced by the schools in establishing and sustaining professional learning commu-nities. The article concludes by suggesting that professional learning communities offer oneway of generating changed professional practice that can positively contribute to system-wide improvement.

Keywords: distributed leadership, professional learning communities, schooleffectiveness, school improvement, school reform, system improvement

Introduction

In Wales a major reform effort is underway to secure success for each student in everysetting and to transform an entire education system. System-wide reform is taking placeat school, local authority and government level in order to secure higher education per-formance and improved learner outcomes. Substantial effort is being put into buildingthe capacity for large-scale reform in a deliberate and purposeful way. This basis for thisreform is set out in two strategic documents: The Learning Country and The LearningCountry: Vision into Action (Welsh Assembly Government, 2006). Both documentsmake a commitment to using the school effectiveness and improvement research evi-dence to secure improved learning and teaching outcomes. Consequently, in 2006/07the Welsh Assembly Government introduced a National ‘School EffectivenessFramework’ (SEF) as a way of achieving system-level reform and improved studentoutcomes for all students. The School Effectiveness Framework1 is based on robust

Improving Schools © AuthorsVolume 13 Number 2 July 2010 172–181ISSN 1365-4802 DOI: 10.1177/1365480210376487

AR

TIC

LE

research evidence and is the key policy document that will drive reform and system-level improvement in Wales over the next few years.

To contribute to the implementation process, professional learning communities(PLCs) within, between and across schools are being established in schools in Walesto build the necessary capacity for change. The PLC model is a way of ensuring thatthere is the opportunity for professionals to learn new practices and to generate newknowledge. As Resnick (2010) highlights, collaborative routines among teachers arean important component in securing improved student learning outcomes. These col-laborative routines have been described in various ways but are best described as ‘net-worked learning communities’ or ‘professional learning communities’ (Stoll et al.,2007).

In this article we define professional learning communities (PLCs) as they are character-ized and understood within the school effectiveness and school improvement literature.These fields view the professional learning community as a powerful staff developmentapproach and a potent strategy for school and system improvement (Harris andChrispeels, 2008; Hopkins, 2007; Stoll and Seashore Louis, 2007). The idea of a pro-fessional learning community is grounded in the knowledge and experience that hasbeen gained over many years from encouraging teachers to work together more collab-oratively (Darling Hammond, 1996; Guskey, 1986; Louis and Kruse, 1995). It has beeninformed by the literature about effective organizations which shows how they access,circulate and distribute knowledge as a way to achieve continuous improvement(Leithwood et al., 1997; Sergiovanni, 1994).

Foundational work by Rosenholtz (1989) showed that professional support throughteacher networks, professional collaboration and expanded professional roles improvedteacher efficacy and enhanced teacher effectiveness. Research has also shown that teach-ers with a high sense of their own efficacy are more likely to adopt new classroombehaviours and are also more likely to stay in the profession. Little (1982) found thatwhen teachers had the opportunity for collaborative inquiry and the learning related toit, they were able to develop and share a body of wisdom gleaned from their experi-ence. More recently, distributed leadership and shared decision-making have beenassociated with positive changes in teaching performance (Harris, 2008, 2009; Stolland Seashore Louis, 2007).

The professional learning community model in Wales is one that reinforces professionalnetworking and collaboration as a main lever for change (Egan and Hopkins, 2009;Egan et al., 2009; Hopkins, 2007). It reinforces that PLCs can stimulate and spreadinnovation about learning and teaching practices, as well as to raise collective and indi-vidual professional performance (Hopkins, 2006). A professional learning communityis a group of connected and engaged professionals who are responsible for drivingchange and improvement within, between and across schools that will directly benefitlearners. The basic argument is that by cultivating professional learning communities itis possible for schools to improve student achievement through changing teaching andclassroom practices. The idea of professional learning communities is underpinned bythe concept of distributed leadership (Harris, 2008). Distributed leadership is primarilyconcerned with the reciprocal interdependencies that shape leadership practice. A dis-tributed perspective on leadership recognizes that leadership involves multiple individuals

Harris and Jones: Professional learning communities 173

174 Improving Schools 13(2)

and crosses organizational boundaries. Distributed leadership encompasses both formaland the informal forms of leadership practice. Consequently within professional learn-ing communities, distributed leadership is characterized by teachers working togetheron a shared area of enquiry (Harris, 2009). Distributed leadership provides the infra-structure that holds the community together, as it is the collective work of educators, atmultiple levels who are leading innovative work that creates and sustains successfulprofessional learning communities.

