Professional Learning Communities in Primary Schools Proposal

Introduction

Critics have argued that professional learning communities enhance both the participation and performance of students. Lakshmanan, Heath, Perlmutter, and Elder (2011) explain that such communities work by bringing together different people interested in learning the same thing. Participatory learning is encouraged by grouping these like-minded people. Mansour, Alshamrani, Aldahmash, and Alqudah (2013) argue that participatory learning focuses mainly on student-led education. Therefore, students are tasked with ensuring their motivation as opposed to asking teachers to do the same (Mehana & Kilani, 2010). This study will look into the impact of professional learning communities in primary schools in Chicago.

Definition of the Topic

Alnahdi (2014) explains that professional learning communities have to be applied realistically for one to determine whether they are effective or not. The success of the communities is measured both by student participation and performance. The paper seeks to prove this true. The researcher is working with the assumption that there are already a significant number of schools in Chicago that have implemented professional learning communities. Keengwe (2010) states that whereas some schools are implementing the concept of professional learning communities, the debate on whether these communities are effective or not is still ongoing.

Rationale

In theory, one can argue that the reality of implementing professional learning communities in primary schools in Chicago is heavily tied to the different attributes of these communities. Alghamdi and Al-Salouli (2013) explain that even though an ideal situation would be an incorporation of all the attributes of a professional learning community, this is hardly the case. Al-Mahdy and Sywelem (2016) and Sywelem and Witte (2013) go further to explain that teachers’ perspectives are often not considered when implementing the concept.

Leaving out tutors from the process of implementation has led to the failure of many professional learning communities and this is one of the reasons behind the study (Mansour, Heba, Alshamrani, & Aldahmash, 2014). Additionally, the relationship between the teaching methods preferred by the tutor and student participation in professional learning communities is prudent (Carreira & Kagan, 2011; Hendawy & Ghoneim, 2016). This is because there have been studies that link some teaching methods to higher student participation.

Statement of Hypothesis

Implementing professional learning communities in primary schools in Chicago is highly affected by the different attributes of the PLC that are chosen to guide the process.

Theoretical and Conceptual Frameworks

Theoretical Framework

Various theories can be applied in the study. One such theory is the progressivism theory of education. Harris and Jones (2010) explain that the stated theory encourages the implementation of education strategies that focus on the child as a whole as opposed to the context or the perceptions of the tutor. One can argue that a realistic application of professional learning communities should employ the same principles.

Conceptual Framework

There are several linked concepts in the selected topic. For example, there is a link between the teacher’s perception and the successful implementation of professional learning communities. Whereas a tutor’s role is minimized in this setting (professional learning communities), teachers are still relevant to monitor and ensure progress. There is also a link between the realistic implementation of professional learning communities and the participation and performance of students.

Research Questions

This research study will be guided by four questions. These questions will be made up of a main (primary) research question and three sub-questions. The sub-questions will also have several hypotheses that will be tested during the study.

Central Research Question

What is the reality of practicing professional learning communities in primary schools in Chicago?

Sub-Questions

1. How does teaching practice change due to participation in a PLC?
2. Based on the specific characteristics of PLC, how has the implementation level of professional learning communities affected primary schools in Chicago?
3. Which facets of the PLC are in line with these changes?

The following section will analyze the identified sub-questions.

How does teaching practice change due to participation in a PLC?

It is important to note that the sub-question (a) and (b) seek to test certain variables. In sub-question (a), the variables that would be tested are teaching practices and participation. Thus, participation is an independent variable as it changes during the study. On the other hand, teaching practice is a dependent variable as it is the phenomenon being tested. Seven hypotheses can be used to further advance the research regarding this specific sub-question. The seven hypotheses are:

1. Higher participation in the classroom or teaching set-up in a professional learning community allows for student-led teaching practices;
2. Higher participation in the classroom or teaching set-up in a professional learning community discourages student-led teaching practices;
3. Higher participation by students in the professional learning community encourages the use of contributory teaching practices;
4. Higher participation by students in the professional learning community discourages the use of contributory teaching practices;
5. Higher student participation is directly affected by the choice of teaching method with contributory teaching methods encouraging higher participation as compared to lecture-led approaches;
6. Higher student participation is directly affected by the choice of teaching method with contributory teaching methods discouraging higher participation as compared to lecture-led approaches;
7. There is no relationship between the teaching method used and student participation in all the 5 sample schools chosen for the study.

All the hypotheses that have been developed are alternative. This means that one variable affects the other and that the results realized will be factual as they are not based on chance. The alternative hypotheses were selected because both the primary and sub-questions are open-ended and this can lead to bias based on chance. One could argue that the hypotheses are non-directional. This means that the hypotheses do not specify the direction or intensity of the change. The last hypothesis in the provided list is the null hypothesis. This one indicates that there is no relationship between the two variables.

Based on the specific characteristics of plc, how has the implementation level of professional learning communities affected primary schools in Chicago?

