This art icle was downloaded by: [ Universit y of California, San Diego] , [ Michelle Van Lare]

On: 10 Decem ber 2013, At : 12: 47

Publisher: Rout ledge
I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered
office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK

Leadership and Policy in Schools

Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions for aut hors and
subscript ion informat ion:
ht t p:/ / www.t andfonline.com/ loi/ nlps20

Analyzing Learning in Professional

Learning Communities: A Conceptual
Framework
a b
Michelle D. Van Lare & S. David Brazer
a
Universit y of California , San Diego, La Jolla , California , USA
b
St anford Universit y , St anford , California , USA
Published online: 07 Dec 2013.

To cite this article: Michelle D. Van Lare & S. David Brazer (2013) Analyzing Learning in Professional
Learning Communit ies: A Concept ual Framework, Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12:4, 374-396,
DOI: 10.1080/ 15700763.2013.860463

To link to this article: ht t p:/ / dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/ 15700763.2013.860463

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE

Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he
“ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis,
our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o
t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions
and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors,
and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent
should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources
of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s,
proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or
howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising
out of t he use of t he Cont ent .

This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any
subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing,
syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s &
Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm s-
and- condit ions
 Leadership and Policy in Schools, 12:374–396, 2013
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1570-0763 print/1744-5043 online
DOI: 10.1080/15700763.2013.860463

Analyzing Learning in Professional Learning

Communities: A Conceptual Framework
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

MICHELLE D. VAN LARE

University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA

S. DAVID BRAZER
Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

The purpose of this article is to build a conceptual framework

that informs current understanding of how professional learning
communities (PLCs) function in conjunction with organizational
learning. The combination of sociocultural learning theories and
organizational learning theories presents a more complete picture
of PLC processes that has been missing from the literature. Situating
PLCs in a theory base specific to learning focuses researchers’
attention on their function and meaning and creates a research
perspective that will help to answer questions about PLC process and
product outcomes. This conceptual framework can also be used as
a practical tool for school and district leaders to assess how their
PLCs are functioning within the structures they have established.

INTRODUCTION

Over two decades of scholarship has used the term “professional learn-
ing community” to describe desirable attributes of educational organizations
focused on teacher learning and school improvement (Fullan, 2001; Louis
& Marks, 1998; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001; Rosenholtz, 1989; Shulman &
Shulman, 2004). The notion of professional learning communities (PLCs) as
a viable response to pressure to improve student achievement has been pop-
ularized (e.g., DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005) to the extent that PLCs are
at the center of a contemporary school reform movement. As the idea of
teachers working collaboratively in teams has evolved from shared decision

Address correspondence to Michelle D. Van Lare, Education Studies Department,

University of California, San Diego, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093-0070, USA. E-mail:
mvanlare@ucsd.edu

374
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 375

making and site-based management to PLCs, collaborative focus has shifted

from schoolwide teams preoccupied with general operations (Ogawa &
White, 1994) to grade-level and subject-centered teams whose mission is
to improve student achievement.
We argue that two weaknesses exist in the current theory base for empir-
ical work on PLCs. First, little empirical research is rooted in established
learning theory. The absence of a clear, agreed-upon theoretical model used
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

to analyze teacher learning in the PLC setting creates a situation in which

the literature informing the creation and development of PLCs runs the risk
of neglecting the movement’s central purpose: teacher learning. Second,
PLCs tend to be studied in isolation, with little attention to the context
within which they exist. The conceptual framework presented here marries
two informative spheres of theory to provide a coherent analytical frame-
work that functions as a hypothesis for how learning could occur within
PLCs. We extend current theory on teacher learning within PLCs to identify
processes that link teacher learning to organizational learning.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to build a conceptual framework informed

by particular theoretical constructs that serves as a model, guide, lens, or
research perspective to facilitate future field-based research about the pro-
cesses and outcomes of collaborative groups of teachers, such as PLCs, the
specific structure on which we focus. A conceptual framework useful for the
investigation of PLCs requires multiple perspectives that include individual
learning, group learning, organizational learning, and the school and dis-
trict contexts within which PLCs function. To capture teacher collaboration
in context, we define PLCs in this discussion as teams intentionally orga-
nized through formal structures to facilitate teacher inquiry into classroom
practices.
This conceptual framework combines two families of theory common to
the study of schools. We employ sociocultural learning theories to illustrate
possible processes within PLCs and organizational learning to explain the
potential for school and district change resulting from PLC work. Institutional
isomorphism elucidates contextual influences that come from the schools
and districts in which PLCs operate. We argue that these contextual fac-
tors influence the structure and substance of teacher conversations within
PLCs, therefore affecting teacher learning processes and opportunities for
organizational learning. The result is a dynamic conceptual framework that
approximates both PLC processes and outcomes, a model that can be tested
and adjusted through the collection of empirical data (C. A. Lave & March,
1993).
 376 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

We have chosen these particular theoretical strands because of their

power to explain how teachers and organizations learn. Additional theories
would no doubt provide a richer picture or model, but we are parsimonious
in our selection so that the conceptual framework will be easily understood
and therefore more useful for empirical research.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

SIGNIFICANCE

In general, empirical studies of PLCs have used theory to frame inquiry in two
ways: to establish definitions or dimensions of professional learning commu-
nities (Kruse, Louis, & Bryk, 1995) or to outline the conditions necessary for
PLCs to flourish (Ermeling, 2010). Vescio, Ross, and Adams (2008) recently
reviewed literature on the impact of professional learning communities on
teaching and learning. The articles included in their review used conceptual
frameworks to define collaboration (Englert & Tarrent, 1995), professional
culture (Strahan, 2003), and conditions that support organizational learning
(Supovitz, 2002; Thompson, Gregg, & Niska, 2004). But, no article used the-
ory to hypothesize the specifics of how learning happens, and this trend is
representative of much current empirical work on PLCs. Consequently, this
set of research leaves teacher learning and the contextual influences that
shape it largely unexplored.
Researchers have long established that organizational context can influ-
ence the effectiveness of teacher communities within a school. Pounder’s
(1998) and Crow and Pounder’s (2000) work on teacher teams draws from
group process literature (Hackman & Oldham, 1980) to identify practices
that cultivate effective teams. Specifically, authors interested in team func-
tion attempt to capture the context, design, and interpersonal dimensions
of effective teams. Empirical findings identify several significant contextual
components of team effectiveness, including task clarity, complementary
skills and knowledge, and consistent participation (see Conley, Fauske, &
Pounder, 2004; Crow & Pounder, 2000, Katzenbach & Smith, 2006; Larson
& LaFasto, 1989). Within this body of work, team effectiveness is defined
as teams’ ability to meet organizational goals through processes that are
sustainable (Hackman & Oldham, 1980).
Other empirical work has identified leadership action, such as principal
behavior, as a component of the organizational context that impacts team
effectiveness (Finnigan, 2012; Printy, 2008). Smylie (1992) argues that teach-
ers receive “cues” from principals and other teachers about how to engage
in decision making, which influences their commitment to participating on
teams. Organizational norms that support teacher commitment and collab-
oration (or not) can play a critical role in team effectiveness (Rosenholtz,
1989). Orr, Berg, Shore, and Meier’s (2008) investigation of four persistently
low-performing schools hypothesizes which patterns of interaction limited
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 377