This article focuses on the ways in which professional learning communities, locatedwithin, between and across schools have the potential to contribute to system-levelimprovement. It looks at the conditions that need to be in place for teachers withinPLCs to continuously seek and share learning; and to subsequently act on what theylearn. The article reflects upon progress made in a pilot phase of PLCs in Wales and out-lines some of the challenges of sustaining professional learning communities as part ofa process of implementing system-wide reform.

Professional learning communities and system reform

The quality of an educational system cannot outperform the quality of its teachers andtherefore a concerted effort is being made in Wales to improve professional practicethrough participation in professional learning communities within, between and acrossschools. Evidence would suggest that professional learning communities offer a verypowerful way of engaging teachers in reflecting upon and refining their practice.Securing improvement across large numbers of schools and classrooms in Wales will nothappen unless teachers are fully engaged in the change process and feel a high degreeof ownership about the outcomes. Having the right reforms is not sufficient; there hasto be a basis for changing professional practice and for ensuring that schools and teach-ers drive that change.

But teachers collaborating is not enough. There are numerous examples around theworld of well-funded teacher networks that fail to produce the gains expected, simplybecause they are shallow or empty networks devoid of any real focus on improvinglearner outcomes. If too loosely configured, it is easy for professional learning com-munities to pay attention to everything else except learning and teaching, and in sodoing, to significantly reduce the potential impact of their work. Improvement throughprofessional learning communities is only possible if teachers collaborate and focus onthe ‘real work’ of improving learning and teaching (Harris and Jones, 2009).Improvement through professional learning communities means focusing on improvinglearning outcomes or better learning. It means addressing the hard questions aboutclassroom practice and actively seeking to change teachers’ practice. Fullan (2009: 12)talks about the importance of creating ‘cultures for learning’ that underlines the impor-tance of people learning from each other and being collectively committed to improve-ment. In Wales, it is this infrastructure of learning that is being forged throughprofessional learning communities that has the potential to change the system.

The model of professional learning communities being established in Wales is charac-terized by teachers participating in decision-making, having a sense of purpose, engag-ing in collaborative work and accepting joint responsibility for the outcomes of theirwork. Empowering teachers in this way and providing them with opportunities to lead

Harris and Jones: Professional learning communities 175

is based on the simple but powerful idea that if schools are to meet learner needs, theymust provide opportunities for teachers to innovate, develop and learn together (Harrisand Jones, 2009). The evidence supporting professional learning communities suggeststhey have the potential to improve achievement and raise performance (Goldenberg,2004; Saunders and Goldberg, 2005; Stoll and Seashore Louis, 2007; Verscio et al.,2008; Whitehurst, 2002). They are a powerful vehicle for changing teachers’ behaviourand improving student learning outcomes (DuFour and Eaker, 1998; Little, 1982).Effective PLCs tend to be characterized by shared values; a focus on student learning;reflective dialogue and action enquiry (Hord, 1997; Mason, 2003; Mitchell andSackney, 2000; Stoll and Seashore Louis, 2007).

Where professional learning communities work best, there is evidence of more satis-faction, higher morale, and lower rates of absenteeism among teachers. Teachers whoare part of a professional learning community tend to be more effective in the classroomand achieve better student outcomes (Huffman and Jacobson, 2003; Lewis andAndrews, 2004). Finally, there is evidence of teachers having a greater commitment tomaking significant and lasting changes in their classroom and beyond that can con-tribute to systemic change.

It is recognized that professional learning communities offer only one lever for system-level change; there are clearly others. The model of professional learning communitiesin Wales is one that embraces networking and collaboration and has the potential tosecure significant change and improvement (Egan and Hopkins, 2009; Egan et al.,2009; Harris and Jones, 2009; Hopkins, 2007). It reinforces that networks of schools canstimulate and spread innovation as well as collaborate to raise collective and individualperformance (Hopkins, 2006). The model aligns with the ‘Pedagogy Strategy’ and theCPD Review in Wales that endorses a move from individual professionalism, tocollective professionalism – where it is the norm for practitioners to work inter-dependentlyrather than independently. Only through such mutual dependence and collectve workingwill the capacity to deliver large-scale reform be generated. The approach to PLCs inWales is also system-wide as it engages schools, local authorities and national policy-makers in supporting and maintaining the system change.

