PLC's vs. lesson study

My school uses the learning community model as its primary mode of collaboration among teachers of same subjects. Specifically called professional learning communities after the Dufour model, the groups meet weekly or biweekly to discuss curriculum and student data and collaborate on future lesson planning. The groups do share the school’s vision of learning, and they “work toward common goals that enhance professional and personal development” (Zepeda, 2013, p. 83). Each group has a PLC leader that coordinates the groups, but the responsibilities attached to the title generally include administrative tasks such as setting the agenda, writing minutes, and sharing feedback from the school administration. Where my school occasionally differs from the model is in the role of the principal. Zepeda (2013) cites Marks & Printy (2003) as saying that a principal should be more of a facilitator than an inspector in a learning community. Administrators at my school, however, are often seen as looking to hold teachers accountable for doing the work rather than facilitating the work being done.

One model that I could see being implemented at my school is the lesson study process. It already contains elements of the learning community format (Zepeda, 2013). Both study curriculum and develop goals. Both involve planning lessons. Both demand reflection. The major difference is that lesson study conducts research, and there are certain groups at my school that would be advanced enough to engage in that component. The transition from a standard learning community to a lesson study group would not be difficult, but it would require commitment from the teachers involved and the administration. More time would be needed for the study and planning elements, but as our district has a teachers contract that encourages teachers to collaborate outside of the contract in exchange for hourly pay, this would be a strong incentive. The administration has already supported learning communities that have engaged in observation of other teachers, so having teachers conduct research through observing other teachers would not be hard to get approved.

Teachers tend to be strong lifelong learners, and the ability to work with colleagues on research into their own practice would be hard to pass up, especially if there’s extra pay involved. The obstructions are strong, however. Zepeda (2013) cites several. The argument that “this is the way I have always done it” (p. 228) gets in the way, but as teachers we ask our students every day to think differently; why can’t teachers change, too? The lack of time is another impediment, but again that extra pay component, if worked into the proposal, would provide the incentive. A team that is already effective would overcome the challenge of not having specific goals, as their effectiveness is already tied to having those goals. The challenges cited by Zepeda (pp. 228-229) would all be easily handled in my building, I believe.

The next step toward implementing lesson study would be for an established learning community to put forth a proposal to the administration. The proposal would have to be clear as to its goals, and it would have to align to the objectives already laid out for learning communities. The trust already established by administration with certain groups would come into play, and assuming the group carries out the objectives of the lesson study, effectiveness could lead to implementation by other groups.

I worked with professional learning communities at my previous school before moving to Washington state, and I never felt that they were fully implemented or effective. We had vocal support from administration, but added responsibilities reduced our effectiveness. Too often the focus was on data, and not on the reflection required to adequately use that data to influence instruction. At my current school, my experience is that PLCs are used more for planning units rather than looking at individual lessons. There is a movement toward more specific objectives, but as I no longer part of a content-specific PLC, I have not seen how that has been implemented. I feel lesson study would be more effective for certain, established groups of veteran teachers, and I look forward to suggesting the idea.

Most teachers start their careers after a period of training that includes student teaching or an internship. As students they take classes, observe other educators, then gradually work themselves into their student teaching role, always under the guidance of a master teacher. Eventually, they move into the workplace with that little bit of experience.

Not me. I had a year of substitute teaching, with no training, and they threw me into an English classroom with an understanding that I would start my classes in a year. It’s a wonder that 14 years later I’m still in the profession. Somehow I learned the skills necessary to not only survive as a teacher, but to thrive as an educator and professional. As I read about adult theories of learning, I realized that most of my education did not come from the classroom. I learned how to be a teacher informally, within the context of my particular assignment that first year, which included three different preps, an intervention class among them. I had colleagues who listened and offered suggestions. I had a paraprofessional who guided me through that intervention class, giving me tips on how to handle different students and situations. I had a wife who was a new teacher in her own right, albeit one who had the standard training before she got her first job. I learned how to be a teacher through self-directed instruction, informally, and in the context of my work experience.