As stated previously, the second sub-question also seeks to test some variables. The two variables are the implementation level and the performance of students in primary schools. The implementation level can be described as a categorical variable while the impact on primary schools is a continuous variable.

However, it is imperative to state that several confounding variables can be deduced from the sub-question. For example, the implementation level can be affected by other factors like the size of the school, the location, political goodwill within the system, and so forth (Qablan, Mansour, Alshamrani, Aldahmash, & Sabbah, 2015; Thoonen, Sleegers, Oort, Peetsma, & Geijsel, 2011). One can choose to ignore confounding variables. This would mean that the researcher will be operating on several assumptions. One such belief is that all the schools that will participate are of the same size, are in the same location, and have the same level of willingness within their structures. Several hypotheses can be suggested to further discussion and research:

1. The implementation of professional learning communities has positively affected student performance in primary schools in Chicago;
2. The implementation of professional learning communities has negatively affected the performance of students in primary schools in Chicago;
3. The implementation of professional learning communities has affected the overall participation of students in primary schools in Chicago;
4. The implementation of professional learning communities has affected class attendance levels only of students in primary schools in Chicago;
5. The implementation of professional learning communities has affected active listening only of students in primary schools in Chicago;
6. There is no relationship between the implementation of the professional learning communities and the performance of students in all the 5 sample schools chosen for the project.

Just as in the first sub-question, all the hypotheses of the second sub-question have used the alternative hypothesis approach. They are also non-directional with the last one being the null hypothesis.

What facets of the PLC are in line with these changes?

The third sub-question tests confounding variables. The question seeks to determine the specific attributes of professional learning communities that are associated with different changes (if any) within the schools. It is these hidden factors that can determine whether the implementation of a professional learning community is successful or not. Keengwe (2010) argues that there are six main attributes of professional learning centers.

The six characteristics are a favorable learning environment, proper leadership and support, creativity, shared vision, sharing of practices, and people’s capabilities (Khan, 2011; Linder, Post, & Calabrese, 2012). This third sub-question will look at these variables concerning how they affect the overall learning experience for both the student and the teacher.

All the hypotheses mentioned in this section were developed mainly through guidance from both the primary and sub-questions. Also, much research had to be done to guarantee that the hypotheses fully cover the discussions of the objectives of the research study. These hypotheses have been tested using practical experiments as well.

References

Alghamdi, A. K., & Al-Salouli, M. S. (2013). Saudi elementary school science teachers’ beliefs: Teaching science in the new millennium. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(2), 501-525.

Al-Mahdy, Y. F., & Sywelem, M. M. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on professional learning communities in some Arab countries. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 5(4), 45-57.

Alnahdi, G. H. (2014). Educational change in Saudi Arabia. Journal of International Education Research, 10(1), 1-8.

Carreira, M., & Kagan, O. (2011). The results of the National Heritage Language Survey: Implications for teaching, curriculum design, and professional development. Foreign Language Annals, 44(11), 40-64.

Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172-181.

Hendawy, F., & Ghoneim, M. (2016). Teachers’ perspectives on professional learning. International Journal of Research Studies in Education, 45-57.

Keengwe, J. (2010). Fostering cross cultural competence in preservice teachers through multicultural education experiences. Education Journal, 38(3), 197-204.

Khan, I. A. (2011). An analysis of learning barriers: The Saudi Arabian context. International Education Studies, 4(1), 242-247.

Lakshmanan, A., Heath, B. P., Perlmutter, A., & Elder, M. (2011). The impact of science content and professional learning communities on science teaching efficacy and standards‐based instruction. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(5), 534-551.

Linder, R. A., Post, G., & Calabrese, K. (2012). Professional learning communities: Practices for successful implementation. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 78(3), 13.

Mansour, N., Alshamrani, S. M., Aldahmash, A. H., & Alqudah, B. M. (2013). Saudi Arabian science teachers and supervisors’ views of professional development needs. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 51(1), 29-44.

Mansour, N., Heba, E. D., Alshamrani, S., & Aldahmash, A. (2014). Rethinking the theory and practice of continuing professional development: Science teachers’ perspectives. Research in Science Education, 44(6), 949-973.

Mehana, M., & Kilani, H. (2010). Enhancing physical education in Omani basic education curriculum: Rationale and implications. International Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Subjects in Education, 1(2), 1.

Qablan, A., Mansour, N., Alshamrani, S., Aldahmash, A., & Sabbah, S. (2015). Ensuring effective impact of continuing professional development: Saudi science teachers’ perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(3), 7.

Sywelem, M. M., & Witte, J. E. (2013). Continuing professional development: Perceptions of elementary school teachers in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Modern Education Review, 3(12), 881-898.

Thoonen, E. E., Sleegers, P. J., Oort, F. J., Peetsma, T. T., & Geijsel, F. P. (2011). How to improve teaching practices: The role of teacher motivation, organizational factors, and leadership practices. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47(3), 496-53.