The current work around PLCs is premised upon a number of key principles. First, thatsystem-wide change is only possible through entire system collaboration and network-ing. Second, there is a central and non-negotiable focus on pedagogical improvementand improving learner outcomes. Third, the model uses action enquiry approaches, as adriver for change in classroom practice. Theoretically, the model also draws heavilyupon the theory of change implicit in Wenger’s (2000) notion of communities of prac-tice. Within such communities, practice is developed and refined through the collabo-ration of ‘groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion abouta topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoingbasis’ (Wenger, 2002: 4).

As highlighted earlier, the literature is clear about the way in which successful profes-sional learning communities function (Stoll and Seashore Louis, 2007). Learning in thecontext of professional learning communities involves working together towards acommon understanding of concepts and practices. The focus is not just on individualteachers’ learning but on professional learning within the context of a cohesive group

176 Improving Schools 13(2)

that focuses on collective knowledge and occurs with a context of mutual trust andlearning. But the reality is rarely as neat or straightforward as the literature would sug-gest, inevitably there are some challenges and some potential pitfalls.

The pilot phase

During a pilot phase of the implementation of the ‘School Effectiveness Framework’ inWales, associates were appointed to work regionally with clusters of schools to gener-ate innovation and activity in line with the policy framework. Different approaches andmodels of implementation emerged in various parts of the country. Within one region, anapproach to building professional learning communities was piloted as a way of generat-ing local improvement capacity aligned to the priorities within the ‘School EffectivenessFramework’. The project involved six schools, two secondary, two primary and twospecial schools. Each school was committed to participating in a project over an aca-demic year that was aimed at securing change and improvement through the develop-ment of professional learning communities within, between and across schools. The‘Leading Learning for School Effectiveness’ (LLSE) project, as it became known,involved a partnership between academics,2 SEF associates, the Welsh AssemblyGovernment and schools.

As highlighted earlier, there are many different definitions of professional learningcommunities and indeed many different ways to construct them. The model adopted inthe pilot project was based on an action enquiry approach that has been utilized suc-cessfully by many school improvement programmes including ‘Improving the Qualityof Education for All’ (Hopkins et al., 1997). The core idea is that school-based actionenquiry becomes the driver for change and innovation within, between and acrossschools. The prime purpose of the professional learning community therefore is for pro-fessionals to enquire and innovate in order to improve learning outcomes.

The pilot PLC project was premised upon a number of key principles. First, it sub-scribed to a view that school improvement works best when it is internally generatedand externally supported. Second, at the heart of the PLC activity was the central andnon-negotiable focus of pedagogical improvement as a route to reducing within schoolvariation and improving learning outcomes. Third, the PLC model utilized actionenquiry approaches, as a driver for change that allowed teachers to focus on develop-mental issues in depth but also to work across schools and sectors. The main rationalefor the LLSE model was one of generating within school, between school and acrossschool collaboration and improvement that would directly benefit learners.

The design features of the pilot PLC programme were as follows:

• a PLC group comprising teachers, from different levels within the school and withdifferent expertise, experience and perspectives;

• the collegial and facilitative participation of the head but not necessarily as theleader of the PLC group;

• an action enquiry orientation – in order to identify a development to benefit learn-ers and linked to the SEF framework;

• a 100 percent focus on improving learner outcomes and maximizing the impact ofthe change or development to positively affect student learning.

Harris and Jones: Professional learning communities 177

The pilot PLC work commenced with six schools early in 2009 with a launch event andan introduction to collaborative ways of working. Schools identified an issue forenquiry and worked as a team in their schools to collect data and to prepare informa-tion for presentation to other schools. Following the sharing of progress, each schooldecided upon a development or an innovation and subsequently spent the next sixmonths working to implement this innovation with the support of other schools in thegroup. The foci for change included such topics as thinking skills, the integrated cur-riculum and pupil engagement. In September 2009, schools shared their progress to datewith their various enquiries and highlighted their next steps. While rates of progress var-ied, all schools had established new ways of working and had clear plans to extend thePLC work further.

