Professional learning communities of teachers: Israeli principals’ perceptions
| Date | 04 November 2019 |
| Pages | 658-674 |
| Published date | 04 November 2019 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-10-2017-0126 |
| Author | Orit Avidov-Ungar |
| Subject Matter | Education,Administration & policy in education,School administration/policy,Educational administration,Leadership in education |
Professional learning
communities of teachers: Israeli
principals’perceptions
Orit Avidov-Ungar
Achva Academic College, Shikmim, Israel and
Open University of Israel, Raanana, Israel
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this paper is to focus on professional learning communities (PLCs) run for and by
teachers to achieve their ongoing professional development and greater pupil attainment. The paper
examined principals’perceptions of how such PLCs influence teachers, teacher learning and school processes,
and their own involvement in PLCs operating in their schools.
Design/methodology/approach –In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 17 of
97 principals from three of the four educational districts participating in a pilot programme to achieve
in-service teacher professional development through supported PLCs.
Findings –Most of the participating principals considered PLCs to influence not only the teacher-leader, but
also PLC members and other teaching staff and processes. Principals perceived PLCs as influencing
pedagogical processes for both teachers and students, as well as staff leadership processes. Principals
reported facilitating the operation of PLCs in their schools by providing the necessary conditions or
participating in PLC meetings.
Research limitations/implications –Although nearly 20 per cent of principals involved in the pilot
agreed to participate, it was not possible to ensure a representative sample. Self-selection bias cannot be ruled
out. Most participants were interviewed individually, with a minority later interviewed as a group to obtain a
deeper understanding. Thus, the research should be regarded as exploratory.
Originality/value –The study provides a detailed description of how principals perceive and engage with
PLCs. Its findings are relevant to international efforts to understand and leverage teacher PLCs for the
purposes of teachers’professional development and pupil attainment.
Keywords Principals, Teacher learning, Professional development,
Professional learning communities (PLCs), School processes
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
The search for effective means of achieving the continuing professional development of
teachers is of international concern (Avidov-Ungar, 2016; Bautista and Ortega-Ruiz, 2015;
Bayar, 2014; Desimone and Garet, 2015; Nir et al., 2016). Increasing focus is now placed
on professional learning communities (PLCs) as a means of achieving this goal
(Cosenza, 2015; Harris and Jones, 2010; Shahbaz, 2014). Successful PLCs are characterized
by the consistent operation of the school’s professional staff along five dimensions:
supportive and shared leadership; shared values and vision; collective learning and
application of learning (or collective creativity); supportive conditions; and shared
personal practice (Hord, 1997; Linder et al., 2012). A correctly developed PLC thus builds
“a network of learning processes”among its members, in which “teachers continuously
deliberate with one another on how to solve problems that relate to teaching and learning”
(Schechter and Feldman, 2013, p. 785). Given that learning to solve problems related to
teaching and learning is a core function of in-service teacher professional development,
PLCs can have a professional development focus (Schechter, 2007). Such PLCs are the
focus of the current research.
Professional development PLCs are intended to act as: a source of ongoing instructional
support for teachers; forums for teacher collaboration and reflection; and platforms for
developing leadership skills among teachers (Bond, 2013; Shahbaz, 2014). How PLC
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 57 No. 6, 2019
pp. 658-674
© Emerald PublishingLimited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/JEA-10-2017-0126
Received 2 October 2017
Revised 10 March 2018
5July2018
7 October 2018
24 December 2018
24 February 2019
12 April 2019
Accepted 26 April 2019
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
658
JEA
57,6
stakeholders perceive PLCs is of wide interest (e.g. Bolam et al., 2006; Huffman and
Jacobson, 2003) and, in that context, this study investigates the perceptions of school
principals in which PLCs are operating.
The next subsection reviews the literature concerning PLCs established for the purpose
of teachers’in-service professional development and principals’roles in them. The policy
context of the current research is then described. The final subsection of the Introduction
describes the purpose of the study and sets out the research questions.
Literature review: teacher development PLCs and principals’roles
PLCs convene to enable participants to discuss their work critically and aim to achieve
continuing professional improvement while addressing common challenges and creating a
common body of lasting knowledge (Borko, 2004; Mitchell, 2013; Park and So, 2014). Overall,
the role of PLCs is to involve teachers in collaborative and continuing professional
development in schools (Linder et al., 2012).
PLCs have been the focus of some Israeli research works (Avidov-Ungar, 2018;
Brody and Hadar, 2015), and much international research (e.g. Bolam et al., 2006;
DuFour et al., 2008; Hargreaves et al., 2013; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2006). The
research suggests that such PLCs can serve as an effective strategy for improving
teachers’capacities and promoting their long-term professional development
(Dallas, 2006; Schmoker, 2005; Stoll et al., 2006). Indeed, some PLCs have been found to
contribute to system-wide improvement (Harris and Jones, 2010) and to positively
influence teachers and their teaching methods, with these in turn leading to improved
pupil attainments (Bond, 2013; Linder et al., 2012; McLaughlin and Talbert, 2006). PLCs
have also been found to reduce the physical and psychological barriers of isolation
between colleagues (Buysse et al., 2003; DuFour et al.,2008).ArecentreviewshowsPLCs
to be a very valuable setting for the ongoing professional development of teachers
(Vangrieken et al., 2017).
A well-developed PLC is one that produces demonstrable results, with data indicating
changed teaching practices and improved student learning. However, such articulation of
outcomes is not yet established common practice (Vescio et al., 2008). Furthermore, not all
PLCs produce the desired results, with some PLC failures documented in the literature
(Patterson, 2006; Sims and Penny, 2015).
The first country to adopt the PLC concept nationwide was Singapore, which obliged all
public schools to become PLCs, with responsibility for planning staff development
apparently shared by each school’s senior management team (Bautista et al., 2015). PLCs
have also been adopted in North American public schools. In the USA, the principal is
tasked with creating the conditions to improve staff capacity for student learning and
development, and his or her PLC involvement is ideally that of a collaborative mentor who
learns in the PLC alongside the teachers to achieve this goal (Mullen and Schunk, 2010). In
Finland too, the commitment of the principal is regarded as a cornerstone of PLC success,
although PLC leadership may be shared (Niemi, 2015). By lone contrast, a Taiwanese PLC
model did not consider administrative leadership a strong factor in PLC success (Chen et al.,
2014, cited in Pang and Wang, 2016).
Consistently with the perceived centrality of the principals’role, many participants in
PLCs attribute their success (or otherwise) to the school principal’s leadership and support.
Principal leadership –specifically with respect to creating teacher commitment, requiring
teachers to collaborate, and supporting teacher team development –was found to be a key
factor contributing to PLC-generated improvements in teaching effectiveness (Graham,
2007). The ability of the principal to empower teachers in PLCs and to provide practical
support for teacher learning was also highlighted in a study of three highly innovative
schools (Owen, 2014).
659
PLCs of
teachers
To continue reading
Request your trial