the opportunities for improvement within these schools. Their findings

included a lack of dialogue negotiating a shared vision of good instruction
within these schools and an inability to emphasize the significance of
coordinated actions to develop a shared vision within communities.
Although theory and research regarding team effectiveness offers a
framework through which to examine the interplay between the larger
organization and the subunits of teacher teams, team effectiveness is not
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

synonymous with learning. The extant literature begs the question: team
effectiveness to what end? Models proposed to date do not identify learning
processes within teacher communities or the interactions between teacher
communities and the organization writ large. Further, the examination of
influence in these studies has been unidirectional, emanating from the orga-
nizational context to the teacher community. We argue that the discussion of
learning within teams includes the influence teams have on the organization
as well, i.e., organizational learning.
The call to strengthen the study of teacher communities through estab-
lished learning theory has been repeated through two decades of literature
(Grossman, Wineburg, & Woolwich, 2001). As Stoll and Louis (2007) argue,

While the idea of members of a team being able to “suspend” assump-

tions and enter into a genuine “thinking together” (Senge, 1990,
p. 10) may be extremely appealing, what does it mean when colleagues
actually get together? (p. 6)

Both empirical and practical literature continue to wrestle with the difficult
questions of What counts as learning (teacher or organizational)? And, How
do we know it when we see it?
Recent work by Horn (2007, 2010) and Little (2003) captures conversa-
tional patterns within teacher communities to identify processes of learning
happening through collaboration (Horn & Little, 2010). Drawing from socio-
cultural theory, these scholars have done much to focus attention on the
microprocesses at work within teacher communities (Little, 2012). We rely
heavily on this research for our model. However, their work is limited in
that it does not examine PLCs within their nested organizational contexts of
schools and districts.
Moss (2012) and others have articulated the need to understand both
the macro and microprocesses that potentially influence teacher learning
within PLCs and within a school. We argue that to do so requires drawing
from complementary theories, capitalizing on the opportunity to offset
limitations and strengthen each perspective. The theories we believe offer
the most potential for this endeavor are found within sociocultural learning
and organizational learning.
Other scholars have explored the relevance of sociocultural learning to
organizational learning theory in the attempt to capture learning processes
 378 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

in schools. In 2008, the Spencer Foundation funded a conference aimed at

initiating an effort to join these two theories. Articles by several scholars
evolved out of this conference in a special issue of the American Journal
of Education that used both theories to examine individual teacher learning
supported by district resources (Gallucci, 2008), learning through boundary-
spanning resources within a district (Stein & Coburn, 2008), and the actions
of central office members that support organizational learning (Honig, 2008).
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

Assessed as promising first steps, this work offers a direction for further
theoretical development (Herrenkohl, 2008) and helps guide the model we
present here.
Research characterized by few or weak connections to learning theory
and a lack of engagement with context leaves the PLC field open to ostensi-
bly logical advice about how to engage teachers in PLCs with no attempt or
means by which to validate such advice. Thus, a danger becomes reducing
teacher collaborative learning to a specific design with rules regarding the
use of time, language, and protocols (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many,
2010). Understanding what teachers do to facilitate their own learning and
exercise teacher leadership in an effort to improve student performance is
thus constricted because of a limited examination of how teachers learn,
how their learning might be connected to change, and the influence of
organizational context.
The conceptual framework we present frames teacher collaboration as
the work of a professional learning community with permeable boundaries
that allow for influence from the district and the school in which the PLC is
located and for the PLC, in turn, to influence the larger context. The value
of working with a model such as this is that it provides a hypothesis to test
(in a broad sense) with empirical evidence from teachers’ work within PLCs
themselves.
We applaud Horn and Little’s (2010) call for a greater understanding of
the microprocesses involved in teachers’ collaborative work, and Spillane’s
(2012) theorizing on the basis of empirical evidence from observations of
teachers’ and administrators’ use of data. The conceptual framework we
present builds from these antecedents to answer questions about PLC pro-
cess and product outcomes. Instead of examining PLCs in terms of their
implementation fidelity alone, we will be able to examine what is learned,
how learning occurs, and how learning is influenced and shaped by the
organizational context in which teachers work. Understanding the learning
processes going on in and around PLCs is vital because they exist, osten-
sibly, to facilitate learning (Horn & Little, 2010; Servage, 2008). Identifying
what learning looks like is exemplified by the persistent question running
through current empirical work on PLCs: What counts as learning? As Vescio,
Ross, and Adams (2008) found in their review, much of the research on
impact relies upon generalized self-reports; evidence of specific changes
in teacher’s practices “were elusive” (p. 83). The means to gather and
analyze data with respect to teacher and organizational learning enhances
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 379

the possibility of understanding and strengthening PLC work, making this

conceptual framework valuable to researchers and practitioners alike.

FOCUS

The development of this conceptual framework is guided by the following

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

general questions:

1. How do teachers learn in PLCs?

2. What organizational influences are connected to the processes that
support learning within PLC s?
3. How does the merging of theories about sociocultural learning and
organizational learning create a coherent model of PLC processes?