As highlighted earlier, the PLC model being implemented in Wales draws upon the the-ory of change implicit in Wenger’s (2000) notion of communities of practice. Withinsuch communities, practice is developed and refined through the collaboration of‘groups of people who share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic,and who deepen their knowledge and expertise by interacting on an ongoing basis’(Wenger, 2002: 4). In communities of practice, learning is viewed as a social activitythat occurs as new collaborations form and the group moves collectively toward greaterexpertise (Lave, 1991). New members of the group gain access to the community’s pro-fessional knowledge in authentic contexts through encounters with people, tools, tasksand social norms. New professional behaviours are adopted by the community of prac-tice through the evolution of practice over time. Thus, the collaborative group can helpprofessionals gain access to ideas, methods, content, and experiences that can shift andrefine practice (Argyris, 1992).

All the pilot schools demonstrated early evidence of changed professional prac-tice. For example, one secondary school focused upon the learning experience ofyoung people in Year 7 and found that many of the teaching activities were notengaging students. Consequently, the teachers introduced greater use of IT andpractical activities into year 7 lessons. Another group of teachers wanted todevelop greater pupil voice within the school and investigated how greater co-con-struction and pupil involvement in decision-making could be achieved. The schooldeveloped materials for teachers and pupils to use to support their learning con-versations. It was clear that teachers had dominated many learning conversationswith pupils and therefore a different approach was required. The pilot phase ofPLCs allowed the school to develop pupil voice in a meaningful way and hasengaged teachers in changing the style, content and nature of their interactionswith pupils.

Within the pilot phase, the PLC work was seen by schools as a catalyst for changingteaching and learning practices within and across schools. The evidence for this hasbeen collected in both a quantitative and qualitative way by the schools who partici-pated in the pilot. Some outcomes from the pilot PLC work include:

• the introduction of Learning Walks involving staff, pupils and governors to gatherevidence for each school to use as a baseline for their enquiry;

• the introduction of personalized learning journals for all pupils in the PLC;• an increased number of assessment for learning strategies;

178 Improving Schools 13(2)

• the development of an ‘electronic skills profile’ linked to pupils’ peer and self-assessment;

• the development of a continuum to assess the PLC within each school;• the development of materials to promote learning conversations between staff and

pupils;• the introduction of an integrated curriculum for Year 7;• a clear focus on securing better learner engagement.

The pilot PLC model aligns with the ‘Pedagogy Strategy’ in Wales that endorses a movefrom individual professionalism, to collective professionalism – where it becomes thenorm for practitioners to support the development of others. It is also aligned with thecollaboration and networking component of system-level change that is guidingnational reform within Wales (Egan et al., 2009). While the pilot phase of PLCs was asmall-scale intervention, the roll out of professional learning communities in schoolsacross Wales has the potential to make a substantial difference to teachers’ practice(Harris, 2010). However, it is important to look critically at the PLC model and to con-sider the challenges in scaling up the PLC work.

Challenges and possibilities

Successful professional learning communities work together to enquire and to gener-ate new professional knowledge. The focus is not just on individual teachers’ learningbut on professional learning within the context of a cohesive group that focuses on col-lective knowledge and occurs with a context of mutual trust and learning. Looking atthe experience of the pilot phase and the data from the schools who participated, thereare some challenges in building professional communities within, between and acrossschools.

First, there are some structural challenges. Organizational structures and strong subjectboundaries can prove to be barriers in building whole school learning communities. ThePLC group is premised on a collective ability to influence the practice of others and toaffect whole school change. In some schools, this way of working was new and requiredconstant negotiation and support. Some PLC groups found it a challenge to link withother teachers in other schools and found that paperwork, classroom management tasksand lesson preparation often reduced the time available for enquiry and collaborativeactivity.

The next challenge was a cultural one. In all schools there is a dominant culture that caneither support or undermine innovation and change. In some schools, the PLC groupsmet with resistance from teachers who were not familiar with this way of working orwho felt suspicious about the work of the group. It was here that the leadership of theHead was critically important. Where the Heads championed and supported the PLCand underlined its centrality to school development, the PLC overcame initial resistanceto change. Where this was not the case, the PLC group struggled to make progress. Thecore message here is one reinforced in the research evidence, essentially that headteachers need to create the structural and cultural conditions where professional learn-ing communities can thrive and contribute to school improvement (Day et al., 2007).Without this support and drive from the top, professional learning communities, at best,

Harris and Jones: Professional learning communities 179

will enhance the professional skills of the teachers within them but at worse, will havelittle impact and will lose momentum quickly. The discourse around professional learningcommunities, in such cases, can become quickly associated with failure and there is aloss of faith in this way of working.

