Introducción / Introduction

Filósofo, Magíster en Filosofía y Doctor en Filosofía de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia (sede Bogotá). Sus líneas de investigación incluyen filosofía de la educación, filosofía analítica y filosofía de la mente. Actualmente es el líder de investigaciones de la Facultad de Humanidades, Ciencias Sociales y Educación e investigador de la Vicerrectoría de Investigaciones de la Universitaria Agustiniana, Bogotá–Colombia.

Building an Effective Form of Teacher Professional Development

The professional development of teachers is (or should be) a major concern for schools. It is not unusual to hear about the need for teachers to improve their knowledge and teaching insofar as the quality of education received by new generations seems to strongly depend on teachers’ skills. It has also been argued that the viability of many governmental and institutional initiatives depends on the capacity of teachers to change their beliefs and practices, since they are the ultimate implementers of such initiatives. Given the above, it is sometimes said that attaining better schools requires better teachers.

It could thus be reasonably expected that great efforts have been made and research has been conducted to establish strategies of professional development for teachers. However, there have been issues related to the awareness of the importance of teacher professional development, and, when such importance has been conceded, there have been issues with the way this process is understood. As we will show, certain conceptions of teachers’ professional development disregard crucial aspects of the teaching profession. Along with those misconceptions, teacher development is often seen as secondary or unimportant.

In this manuscript, we address the issue of how to develop and maintain efforts that are conductive to the professional development of teachers. After introducing a brief working definition of teacher professional development, we begin with an initial characterization of the classical version of the directed model of teacher professional development. That brings us to a detailed description of some of the major social and contextual factors influencing the professional development of teachers. According to our analysis, those social and contextual factors can be classified as follows: societal conditions, school contexts, and teacher socialization. Then, we present a new orientation that has arisen in recent decades toward directed models of teacher professional development. Key features of the new designs include a situated perspective on teacher knowledge, a reflexive conception of educational practice, a collaborative arrangement of teacher activities, and the view of teacher development as a continuous enterprise.

We mention a few examples of the new models but focus on one of them that seems to express the key features of the new orientation in a profound manner, in addition to other traits that distinguish it from similar models. Next, we discuss the effectivity of the new models of teacher professional development, that is, whether their effects on teacher professional development have been measured —and whether they are positive. Our conclusion is that professional learning communities are the model of teacher professional development with the highest potential to improve teachers and schools, and we identify a set of elements that we put forth as conditions for creating and sustaining those communities.

Teacher Professional Development

Teacher professional development (henceforth TPD) broadly refers to the processes whereby teachers learn and change (Avalos, 2011; Borko, Jacobs, & Koellner, 2010; Richardson & Placier, 2001). This process can be the result of the natural adaptation to educational practice over time, or it can be influenced by deliberate attempts to develop in various ways.

Teachers inevitably change during the course of their careers. That first type of TPD plausibly entails the interaction between biographical and professional elements, teaching experience and the way in which teaching is learned. It should be uncontroversial that the transformation over time of teachers’ educational knowledge, practice and beliefs is a process affected by personal experience, which largely forges the meaning they give to such knowledge and practice.

Given the elements it involves, TPD can hardly be seen as deterministic. That process also appears to give a distinctive idiosyncratic character to teachers’ reaction to change (for instance, whether they are more or less disposed to rethink their practices, knowledge, and beliefs). Moreover, the low impact of some TPD strategies is probably the result of a conflict between teachers’ experience and the underlying assumptions of such strategies (Richardson & Placier, 2001, p. 909; see also below).

More recently, government institutions and schools have developed an interest in molding teachers’ educational practices. To that end, they have undertaken what could be called “directed” TPD (dTPD), which involves various deliberate strategies to achieve specific types of teacher change.

The classical version of dTPD proceeds as follows: a group of specialists selects a set of techniques or tools that they consider worthy of replication by teachers in their classrooms. Those techniques or tools are made known to teachers in short, unrelated courses, workshops, or seminars. It is expected that the teachers will agree on the worthiness of those techniques and thus implement them (the problem of how such techniques might be implemented in specific classrooms is to be solved by the teachers).

This approach to dTPD as a “sub-species” of human resource management has not proven particularly successful. Its results have been described as disappointing and limited: Stevenson (1991) asserted that those programs succeed in up to 15% of teachers (mostly those whose beliefs match the program’s assumptions). Since Stallings and Krasavage (1986), the longer-term effects of such strategies have been called into question (they found that, over time, teachers implemented the desired techniques progressively less). Foreseeably, in this approach, change is described as an extremely difficult process to which teachers are highly resistant, which is likely related to the fact that in this approach the control over TPD vertically comes from outside the classroom, and the teachers’ relationship to the research is only as passive “consumers”. As a consequence, trainings have little to do with the specific context in which teachers carry out their practice.