To address these questions and build our conceptual framework, we

start by exploring two different forms of organizational learning, then focus
on teacher learning by drawing from sociocultural learning theories. As we
develop a picture of teacher learning processes, we discuss the connections
among organizational learning, organizational change potentially gener-
ated by PLC work, and important contextual influences. We conclude by
discussing the implications of our model.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ASPIRATIONS AND RESULTS

Several theoretical models situate learning as an outcome of perturbing

stimuli or cognitive dissonance (Glickman, Gordon, & Gordon, 2010). For
example, fundamental to general conceptualizations of professional learning
communities is that teachers investigate student achievement data to deter-
mine the effectiveness of their instruction (DuFour et al., 2010; Spillane,
2012). Emergent gaps in instructional effectiveness indicate areas for further
investigation and potential change in teacher knowledge and behavior. The
difference between what we aspire for students, such as passing or excelling
on an assessment, and how they actually perform presents a gap between
a goal and an outcome. Argyris and Schon (1978) characterize such gaps as
the difference between espoused theories (what school officials, for example,
believe should happen) and theories in use (what does happen). An exam-
ple in practical terms for schools: Educators espouse that all children will
achieve state determined minima in all subject areas, but in reality they don’t.
This is where organizational learning begins.1 This mismatch, the difference
between aspirations and results, is a starting point for capturing learning in
both organizational learning theories we discuss here. The options for how
members of an organization react to this difference is highlighted next.
 380 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

The Role of Organizational Routines

Implementation of routines is a means to provide stability and predictabil-
ity in organizational behavior. They are a response to bounded rationality
(March, 1994; March & Simon, 1993) and reduce the need for decision
making in complex or ambiguous circumstances (Allison & Zelikow, 1999).
We believe that, in practice, actions to change teaching tend toward rou-
tinization because teaching and learning are complex and difficult to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

understand (Bidwell, 2001) and because the effects of teachers’ efforts are
ambiguous and only vaguely known over a long span of time. Routine
classroom behavior may also lend comfort to school administrators whose
attention is not often directed to the minute details of teaching practices.
For example, many evaluation procedures involve checklists that essentially
document routines such as displaying the day’s objective, whether and to
what extent students are participating, etc. As a result of the various chal-
lenges in the teaching and learning process, schools and districts are prone
to advancing routines when faced with performance gaps of some kind,
partly because routines have the virtue of speeding up decision making and
decreasing variability. Routinized behavior may be further encouraged by
some PLC advocacy literature that purports to present best practices (DuFour
et al., 2005, 2010; Levine & Marcus, 2010).
Feldman and Pentland (2003) provide this working definition of orga-
nizational routines: “[O]rganizational routines can be defined as repetitive,
recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, carried out by multiple
actors” (p. 95). Levitt and March (1988) explain that routines capture orga-
nizational history and experience in a way that allows them to be carried
forward into contemporary organizational work. The danger, of course, is
that organizational routines work to perpetuate the status quo and mask
innovative alternatives that could work to align aspirations with results
(Wood, 2007).
We agree with critics of Levitt and March (1988) and March and Simon
(1993) that their conceptualization of organizational routines leaves out indi-
vidual and group volition (Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Spillane, 2012). This
criticism is based on an important differentiation between the ostensive and
performative aspects of routines. Ostensive refers to the structure and the
intent of a routine—e.g., quarterly data discussions focused on test item
assessment is a clear structure intended to surface successes and gaps in
teaching and learning. Which routines are carried into the PLC and how rou-
tines are enacted, however, is determined by how teachers interpret and use
them (Feldman & Pentland), i.e., how they perform the routines.
Levitt and March (1988) by looking only at the ostensive aspect of rou-
tines conclude that learning occurs such that actors (teachers) adopt routines
that appear to fit the environment. When that proves not to be the case,
perhaps because of changes in the environment, they adopt new routines.
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 381

Feldman and Pentland (2003) and Spillane (2012) view learning as more
nuanced. Teachers bend and alter routines as they adopt them. What is
learned by individuals and the organization is shaped by the interactions
among individuals, groups, and organizational routines.

Routines Generated by Context—Isomorphism

Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

Teachers’ enactment of routines purported to help make teaching more

effective can enhance the legitimacy of the PLC and the school, especially
if the school is nested in a school district advocating the application of
research-based practice, teacher collaboration, and continuous improvement.
District advocacy of routines for how PLCs should function defines a logic
of appropriateness (as distinct from a logic of consequences; March, 1994)
that schools can follow. That logic works out something like this: “Schools
that pursue continuous improvement do so by having teachers collaborate
in PLCs to understand their teaching challenges more deeply and by adopt-
ing best practices to address those challenges.” Such logic encourages, if not
compels, institutional isomorphism (DiMaggio & Powell, 1983). For example,
a school’s legitimacy in the eyes of the school district is established in part
through its use of PLCs. A PLC’s legitimacy in the eyes of the school princi-
pal is grounded in the degree to which the PLC follows prescribed routines
(Giles & Hargreaves, 2006). Thus, the structures within PLCs are inclined to
be more alike than different within and across schools.
Motivation to establish a logic of appropriateness is strong at the school
and district levels because of the challenges embedded in implementing
school improvement strategies (Berman & McLaughlin, 1976). Cuban (1990,
1993) and Tyack and Cuban (1995) demonstrate repeatedly that school
reform is very difficult to implement and that teachers hybridize reforms
when they close their classroom doors. School and district establishment and
enforcement of specific routines may be seen as a means of improving imple-
mentation fidelity of a specific reform, thus mitigating hybridization. When
schools and districts are successful in establishing recognizable routines for
behaviors such as those expected in PLCs, then principals and superin-
tendents gain confidence—warranted or not—that their efforts to improve
student performance are taking hold.
Applying routines to PLCs, however, is problematic because learning
suggests inquiry rather than compliance. Bidwell (2001) vividly captures an
internal contradiction set up by PLCs:

[M]icrostructures in the faculty workplace provide capacity for collective

faculty problem solving in a locally dynamic environment, nested within
a stable, institutionally grounded frame of formal school organization . . .
[T]his microstructure provides mechanisms for organizational learning in
schools, at least with respect to teaching (Leithwood & Louis, 1998) . . .
 382 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

[However], pressure toward [teacher] autonomy is in tension with the

bureaucratic impulse toward the rationalization of instruction. (pp. 102–
103)

One way to resolve such a contradiction is to routinize “faculty problem

solving” and constrain faculty choice into a set of best practices. Application
of best practices offers evidence of executing specific routines that in turn
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

reinforce institutional isomorphism. Similarity in practices across the school

or district is what lends legitimacy to PLC work in the face of ambiguity
involved with teaching and student achievement.

