An Investigation of the Relationship between Professional Learning Community Practices and Student Achievement in an Eastern Canadian School Board
Mots-clés :
professional learning community, teacher efficacy, student achievementRésumé
Abstract The participants in this study were teachers and students of a large school district located on the east coast of Canada. We distributed surveys to 1514 teachers across 84 schools with1423 usable surveys having been completed for a return rate of 94%. At the time of the second data collection, three years later, 78 schools with a total of 1574 teachers agreed to participate. Teachers’ perceptions of their schools as professional learning communities were assessed using 32 items in a 5-point Likert format. The responses to the 2006 survey were factor analyzed using ML estimation. A number of different factor structures were tested, including a single factor model and a second-order factor analysis. In spite of a heavy emphasis by school board leaders and the collaborative development, introduction, and implementation of PLC practices before and during the study period, no significant measurable effect on student learning was identified. While this particular study reports only the relationship between PLC practice usage and reading achievement, Hurley, Sheppard, and Seifert are also investigating two other areas of efficacy in this line of study; one that investigates the relationship with high school Mathematics achievement and one that examines school size and student achievement as mediated by PLC practiceRéférences
Reference List
Anderson, S., Moore, S., & Sun, J. (2009). Positioning the principal in patterns of school leadership distribution. In Leithwood, K., Mascall, B., & Strauss, T. (Eds.), Distributed leadership according to the evidence. New York: Routledge.
Crowther, F., Kaagan, S., Ferguson, M., & Hann, L. (2009). Developing teacher leaders: How teacher leadership enhances school success. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Dufour, R. (2004). Leadership is an affair of the heart. Journal of Staff Development, 25(1), 67–68.
Dufour, R., Eaker, R., & Dufour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers’ College Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. London: Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Garson, D. (2009). Structural Equation Modeling. Retrieved May 11, 2009 from http://faculty.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/pa765/
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156.
Hall, G. & Hord S. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes. Toronto: Pearson Education.
Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003, May). Sustaining leadership. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(9), 693-700.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P. (2000). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55.
Hurley, N. (2007). Professional Learning Communities: An effective approach to student learning. A presentation at the Annual General Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL.
Leithwood, K. & Mascall, B. (2008). Collective leadership effects on student achievement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 529-561.
Leithwood, K., Seashore Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). How leadership affects student learning. St. Paul, MO: Learning From Research Project: University of Minnesota, Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement.
Lieberman, A. & Friedrich, L. (2007, September). Teachers, writers, leaders. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 42-47.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005).School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Mascall, B., Leithwood, K., Strauss, T., & Sacks, R. (2009). The relationship between distributed leadership and teachers’ academic optimism. In A Harris (Ed.), Distributed leadership (pp. 81-100). Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
Menlo, A. (April, 2011). Responsibility taking among teachers in Michigan. A presentation to the Consortium for Cross Cultural Research in Education at the Annual General Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans, LA.
Muthén, L.K. & Muthén, B.O. (1998-2012). Mplus User's Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
Raudenbush, S. & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
Reeves, D. (2008). Reframing teacher leadership to improve your school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
SAS Institute (2010). SAS/ETS(R) 9.2 User’s Guide. Available at http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/etsug/60372/HTML/default/viewer.htm#etsug_model_sect042.htm.
Schleicher, A. (2009, March). From Finland to Kyrgyszstan: A changing landscape. The School Administrator. Arlington, VA: The American Association of School Administrators.
Seashore-Louis, K. (2007). A discussion of the cross country study of shared leadership in ten countries. A presentation to the Consortium for Cross Cultural Research in Education at the Annual General Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago.
Senge, P., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., Dutton, J., & Kleiner, A. (2000). Schools that learn. New York: Doubleday.
Sheppard, B. & Brown, J. (2000). The transformation of secondary schools into learning rganizations. In K. Leithwood (Ed). Understanding schools as intelligent systems pp. 293-314). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Sheppard, B. & Brown, J. (2009). Developing and implementing a shared vision of teaching learning at the district level. International Studies in Educational Administration, 37(2), 41-59.
Sheppard, B., Brown, J., Dibbon, D. (2009). School district leadership matters. New York: Springer Science+Business.
Sheppard, B. & Dibbon, D. (2011). Improving the capacity of school system leaders and teachers to design productive learning environments. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 10, 1-21.
Sheppard, B. & Brown, J. (2009). Developing and implementing a shared vision of teaching and learning at the district level. International Studies in Educational Administration, 37(2), 41-59.
Singer, J. (1998). Using SAS PROC MIXED to fit multilevel models, hierarchical models and individual growth models. Journal of Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323-355.
Stronge, J., Richard, H., & Catano, N. (2008). Qualities of Effective Principals. Alexandria,VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
York-Barr, J. & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74(3), 255-316.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence
Les auteurs dont les articles sont publiés dans la Revue acceptent les conditions suivantes :
-
Les auteurs conservent leurs droits d’auteur et accordent à la Revue un droit de première publication, les travaux faisant en même temps l’objet d’une licence d'attribution Creative Commons autorisant d’autres parties à diffuser les travaux, sous réserve d’une mention de l’auteur et de la publication initiale dans la RCAPE.
-
Il est permis aux auteurs de conclure des ententes contractuelles distinctes additionnelles en vue de la diffusion non exclusive de la version de travaux parus dans la Revue (p. ex. pour enregistrement dans un dépôt institutionnel ou inclusion dans un ouvrage), à la condition d’inclure une mention de la parution initiale dans la RCAPE.
-
Les auteurs sont autorisés et encouragés à faire paraître leurs travaux en ligne (p. ex. dans des dépôts institutionnels ou dans leurs sites Web) avant et pendant le processus d’évaluation, ce qui peut déboucher sur des échanges productifs et favoriser et faire que les travaux publiés soient cités plus tôt et plus fréquemment