Hansman (2001) relates a similar experience in which she learned how to be a writing teacher “in the unplanned intersection of people, culture, tools, and context” (p. 44). Teachers in these situations often live day-to-day, and we learn what we need to get through that day’s situation. We do not plan these experiences; they happen when other teachers stop in our classrooms after school and ask how we’re doing. Through those conversations we get ideas that we can use to implement the next day’s lesson. As time goes by, we slowly add skills to our multilayered toolbox: classroom management, lesson planning, curriculum development. This context-based learning happens in other ways. I joined the National Council of Teachers of Education shortly after getting my job; Hansman (2001) notes that membership in such organizations “can also provide adults with the cultural context, tools, and social learning to progress in their fields or professions” (p. 49).

My formal teacher training eventually gave me the background necessary to succeed, but I constantly sought training in different areas of practice that I felt I needed to excel. This self-directed training involved mostly learning through books and texts that I sought, but the application of that learning gave me the biggest gain. At one point, I researched whatever I could about teaching The Crucible just so I could make my unit more engaging. I sought out colleagues, I consulted online forums, and I read reviews of plays. I was able to apply the knowledge to my unit immediately, and the results showed more students involved and discussing the themes presented in the play. This action matches what Merriam (2001) describes as characteristics of a self-directed learner.

My most important learning has happened informally. In the fifth year of my career, I was given an assignment as an English-language arts coach, and while the two-year assignment came with little direction or objectives, I learned greatly simply from observing and talking with other teachers. Through these discussions and conversations we reflected on our practice, and my style of coaching developed to one of asking questions, rather than providing answers (as a fifth-year teacher, I often wondered whether I had any answers). Marsick and Watkins (2001) refer to research being done on informal learning that studies “how teachers learn informally through reflection and action” (p. 26), and my work as a coach followed that model consistently.

Even today, much of my learning is informal. I sit at my desk and wonder how to better teach a particular skill, turning toward my bookshelf and pulling out resources until I find something that will work in my context. I teach, I reflect, and I change my practice as necessary. No classroom lecture taught me how to do this.

EDU 6600 Initial Reflection

In my teaching career professional learning has rarely been organized around a common theme applicable to all teachers in my building. I have taught at two different schools and I have seen two different models, neither of which has been particularly effective, of delivering professional learning. I have experienced an overabundance of professional learning with no common theme, and I have experienced too little professional learning.

At my first school in southern California, the district was compelled by outside forces to provide a wide variety of professional learning, but I never saw an organized effort to make it effective. An agreement with the teachers union required the district to offer paid professional development days before and after school, and these often served as fillers, such as teaching vocabulary, learning a new behavior protocol, or checking for understanding. As the school year progressed, these skills were emphasized less and less, generally in favor of professional learning being forced from the county and the state in response to low student performance. At the same time, professional learning communities were required to assess students, analyze data, make adjustments, and prepare instruction - all with little extra time to do so, and often with demands to incorporate the latest training into our practice. Teachers attended professional learning for the money and had little incentive to change their practice.

At my current school, professional development for the most part has been left to the teachers’ discretion. The district has begun an effort to provide leaders of professional learning communities with training, and some departments have improved their practice as a result, but this has been sporadic among all departments and sections.

Presently, the professional learning communities I am involved with do not have research-based components that would facilitate the development of a plan for incorporating social justice learning in our school, as determined by Hirsh and Hord (2010). An advantage we do have is that questions of social justice are being raised schoolwide, and many teachers are starting to seek knowledge in how to address these questions. Staff and administration have demonstrated a sincere effort to learn more about our students and their particular needs. Most of this work at present happens outside of our professional learning communities, although a recent discussion in my Advanced Placement professional learning community focused on strategies to increase involvement in the AP program by traditionally underserved students. The discussion is in its early stages, but for now, with a group that has no common curriculum, social justice issues are what we do share and what we can address.