Double-Loop Learning
Argyris and Schon (1974, 1978) begin from a point not too distant from
Levitt and March (1988)—the difference between aspirations and outcomes
that we highlighted at the beginning of the article. Argyris and Schon explain
that what organizations aspire to do may be captured in vision or mission
statements. They call these espoused theories—what the people within orga-
nizations say they want. Actions taken are inferred by Argyris and Schon to
stem from implicit theories in use that organization members carry in their
heads. Theories in use may or may not be aligned with organizational vision
and mission. People do not always behave in a manner consistent with orga-
nizational goals, causing gaps between espoused theories and theories in
use. The routines discussed above could be thought of as aspirational and
therefore espoused theories; their enactment representing theories in use.
Thus, Argyris and Schon insert the volition of organization members in a
manner consistent with considering the ostensive and performative aspects
of organizational routines.
Addressing mismatches between theories in use and espoused theories
is made difficult by the fact that organization members behave as though the
gaps do not exist (Argyris, 1999; Argyris & Schon, 1974). Motivation to do so
is strong because it helps maintain individual legitimacy for administrators
and teachers alike, and it protects the legitimacy of the school as an organi-
zation. To admit that the organization lacks the capacity to teach all children
effectively invites criticism. Thus, PLCs are at the heart of a contradiction in
addition to that posed by institutional isomorphism. The mission espoused by
practitioner literature on PLCs is to improve teaching and learning, but within
a context in which it is difficult to acknowledge that improvement is needed.
The inability to admit a gap between espoused theories and theories in
use is part of the larger problem of “undiscussables,” the issues that people
simply do not talk about. Worse, the undiscussables are self-sealing—no one
talks about the fact that there are issues that no one talks about (Argyris,
1999). One possible example of undiscussables for teachers in PLCs may be
the assumption that members within the organization know how to solve the
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 383

teaching and learning problems discussed there. Another example might be

persistent variation in teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge disguised by
group norms of politeness (Grossman et al., 2001).
Governing values (Argyris & Schon, 1978) or governing variables
(Argyris, 1999) are equivalent to the rules that are followed within orga-
nizations (March, 1994). An obvious governing variable in many schools is
that PLCs meet regularly to discuss student achievement outcomes. Another
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

potential governing variable that links to our earlier discussion of learning

through routines is that PLCs will apply best practices in situations where
learning is determined to be deficient. Argyris maintains that organizational
learning that brings espoused theories in line with theories in use requires
changing governing variables. He and Schon refer to this as double-loop
learning.
Clearly distinct from learning through routines, double-loop learning
suggests that PLCs would be involved with exploring gaps between espoused
theories and theories in use (poor student performance), opening up undis-
cussables (acknowledging that not all teachers understand how to reach a
particular set of students), and ultimately altering governing variables (exper-
imenting with new content and teaching strategies). There is no routine way
to do this and such a mission for PLCs strongly implies that they would have
substantial autonomy and decision-making power, significant conditions for
successful innovation (Giles & Hargreaves, 2006).
We have an illustrative example of double-loop learning from our recent
research of PLCs. After examining students’ growth in writing and specific
language arts skills, one elementary-level PLC found that the same students
were consistently underperforming on consecutive assessments. Teachers
agreed that changing teaching strategies, or applying best practices, was not
closing this gap. They discussed how the master schedule, which placed writ-
ing at the end of the school day, was causing problems; for example, some
students repeatedly were pulled out of class at that time. After discussing
how this governing variable was impacting student learning in language
arts, the teachers collectively asked for the master schedule to be changed.
Master schedule changes are not simple modifications, and the administration
had a difficult task reorganizing the formal structures of the day (poten-
tially because of embedded undiscussables with respect to privileged content
and/or teachers), but agreed to the change.
Opening up undiscussables and altering governing variables violates
common logics of appropriateness (March, 1994), which might not be
received kindly by colleagues and supervisors. Empirical research demon-
strates that, given a choice, individuals are most likely not to address
undiscussables at all (Argyris, 1999). Even more significant, changing gov-
erning variables creates the possibility that the school, or segments of it,
look different than other schools of its type. This departure from institu-
tional isomorphism places the legitimacy of the school at risk (DiMaggio &
 384 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

Powell, 1983). Principals, in an effort to maintain peace and collegiality, may

inhibit or shut down efforts to open up undiscussables. Superintendents and
their staffs may likewise quash attempts to make the school look different
in their eyes and the eyes of the public and that deviate from accepted rou-
tines or perceived best practices. Isomorphic pressures and concerns about
legitimacy may be intensified in the current climate of accountability linked
to high-stakes testing, thus reducing the likelihood of double-loop learning
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

in schools and districts. Nevertheless, teacher learning has the potential to

translate to double-loop learning at the PLC, school, and district levels.
Organizational routines and logics of appropriateness help explicate
both the organizational context in which PLCs work, as well as the activ-
ities within PLCs. Next, we turn our attention to the internal processes of
PLCs as framed through sociocultural theories.

COLLABORATIVE PATTERNS: SOCIOCULTURAL LEARNING THEORY

Within the body of literature aimed at informing teacher collaboration or

teacher learning, scholars who base empirical findings in theory have com-
monly used sociocultural learning theories to guide their inquiry (Kelly, 2006;
Levine, 2010). The argument is that a sociocultural lens reveals the intersec-
tion between the members and the group by acknowledging the individual’s
role in shaping the community as well as the community’s role in shaping the
individual. This perspective is appropriate to study individual learning within
the context of a group, and to study group-level learning (Gallucci, Van Lare,
Yoon, & Boatright, 2010; Horn, 2005, 2007; Stein & Coburn, 2008). From a
sociocultural perspective, the individual and the group context cannot be
separated because learning does not occur in isolation. Rather, learning is
socially constructed, dependent upon interactions, and socially mediated
(Moll, 2001; Vygotsky, 1986).
Consistent with pivotal work on microprocesses within communities
(Horn, 2010), we consider teachers working within PLCs as a community of
practice (J. Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). The term practice encom-
passes both what teachers do as well as the social and historical context that
“gives structure and meaning” to what they do (Wenger, 1998, p.47). This
frame turns our attention to what actions mean and how people within
communities negotiate these meanings. As members participate in these
negotiations, J. Lave and Wenger (1991) argue that positions within the
community change (e.g. novices become more central to the community).
Therefore, how teachers engage in discussions about their practices provides
evidence of learning as their various perspectives are presented and shaped.
To examine teacher interactions within communities of practice, we use
Horn’s (2010) work on teacher engagement. Previous empirical research has
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 385