Third, the external environment presents a constant challenge as schools face manyexternal pressures from inspection, new initiatives and other strategies. Competingdemands and priorities were a major challenge to the schools in the pilot and, for some,this pressure proved to be too much and the work of the PLC group drifted. In otherschools, there was a clearer alignment between the work of the PLC group and devel-opment planning, so energy and effort were doubled and the resulting impact wasclearly evident. The central point here is that professional learning communities cannotjust be an extra activity – they need to be carefully positioned within the school so thatthey link with other developments in an integral and coordinated way. If professionallearning communities are to support changing teachers’ practice, they need to be anintegral part of routine school development.

Experience with the pilot phase of PLCs also highlights a number of important consid-erations when initiating and sustaining professional learning communities. One of thefirst characteristics cited by Louis and Kruse (1995) of a productive learning commu-nity is a willingness to accept feedback and to work toward improvement. In the pilotphase there was dedicated time for sharing progress and for gaining critical feedbackfrom other teachers in other schools. This process allowed a general sharing of theissues, challenges and successes that were being encountered across all schools. Thepilot phase also highlighted that in successful professional learning communities cer-tain features are needed to be effective including:

• respect and trust among colleagues at the school and network level;• possession of an appropriate cognitive and skill base that enables effective peda-

gogy and leads to effective learning;• supportive leadership from those in key roles and shared leadership practices;• the norms of continuous critical inquiry and continuous improvement;• a widely shared vision or sense of purpose;• a norm of involvement in decision-making;• collegial relationships among teachers;• a focus upon impact and outcomes for learners.

The pilot phase also highlighted that it can be difficult to build and sustain professionallearning communities. While organizing teachers into small collegial groups mayimprove school culture, it does not necessarily result in improved instruction and stu-dent achievement. It is clear that professional learning communities require certainforms of leadership to be successful. Strong, supportive leadership is necessary to buildand sustain professional learning communities. Even though head teachers’ roles maychange as they redistribute and share leadership, their support is one of the keyresources necessary for schools to become professional learning communities. Headsneed to actively build a context for professional learning communities to work.Essentially their leadership role is one of establishing a high-trust environment where itis safe for teachers to change practice and to innovate.

Final thought

The scale of the challenge in transforming an entire education system cannot be under-estimated. There is no suggestion here that professional learning communities are a ‘sil-ver bullet’ for successful system-level reform; they are certainly not a panacea. Thewhole point of a professional learning community is that the ‘sum is greater than theparts’ and that by distributing and sharing leadership more widely, the opportunities forreleasing interdependent learning capacity within schools and across the system is max-imized (Harris, 2008). Harris (2010) talks about the importance of leadership that‘builds enduring greatness’ and highlights the importance of developing leadership atall levels in the system in order to be successful. System-level improvement in Wales isunlikely to happen without a critical mass of leaders at the school, local and governmentlevel with a shared belief that change is possible and adherence to the same model ofimplementation. System-level improvement can only be achieved by changing the waypeople connect, communicate and collaborate.

As the School Effectiveness Framework moves to its next phase of implementation inWales, building strong professional communities within, between and across schoolswill be a central component of implementation and delivery (Egan et al., 2009). It isclear that ‘networks that support improvement and innovation by enabling schools tocollaborate well beyond individual school gates’ offer a powerful lever for system widereform (Hopkins, 2007: 2). Consequently, there is a basis for believing that well con-structed professional learning communities can contribute to system-wide improve-ment. In Wales, as they are scaled up, time will tell whether they have the potential tosecure better outcomes for all young people in all settings.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank the teachers and schools that participated in the pilot project; the Welsh AssemblyGovernment for funding the pilot PLC work; and particular thanks to Professor Mark Hadfield and Dr TraceyAllen who were part of the pilot project team.

Notes1. Following initial development work undertaken in the summer of 2007, a pilot phase of the SEF was tri-

alled in over 100 schools and many of the local authorities in Wales during 2008/09. Following the pilotphase, the SEF Framework was extended to all schools in Wales.

2. Professor Alma Harris and Dr Tracey Allen (Institute of Education, London); Professor Mark Hadfield(University of Wolverhampton).

The authors can be contacted via email at: A.Harris@ioe.ac.uk

ReferencesArgyris C (1992) On Organizational Learning. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.

