RQ3: How do teachers describe their PLC regarding intentional collective learning?
The practice of intentional collective learning involves staff members engaging in collaborative efforts during the continuous improvement cycle (Hord & Tobia, 2011). Moreover, with intentional collective learning, the school leader creates an environment of trust that is conducive to collaboration (Cranston, 2011). Staff members (a) use student data to plan lessons precisely targeted to meet individual student needs, (b) apply new knowledge and skills to that effort, and (c) evaluate that progress using feedback from self-reflection and other staff members (Hord, 1997; Hord & Tobia, 2011; Learning Forward, 2014a). Student learning, therefore, is the catalyst and is encouraged by using multiple sources of data. The data analysis revealed both weaknesses and strengths of collective learning in this PLC. Teachers described the intentional collective learning in their school as informally sharing teaching strategies, using student data, and learning new teaching strategies during professional learning—however, this occurred without follow-up actions for applying data or new learning, along with ineffective observations for personalized learning. The following themes emerged: (a) lack of collaboration and collective work, (b) absence of applying data to increase student learning, and (c) lack of applying new learning. When teachers were asked how to improve intentional collective learning, the subtheme of teacher input needed for professional learning emerged.
Subtheme 3a: Lack of collaboration and collective work. Ten teachers said that
their collaborative meetings mostly entailed keeping each other informed about the pacing of the curriculum, with some mention of sharing instructional practices. In
addition, there was no evidence of using data during the meetings or of professional learning within the grade-level professional learning teams. When asked how they would describe intentional collective learning at LES, T4 stated, “Just kind of sharing
information and not necessarily collaborating all the time. I mean there were some times sprinkled in there, but not necessarily all the time collaborating with specific strategies that helped.”
The lack of collaboration and intentional collective work is evident during lesson planning and when evaluating each other’s implementation of lessons. Nine teachers stated that lesson plans are written by individual teachers assigned to a particular subject. Ten teachers stated that the teachers did not evaluate each other’s implementation of new learning. T9 provided additional insights into how teachers create individual lesson plans: “We have a roadmap [pacing guide]. Each teacher creates their own lesson plans based on the needs of the students in their classroom.”
Hord and Tobia (2011) stated that professional learning in a PLC is a process in which teachers collaborate and develop a common understanding of what concepts to teach, how to teach concepts, and how to evaluate their impact as well as which steps, if any, are needed to readjust instructions on the basis of the results. There was no evidence that the teachers collectively apply new learning, evaluate the effects of the application, or readjust practices because of the evaluation. As T10 explained, “I think on a whole, it [professional learning] is like a blanketed concept that is taught throughout the school.”
Subtheme 3b: Absence of applying data to increase student learning. Data
analysis is the starting point for collaborative discussions (Hord & Tobia, 2011). When participating teachers were asked how they engaged in data analysis, all 10 teachers said
they viewed data during data meetings—yet there was no further application of that data analysis. In addition, there was no evidence that teachers use data in grade-level planning or quality plus team meetings. The majority of teachers said that data analysis occurs only in the data room. As T1 pointed out, “We are a model, data-driven school that other schools are trying to model after, and we keep the data room updated as much as
possible.” T8 stated, however, that using the data room does not inform instructional practice, adding, “Again, we’re not really told how to help them other than keep doing what you’re doing or make sure you read to them every day.” T2 discussed the amount of time spent collecting data:
We spend so much time inputting the data, analyzing the data, someone else can analyze that data and just tell us what it says and then go from there. You don’t have a lot of time to implement what you need to do as the result of the data.
Subtheme 3c: Lack of applying new learning. Professional learning in a PLC is
supposed to increase teachers’ effectiveness (DuFour, 2007; Hord & Tobia, 2011). However, Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, and Orphanos (2009) pointed out that rarely do teachers apply new learning systematically. When new learning is not used, its impact on teaching is not evident. When prompted to describe how new learning is applied, nine of the interviewed teachers agreed that implementation was the task of the individual teacher because of a lack of follow-up. T7 stated, “It is applied
individually. I don’t know if there’s any accountability, but you know what was learned I guess maybe during your evaluation. That’s how it’s monitored, I’m thinking.”
Subtheme 3d: Teachers’ input needed for professional learning. When
teachers were asked how to improve intentional collective learning, the subtheme of teacher input into professional learning activities emerged. Six teachers (T5, T9, T10, T4, T3, and T6) stated that teacher input into professional learning is needed to improve their PLC. T9 stated, “There could be more options, more opportunity for teachers to pick the areas that they think they need.” T10 further added, “I think getting teachers to [give] their input in is going to have a lot more teachers on board as opposed to someone from the outside saying this is what we’re going to do because you’re going to have people that will buck the system.”