captured processes significant to teacher collaboration, particularly strate-

gies central to developing communities focused on learning (McLaughlin
& Talbert, 2001). Through this literature, we know successful communities
work to establish group norms and negotiate a shared practice that priori-
tizes student learning (Hord, 2004; Stoll & Louis, 2007). Other efforts have
captured the micropolitics present in teacher collaboration (Achinstein, 2002)
and processes that support inquiry within communities (Rigelman & Rubin,
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

2012). Case studies within this research offer generalized accounts of what
processes (and conditions) need to be present for PLCs to impact student
learning. Horn’s fieldwork pushes this literature further through a more fine-
grained analysis of conversation patterns that provides conceptual labels that
characterize and categorize teachers’ discussions within communities.

Conversation Patterns
Horn’s research is anchored in traditions of Bakhtin (1981) and Vygotsky
(1986), with an emphasis on meaning as the unit of analysis (Wertsch, 1985).
Meaning stands separate from speech and thought, and acts as the interme-
diary step between the two. Meaning is negotiated within the context of
dialogue, as opposed to being a static entity assigned to speech. Vygotsky
emphasizes the fallibility of assuming the link between speech and mean-
ing. Instead, meaning is dynamic and negotiated within collaboration, an
evolution that has been captured by few studies that have followed the
development of teacher communities over time (Clark, Moore, & Carlson,
2008; Craig, 2012; Grossman et al., 2001).
Grossman and colleagues’ (2001) study of one teacher community over a
period of two and a half years describes the development of shared meaning
within this group. The authors claim the group’s movement to a point where
cognition was distributed made it an effective platform for collective learning.
They write:

Without movement from distributed cognition (in which individuals bring

different aspects of content to a group and share these collectively) to
cognition distributed (in which there is a rotation and redistribution of
epistemological roles) teachers may not be able to identify and create
multiple ways of reading and knowing in their respective classrooms.
Teachers’ professional community must maintain a dual focus, both on its
collective learning and on the social group as the crucible for individual
change. (p. 975)

Capturing how cognition is “distributed” can be a methodological challenge.

These authors point to examples where teachers “tried on” the differing
perspectives of their peers, as observed within the community and reported
in interviews. Group members’ participation signifies this distribution as well:
 386 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

“The degree to which discussion brokering is distributed among individuals

. . . is itself an indicator of group equity and maturity” (p. 979).
Grossman and colleagues’ (2001) description of mature or equitable dis-
cussion in groups is aligned to other theorists’ definition of dialogue (Arnett,
1986, Wertsch, 1985) within communities. Dialogue stands in contrast to talk
that is monologue or “focused on self” (Arnett, 1986, p. 62) or technical
communication, which is focused on achieving objective understanding. This
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

work offers some guidance in capturing conversation that provides oppor-

tunities for “cognition to be distributed,” however, more clarity is needed
to understand the relationships between conversation patterns and teacher
learning.
We believe it is important to acknowledge that limited work has been
done on how conversation patterns happen within PLCs or how con-
text influences these patterns. Noteworthy exceptions include analysis of
the political discourse in teacher communities negotiating reform policies.
Grimmett, Dagenais, D’Amico, Jacquet, and Ilieva (2008) found two forms
of teacher discourse within schools undergoing large-scale reform in Canada
as teachers struggled with policy changes: political discourse and profes-
sional discourse. The separation of these discourses acted as a mechanism
of resistance for teachers as they signaled their professional identity while
attempting to work within the larger policy context (p. 103). Likewise, Gates
and Watkins’ (2010) work focuses on the political side of teacher commu-
nities and categorizes conversational patterns signaling autonomy within
groups. Although the discussion of conflict and micropolitics is significant
to teacher learning within communities, these studies do not draw clear
relationships among conversational patterns, instruction, and learning.
We return to Horn’s work as most helpful because of the explicit focus
on teacher learning and conversations on classroom practice. However, as
noted earlier, the theory resulting from her cases does not account for
the larger organizational context. Therefore, as we walk through Horn’s
constructs, we attempt to connect them to the organizational concepts
introduced earlier.
Horn’s comparison case study of two communities of math teachers
conceptualizes the patterns through which teachers presented and examined
problems of practice, what Horn calls replays and rehearsals. Both are ways
in which teachers represent their classroom practices. Replays are render-
ings of past events that tend to be specific, perhaps a detailed retelling of
teacher and student interactions within a classroom. Rehearsals are descrip-
tions of what teachers envision happening in the future, or believe could
happen, based on past experiences. Rehearsals are generalizations teachers
construct that work like replays to represent future practice, such as a teacher
predicting how her students will react to new content. Both replays and
rehearsals work as platforms for collaborative learning. Both concepts put a
name to the kind of teacher conversation that is indicative of how teachers
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 387

choose to represent their practice within communities. Horn and Little (2010)
have captured the ways in which teachers use replays and rehearsals to nor-
malize their teaching practice, establishing a shared understanding within a
community.
In more recent work (Hall & Horn, 2012; Horn & Little, 2010),
researchers have elaborated on the role replays and rehearsals (or repre-
sentations of practice) play in concept development. Horn and Little (2010)
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

explain:

The individual interactions around representations such as lesson plans

and student work became more critical in understanding problems.
Discourse routines that excavated or imagined interactional details of
classroom life supported the development of a shared understanding and
were critical to the work of teaching consultations. (p. 252)