Darling-Hammond L (1996) The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership53(6): 4–10..

Day C, Sammons P, Hopkins D, Harris A, Leithwood K, Gu Q, Mehta P and Kingston A (2007) Leadershipand Student Learning Outcomes, Interim Report. London: DCSF, RB018.

DuFour R and Eaker R (1998) Professional Learning Communities at Work: Best Practices for EnhancingStudent Achievement. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Egan D and Hopkins D (2009) Developing System Leadership Capacity in the School EffectivenessFramework. Unpublished paper for Welsh Assembly Government.

180 Improving Schools 13(2)

Harris and Jones: Professional learning communities 181

Egan D, Harris A and Hopkins D (2009) Implementing the School Effectiveness Framework. Unpublishedpaper for Welsh Assembly Government.

Fullan M (2009) Motion Leadership. Ontario Principlas Council, Toronto.

Goldenberg C (2004) Successful School Change: Creating Settings to Improve Teaching and Learning.New York: Teachers College Press.

Guskey TR (1986) Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher 15(5): 5–12.

Harris A (2008) Distributed Leadership in Schools: Developing the Leaders of Tomorrow. London:Routledge.

Harris A, ed. (2009) Distributed School Leadership. Dordrecht: Springer Press.

Harris A (2010) Leading system transformation. School Leadership and Management 30 (July).

Harris A and Chrispeels J, eds (2008) International Perspectives on School Improvement. London: Routledge.

Harris A and Jones M (2009) Leading learning for school effectiveness.Unpublished paper.

Hopkins D (2006) Realising the Potential of System Reform. Available at: http://www.davidhopkins.co.uk/articles.htm.

Hopkins, D (2007) Every School a Great School. Maidenhead: Open University Press / McGraw Hill.

Hopkins D, Harris A, West M, Ainscow M and Beresford J (1997) Creating the Conditions for ClassroomImprovement. London: David Fulton Publishers.

Hord SM (1997) Professional Learning Communities: Communities of Continuous Inquiry and Improvement.Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

Huffman JB and Jacobson AL (2003) Perceptions of professional learning communities. InternationalJournal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice 6(3): 239–250.

Lave J (1991) Situating learning in communities of practice. In L Resnick, J Levine & S Teasley (eds),Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition, pp. 63–84. Hyattsville, MD: American Psychological Association.

Leithwood K, Leonard L and Sharratt L (1997) Conditions fostering organizational learning in schools. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the International Congress on School Effectiveness and Improvement,Memphis, TN.

Lewis M and Andrews D (2004) Building sustainable futures: Emerging understandings of the significantcontribution of the professional learning community. Improving Schools 7(2): 129–150.

Little JW (1982) Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace conditions of school success.American Educational Research Journal 19(3): 325–340.

Louis KS and Kruse SD (1995) Professionalism and Community: Perspectives on Reforming Urban Schools.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Mason SA (2003) Learning from Data: The Role of Professional Learning Communities. Corporate source:Joyce Foundation, Chicago, IL; Wisconsin Center for Education Research, Madison, April, pp. 29.

Resnick LB (2010) Nested Learning Systems for the Thinking Curriculum. Educational Researcher 39(3):183–197.

Rosenholtz S (1989) Teacher’s Workplace: The Social Organization of Schools. New York: Longman.

Saunders, W and Goldenberg, C (2005) The contribution of settings to school improvement and schoolchange. In O’Donnell and Yamauchi, L (eds) Culture and Context in Human Behaviour Change: Theory,Research and Applications, pp. 127–150. New York, Peter Lang.

Sergiovanni TJ (1994) Organizations or communities? Changing the metaphor changes the theory.Educational Administration Quarterly 30(2): 214–226.

Stoll L and Seashore Louis K, eds (2007) Professional Learning Communities. Maidenhead: Open UniversityPress.

Verscio V, Ross D and Adams A (2008) A review of research on the impact of professional learning commu-nities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education 21: 80-91.

Welsh Assembly Government (2006) The Learning Country: Vision into Action. Cardiff: Welsh Assembly.

Wenger E (2000) Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization 7(2): 225–246.

Wenger E, McDermott R and Snyder W (2002) Cultivating Communities of Practice. Boston: HarvardBusiness School Press.

Whitehurst GJ (2002) Research on teacher preparation and professional development. Paper presented at theWhite House Conference, Washington DC, USA..