Following achievement of a teaching qualification, many teachers fail to
prioritise their lifelong and continuous learning (Hustler et al, 2003). As it
stands, the Institute for Learning (IFL, 2012) require FE teachers to undertake
a mere 30 hours pro rata CPD and in Scotland, the General Teaching Council
(GTC, 2013) require primary and secondary teachers to undertake a minimum of 35
hours. In England however, there is no prescribed quantity for primary and
secondary teachers. Conversely, teachers in Singapore are entitled to 100 hours
CPD per year, in addition to a budget of approximately £200-£350 per year to
spend on their professional activities (OECD, 2011). This difference in CPD
allowance correlates with the World Education Rankings (2009), whereby Singapore
has above average Reading, Maths and Science scores, compared to the UK, who
fair average in all three areas (OECD, 2009 cited in Sheppard 2010).
Those teachers that prioritise their
CPD often find the training uninspiring due to a ‘one-size fits all approach’
that usually have unattractive financial costs (Hustler, et al, 2003). Darling-Hammond
and Richardson (2009) and Scales (2011) support this notion with the suggestion
that a new paradigm of professional development is needed in order to reject
the ineffective ‘drive-by’ workshops that are commonplace in education, led by
‘experts’ from outside of the classroom telling teachers what to think and
do.
So what do I suggest?
Professional
Learning Community (PLC) is a conceptual model focussing on the collaboration
of a team sharing the same vision values and goals, working towards continuous
improvement (Defour et al, 2009). Mullen (2009, p. 18) defines PLC as 'a model of school organization designed to foster
collaboration and learning among school personnel and to harness this
organizational learning to enhance the learning of all students'.
PLC’s are grounded in the assumptions that
knowledge is best understood through critical reflection with others who share
similar experiences and that increasing this knowledge will improve practice
and enhance learning (Vesico et al, 2008).
Current PLC literature indicates that if utilised effectively they can
have a significant positive impact on teaching and learning (Cordingley et al,
2003; Bolam et al, 2005; Stoll et al, 2006; Parry, 2007). Cordingley et al (2003) found in their review that substantial improvements in
teaching and learning are developed through collaborative CPD. The benefits to
teachers included: greater confidence in taking risks, enhanced knowledge and
practice and developed enthusiasm for collaborative learning, which benefited
students learning. In addition to this, Stoll et al (2006)
suggest that by developing PLC’s, there is considerable promise for building
sustainable improvement across an institute.
Here it is worth noting McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) work who state that there
are four key factors that defines a sense of community in order for it to be
effective: “(1) membership, (2) influence, (3) fulfilment of
individuals needs and (4) shared events and emotional connections”.
Newmann et al (1996) extend these factors with five essential characteristics
of their own, including: shared values, a clear focus, reflective dialogue,
making teaching public and finally collaboration. Both models appear to have
collaboration and shared vision grounded within them.
This has been evident in the literature whereby Graham (2007) found a positive
correlation between PLC activities and teacher improvement in a first-year
middle school and central to this improvement was same-subject, same-grade
teacher teams. These findings are corroborated by Parry (2007), who
investigated teacher effectiveness through structured collaboration in
professional learning communities within a middle school. It was found that
professional learning activities comprising of the same subject, teacher teams
and grade had the potential to achieve significant improvements in teacher
effectiveness. As can be seen, both of the articles above were successful based
on collaboration and a shared vision (same subject).
Parry (2007) also notes that the extent of the effectiveness was dependent upon
leadership and the nature of the conversations within the learning communities.
In light of this, in creating a learning community, one must ensure that those
involved have some ownership and autonomy to promote engagement. Prescribing
strategies to teachers inevitably removes the autonomy of those undertaking
CPD. Conversely, too much ownership may result in a lack of focus and power
struggles between individuals in the formation of the community.
Wiliam (2007) asserts that teachers need to engage with colleagues in a teacher
learning community (TLC) for at least two years in order to see improvements in
student learning. He also believes that the format of TLC’s is sustainable due
to working independent from school management. It could be inferred from this
that PLC’s should not have its agenda too tightly focused, firstly to allow for
organic growth and secondly to ensure independence.
So there we have it, all the evidence
suggests that a PLC model has the potential to be a highly effective and
engaging CPD tool. Though the impact is difficult to measure, the feedback I
have received through using them in my role has been extremely positive, with a
culture shift of willingness to share and participate in CPD. Below is a simple
framework that I have used and though it does not use the research suggestions
exactly, I tried to keep it as grounded in the research as possible.
- Provide a series of focus areas that have
arisen as development needs from observations, Ofsted etc...
- Allow members to choose a PLC group with a
focus that they wish to develop - no more than 6 members per group.
- Provide a framework to allow the PLC to create
a shared vision with action plans.
- Schedule regular opportunities for teachers to
meet (currently twice per term) and reflect over the academic year.
- Encourage peer-to-peer observations to provide
evidence of impact.