Returning to Argyris and Schon (1978), consider the representations that

teachers decide to share as potential sites to uncover undiscussables. The
act of replaying difficult classroom challenges, and doing so with “details of
classroom life,” is a process in which individuals decide what to share, and
communities negotiate what are “adequate” representations (p. 252). Replays
and rehearsals may open up undiscussables within the relative safety of the
PLC. Some educators may implicitly view PLCs as a mechanism for doing so.
The representations of practice teachers choose to share within commu-
nities may also be analyzed by the extent to which replays and rehearsals
work to articulate misalignments between what teachers believe should be
happening and what is (i.e. espoused vs. theories in use). The extent to
which representations communicate problems of practice is significant to
how these patterns act as platforms for learning.
Horn’s (2010) argument is that through representations of practice,
teachers within the community have the opportunity to elaborate on what
is happening within their classrooms, creating extensions. Extensions are
interactions in which teachers examine replays or rehearsals more closely,
attempting to make meaning of the problem or situation they are discussing.
For example, teachers may extend a replay by probing for clarification,
questioning an assumption, or brainstorming causes of a problem.
Extensions are likely to be circumscribed to some extent by orga-
nizational forces such as logics of appropriateness that suffuse teacher
communities. Specific logics of appropriateness, deriving from both the
teacher community and the larger organization, shape how collaboration
happens within teacher communities. For example, in districts that have
invested resources into data bases and assessment tools, logics of appro-
priateness might prioritize teacher actions focused on this assessment data.
Leaders might perceive effective collaborative time as teacher conversations
coordinating the logistics of assessing students or teachers discussing specific
 388 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

items or results on these tests. Agendas listing these activities offer evidence
to leaders that teacher communities are functioning as expected.
Given specific “cues” (Smylie, 1992) from leadership, teachers within
communities create routines around data, offering elaborations that fol-
low expected patterns. An illustrative example from our fieldwork is the
following common pattern when teachers meet to discuss common assess-
ments. Teachers select one test item and compare how students performed.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

Teachers replay how they taught that particular item, and others probe for
more information, looking for differences in teaching strategies. Teachers
might ask how a concept was taught, when it was taught, or what material
was used in the instruction. These steps and the resulting discourse are
routine and isomorphic in that we find the same patterns repeated across
team meetings and across schools. On an organizational level, when teacher
communities follow these routines, they are publicly identified as “high func-
tioning” teams, and therefore, the routines they employ become part of the
logic of appropriateness within and across schools.
Horn explains that extensions resulting from replays and rehearsals
are significant because they present teachers an opportunity to re-vision
their practice. Revisioning is at the crux of what scholars and advocates
claim collaborative structures afford teachers and schools (Cochran-Smith &
Lytle, 1999; Curry, 2008; Grossman et al., 2001; McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001).
Potential opportunities for learning occur in places where teachers are nego-
tiating problems of practice, engaging with one another to make sense of
their practice, revisioning their classroom practices, and perhaps positioning
themselves as novices as they take on new practices (Levine, 2010; Weick,
1995; Wenger, 1998). It is this “re-positioning” that happens through the con-
tinuous examination of practice that authors identify as learning. In Horn’s
illustrative cases, “re-positioning” aligns with “cognition distributed” or dia-
logic conversation patterns, as conversation moves between replaying and
rehearsing instruction, normalizing problems, asking questions, or making
suggestions (Horn, 2010; Horn & Little, 2012).
The argument we make is that teachers can identify instructional
changes they will make, but it is not clear what counts as “re-visioning”
or learning. Teachers can discuss instruction through routines that work
to maintain the organizational status quo, or teacher extensions may be
sources of double-loop learning. In the previous scenario, teachers use
established routines to investigate assessments and brainstorm new strate-
gies to bring back to their classrooms, focusing on the how and what of
instruction. However, in visions of double-loop learning, teachers would
investigate why persistent challenges exist through opening up undiscuss-
ables and challenging governing variables within the organization. When
double-loop learning occurs, re-visions not only hold opportunities for
changes for individual teachers, but open up opportunities for organizational
learning. As double-loop learning happens within teacher communities,
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 389

teachers become experts, able to “re-vision” instruction for improvement.

Organizational learning depends on how the organization responds to
“bottom-up” change (Honig, 2004).
Hall and Horn (2012) compare processes of learning within work groups
in the settings of a health clinic and a secondary math department. The
authors argue that in teacher groups, the distribution of cognition, or the
distribution of new concepts, do not travel far from the point of origination
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

(p. 253). This leads to the practical question of whether it is possible for
double-loop learning to grow out of teacher engagement patterns in PLCs, a
significant question for further empirical work.
Current research demonstrates whether and how teacher engagement
through replays, rehearsals, and extensions mediates learning occurring
within the community. For example, teachers might use extensions to gener-
alize from specific problems of practice and create new theories explaining
the challenges they see in their classrooms (Horn & Little, 2010), or they
might discuss problems in ways that reify the status quo within their prac-
tice without unearthing new thinking (Whitford & Wood, 2010). As alluded
to in earlier sections, extensions could be routines, where teachers extend
their discussion of a problem of practice in repetitive, predictable ways.
In such cases, discussions are more likely to perpetuate the status quo
(Horn, 2005; Wood, 2007) in a manner consistent with isomorphism and
preservation of legitimacy. As teachers engage in learning with respect to
teaching effectiveness and student outcomes, they are influenced by iso-
morphic pressures, organizational undiscussables, and governing variables.
Teacher learning may be governed by routines, characterized as double loop,
or it may be a mixture of both. Figure 1 summarizes our construction of the
conceptual framework we propose to use for the study of learning within
PLCs and emphasizes the kinds of data that need to be collected to more
deeply understand their function and results.

IMPLICATIONS

We propose this conceptual framework as a means to further reveal the func-

tion and meaning behind the work of collaborative structures within schools,
such as PLCs. We believe that future research on teacher collaboration must
be rooted in learning processes theory. On a more functional level, we agree
with Miles and Huberman (1994) that conceptual frameworks provide bins
for data. If we were to fill up the bins we have identified in our conceptual
framework, we would have a detailed picture of what PLCs do, why they
make the choices they do, and what their work means to their members and
to interested others. These bins would sharpen our lens on the learning hap-
pening within PLCs and better inform how these structures might influence
organizational learning within our schools and districts.
 390 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

FIGURE 1 A conceptual framework combining sociocultural learning theory and organiza-

tional learning theory.

The model we present suggests several broad questions for research:

● What is the nature of teacher learning within collaborative structures?

● Within collaborative structures, how do organizational routines and logics
of appropriateness influence what teachers talk about?
● How do organizational factors influence teachers’ extensions of replays or
rehearsals?
● How are organizations prepared to leverage the learning happening within
teacher communities?

The aim of this framework is to guide inquiry that “zooms in” and
“zooms out” to capture multiple levels of processes within an organization
(Moss, 2012). If deploying multiple lenses, however, researchers are chal-
lenged to whittle down more exactly which aspects of each level demand
attention. We believe the established concepts found in these theories offer
promising connections for a rich agenda. For example, examining teacher
extensions within the context of organizational logics will offer a more com-
plete understanding of the nature of learning within PLCs and potentially
rich implications for leadership and school improvement.
Relevant to all of these questions is the issue of discretion vs. com-
pliance, or autonomy and resistance (Achinstein, 2002; Gates & Walkins,
2010; Grimmett et al., 2008). Thus, the fundamental question enveloping
PLC implementation is, Are PLCs avenues for teacher and organizational
learning, are they tools that help maintain consistency and predictability, or
are they some sort of internally inconsistent combination of both? Preliminary
findings from our fieldwork embedded in PLCs suggests that across a large
school district the third characterization is at work with greater prevalence of
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 391

consistency and predictability compared to teacher and organizational learn-

ing. Typical of several PLCs we have observed, there is a strong tendency
for teachers to focus on micro-level problems and short-term solutions with,
at most, a two-week time horizon. For example, several PLC meetings were
consumed by fine-grain analysis of between one and three test items and
discussion about how learning gaps could be addressed by tweaking class-
room practices prior to the next assessment. Rehearsals and re-visioning, to
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

the extent they occurred, more closely resembled substituting one routine
for another than the creation of new teaching and learning behaviors.
PLCs undoubtedly develop their own routines, but likely within the
boundaries of or in reaction to what is expected by the school and the
district. Emphases on accountability and test performance likely constrain the
potential for organizational learning in favor of reassuring isomorphism. How
such factors influence teacher learning is, at this point, unexplored. For these
reasons, we argue for research that captures the interplay between teacher
collaboratives and the organizational forces in which they are embedded.
We believe ensuring a focus on learning within the study of teacher
communities can unearth promising answers to questions that have per-
sisted through three decades of this reform movement. The model we have
developed in this article provides conceptual guidelines that will help us
to interpret interviews, observations, and document analysis focused on the
nature of work within PLCs. Doing so helps to fill in a substantial gap in the
research literature about this national strategy intended to improve teaching
and learning.
The questions we pose are also relevant to leadership practice. The facil-
itation of PLCs in schools demands an intentional definition of learning. Our
hope is that frameworks can support leaders in thinking about what counts
as learning within collaborative groups and how their organization lever-
ages teacher learning. Principals and superintendents can ask themselves if
they have designed their organizations to support the espoused theories they
have promoted with respect to PLC work. The model might help leaders to
see how teacher leadership within PLCs can influence the larger context
and envision how to support that leadership. Similarly, the identification of
two types of organizational learning provides a means for leaders to decide
which sort of mix of organizational learning strategies would best align
with their student-achievement and school-improvement goals. Illuminating
specific aspects of PLC work and the contexts within which they operate
highlights conceptual tools that school and district leaders can apply as they
strive to enhance teachers’ learning.

FUNDING

The research informing this article was made possible by a grant from the
Spencer Foundation. The views expressed are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of the Spencer Foundation.
 392 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

NOTE

1. Learning is a neutral concept in these theories. This model does not project what learning should
happen.

REFERENCES
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

Achinstein, B. (2002). Conflict amid community: The micropolitics of teacher

collaboration. Teachers College Record, 104(3), 421–455.
Allison, G., & Zelikow, P. (1999). Essence of decision: Explaining the Cuban missile
crisis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
Argyris, C. (1999). On organizational learning (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell
Business.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effective-
ness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action
perspective. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Arnett, R. C. (1986). Communication and community: Implications of Martin Buber’s
dialogue. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin: University of
Texas Press.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1976). Implementation of educational innovation. The
Educational Forum, 40, 345–370.
Bidwell, C. E. (2001). Analyzing schools as organizations: Long-term permanence
and short-term change. Sociology of Education, 74(4), 100–114.
Clark, P. G., Moore, K. C., & Carlson, M. P. (2008). Documenting the emergence of
“speaking with meaning” as a sociomathematical norm in professional learning
community discourse. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 27(4), 297–310.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and prac-
tice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1),
249–305.
Conley, S., Fauske, J., & Pounder, D. G. (2004). Teacher work group effectiveness.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(5), 663–703.
Craig, C. J. (2012). Tensions in teacher development and community: Variations on
a recurring school reform them. Teachers College Record, 114(2), 1–28.
Crow, G. M., & Pounder, D. G. (2000). Interdisciplinary teams: Context design and
process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(2), 216–254.
Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, and again, and again. Educational Researcher,
19(1), 3–13. doi:10.3102/0013189X019001003
Cuban, L. (1993). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American
classrooms, 1880–1990 (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Curry, M. W. (2008). Critical friends groups: The possibilities and limitations embed-
ded in teacher professional communities aimed at instructional improvement
and school reform. Teachers College Record, 110(4), 733–774
DiMaggio, P., & Powell, W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism
and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review,
48, 147–160.
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 393

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A hand-
book for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of
professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Englert, C. S., & Tarrent, K. L. (1995). Creating collaborative cultures for educational
change. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 325–336.
Ermeling, B.A. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 377–388.

Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines
as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1),
94–118.
Finnigan, K. S. (2012). Principal leadership in low-performing schools: A closer look
through the eyes of teachers. Education and Urban Society, 44(2), 183–202.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gallucci, C. (2008). Districtwide instructional reform: Using sociocultural theory
to link professional learning to organizational support. American Journal of
Education, 114, 541–582.
Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M., Yoon, I. H., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coach-
ing: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 919–963.
Gates, G. S., & Watkins, M. (2010). The place of autonomy in school community:
Taking a closer look at teacher collaboration. Journal of School Leadership,
20(3), 272–303.
Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006) The sustainability of innovative schools as learn-
ing organizations and professional learning communities during standardized
reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156.
Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Gordon, J. M. (2010). Supervision and instructional
leadership: A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Grimmett, P. P., Dagenais, D., D’Amico, L., Jacquet, M., & Ilieva, R. (2008). The con-
trasting discourses in the professional lives of educators in Vancouver, Canada.
Journal of Educational Change, 9(2), 101–121.
Grossman, P., Wineburg, S., & Woolworth, S. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher
community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942–1012.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1980). Work redesign. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley.
Hall, R., & Horn, I. (2012). Talk and conceptual change at work: Adequate repre-
sentation and epistemic stance in a comparative analysis of statistical consulting
and teacher workgroups. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 19, 240–258.
Herrenkohl, L. R. (2008). Sociocultural theory as a lens to understand organizational
learning. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 673–679.
Honig, M. I. (2004). Where’s the “up” in bottom-up reform? Education Policy, 18(4),
527–561.
Honig, M. I. (2008). District central offices as learning organizations: How socio-
cultural and organizational learning theories elaborate district central office
administrators’ participation in teaching and learning improvement efforts.
American Journal of Education, 114(4), 627–664.
 394 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

Hord, S. M., & Southwest Educational Development Laboratory. (2004). Learning

together, leading together: Changing schools through professional learning
communities. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Horn, I. (2005). Learning on the job: A situated account of teacher learning in high
school mathematics departments. Cognition & Instruction, 23, 207–236.
Horn, I. S. (2007). Fast kids, slow kids, lazy kids: Framing the mismatch problem
in mathematics teachers’ conversations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 16(1),
37–79.
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

Horn I. S. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice:

Learning from colleagues in a mathematics teacher community. Teachers College
Record, 112(1), 225–259.
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines
and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interac-
tions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217. doi:10.3102/
0002831209345158
Katzenbach, J., & Smith, D. (2006). The wisdom of teams: Creating the high-
performance organization. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
Kelly, P. (2006). What is teacher learning? A socio-cultural perspective. Oxford Review
of Education, 32(4), 505–519.
Kruse, S. D., Louis, K. S., & Bryk, A. (1995). An emerging framework for analyz-
ing school-based professional community. In K. S. Louis & S. D. Kruse (Eds.),
Professionalism and community: Perspectives on reforming urban schools (pp.
23–44). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Larson, C., & LaFasto, F. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right/what can go wrong.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Lave, C. A., & March, J. G. (1993). An introduction to models in the social sciences.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation:
Learning in doing. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Levine, T. H. (2010). Tools for the study and design of collaborative teacher learning:
The affordances of different conceptions of teacher community and activity
theory. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37(1), 109–130.
Levine, T. H., & Marcus, A. (2010). How the structure and focus of teachers’ collabo-
rative activities facilitate and constrain teacher learning. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 26(3), 389–398.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology,
14, 319–340.
Little, J. W. (2003). Locating learning in teachers’ communities of practice: Opening
up problems of analysis in records of everyday work. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 18(8), 917–946.
Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contribution
of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.
Louis, K. S., & Marks, H. M. (1998). Does professional community affect the
classroom? Teachers’ work and student experiences in restructuring schools.
American Journal of Education, 106(4), 532–575.
March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York,
NY: Free Press.
March, J. G., & Simon, H. A. (1993). Organizations (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
 Analyzing Professional Learning Communities 395

McLaughlin, M. W., & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Professional communities and the work
of high school teaching. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Miles, M., & Huberman, A. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook for new
methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Moll, L. C. (2001). Through the mediation of others: Vygotskian research on teach-
ing. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp.
111–129). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
Moss, P. A. (2012) Exploring the macro-micro dynamic in data use practice. American
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

Journal of Education, 118(2), 223–232.

Ogawa, R. T., & White, P. A. (1994). School-based management: An overview. In
S.A. Mohrman & P. Wohlstetter (Eds.), School-based management: Organizing
for high performance (pp. 53–80). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Orr, M. T., Berg, B., Shore, R., & Meier, E. (2008). Putting the pieces together:
Leadership for change in low-performing schools. Education & Urban Society,
40(6), 670–693.
Pounder, D. G. (1998). Restructuring schools for collaboration: Promises and pitfalls.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Printy, S. M. (2008). Leadership for teacher learning: A community of practice
perspective. Educational administration quarterly, 44(2), 187–226
Rigelman, N. M., & Rubin, B. (2012). Creating foundations for collaboration in
schools: Utilizing professional learning communities to support teacher candi-
date learning and visions of teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(7),
979–989.
Rosenholtz, S. J. (1989). Workplace conditions that affect teacher quality and com-
mitment: Implications for teacher induction programs. The Elementary School
Journal, 89(4), 420–439.
Servage, L. (2008). Critical and transformative practices in professional learning
communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(1), 63–77.
Shulman, L. S., & Shulman, J. H. (2004). How and what teachers learn: A shifting
perspective. The Journal of Curriculum Studies, 36(2), 257–271.
Smylie, M. A. (1992). Teacher participation in school decision making: Assessing
willingness to participate. Education Evaluation & Policy Analysis, 14, 53–67.
Spillane, J. P. (2012). Data in practice: Conceptualizing the data-based decision
making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118, 113–141.
Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A compara-
tive of two urban districts. American Journal of Education, 114, 583–626.
doi:10.1086/589315
Stoll, L., & Louis, K. S. (2007) Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth,
& dilemmas. Berkshire, UK: Open University Press.
Strahan, D. (2003). Promoting a collaborative professional culture in three elemen-
tary schools that have beaten the odds. The Elementary School Journal, 104(2),
127–146.
Supovitz, J. A. (2002). Developing communities of instructional practice. Teachers
College Record, 104, 1591–1626.
Thompson, S. C., Gregg, L., & Niska, J. M. (2004). Professional learning communities,
leadership, and student learning. Research in Middle Level Education, 28(1),
1–15
 396 Michelle D. Van Lare and S. David Brazer

Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of
professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning.
Teaching & Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. New
Downloaded by [University of California, San Diego], [Michelle Van Lare] at 12:47 10 December 2013

York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Whitford, B. L., & Wood, D. R. (2010). Teachers learning in community: Realities
and possibilities. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers’ learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new
infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109(3), 281–290.