Social Factors Influencing TPD

Of course, TPD cannot be seen as depending only on individual, psychological factors: social context and school organization are, no doubt, crucial aspects that largely affect professional development and teacher change (see Richardson & Placier, 2001, p. 921). In this regard, while prior educational beliefs are the main individual factors supporting or preventing change per Avalos (2011), a plethora of social factors influence TPD.

First, there are what Avalos (2011) calls “macro societal conditions”, that is, the nature and operation of the educational system and the policy environment related to such system. The latter includes the types of reforms undertaken, the views on teacher accountability, assessment, and TPD, as well as teachers’ working conditions. There are also historical factors determining the set of acceptable forms of dTPD (for example, contact education, distance education, and school-based training).

It has been found that policy environments that are centered on standardized examination results and on restricted notions of teacher accountability have negative effects on TPD. In the same vein, the research indicates that top-down curriculum reforms tend to routinize teachers’ work and increase diversions caused by paperwork, which may ultimately undermine teachers’ professional role (Avalos, 2011; Stoll, Bolam, McMahon, Wallace, & Thomas, 2006; Richardson & Placier, 2001). As Avalos (2011, p. 12) notes, reforms seem to have an effect on teachers who have had better TPD opportunities and school support as well as on those whose beliefs are aligned with the reform. For their part, Richardson and Placier (2001, p. 932) underscored that reforms sometimes reveal disregard for local conditions or that it may happen that new policies can contradict others already in force. Hence, teachers end up exhausted by the need to mediate conflicting demands —whereby policy-oriented change may place disproportionate demands on teachers’ capacity, leading to overload, stress, and burn-out (which, in turn, can make them unwilling to engage in dTPD; Stoll et al., 2006). Thus, reforms may produce resistance in teachers to what they feel is a “vicious cycle” of top-down attempts to control their teaching. As a mechanism of self-defense (as it were), teachers eventually opt for a form of classroom-centric self-empowerment that allows them to retain control over their practice.

Second, there are “micro-contexts”, “school cultures” or school context (Avalos, 2011), which includes school traditions, social environment, organization, leadership, and the interaction of those aspects with TPD. School organizational elements clearly affect TPD and include class size, teacher’s power over practice, whether curricula are textbook-based, and whether teacher time is allocated for TPD. Schools may promote TPD opportunities in which teachers perceive themselves as learners. As James and McCormick (2009) have noted, those opportunities largely depend not only on the school’s social environment but on the degree of support by the school’s organizational structures and leadership. Of course, as a result of those “micro-contexts”, teachers will behave differently depending on the school to which they belong

In connection with this topic, Richardson and Placier (2001, p. 926) return to a distinction regarding a school’s orientation toward learning between “learning enriched schools” and “learning impoverished schools”. The former schools have a culture that encourages collaborative learning in both teachers and students and that views teacher learning as an imperative to the extent that students and contexts change. In such schools, teaching practice is not seen as routine but situational, and evaluation is learning-oriented. Conversely, learning impoverished schools are characterized by a climate of individualistic and isolated teaching practices (so that teachers take charge of their own learning), a rigid curriculum, and a punitive conception of evaluation. Those schools usually have a focus on management and on tasks not primarily related to teaching, and teaching is extremely examination oriented (see also Sato & Kleinsasser, 2004). Additionally, teachers in such schools do not experiment with new ideas and are reluctant to engage in dTPD activities; instead, isolation makes them territorial and unwilling to admit failings.

Another difference between those two types of schools has to do with leadership and whether administrators work against paternalistic authority and empower teachers and students. Learning enriched schools are described as highly participative —participation is regular and inclusive, decision making is collaborative and consensual, and leadership is shared. For instance, some schools establish councils to decentralize school management (see Richardson & Placier, 2001, p. 931). Shared power in decision making regarding pedagogical aspects seem to have a positive impact on those pedagogical aspects. Nevertheless, as we will discuss below, more than teachers’ autonomy and empowerment is needed to guarantee that they will make the best decisions.

Unsurprisingly, self-perceptions of efficacy among teachers and students are significantly high in learning enriched schools. A sense of community, recognition and collegiality, positive leadership, and adequate physical conditions seem to be key factors enabling those schools. Meanwhile, self-perceptions of efficacy are reduced in learning impoverished schools, mainly due to the reinforcement of administrative control rather than educational purposes.

According to Richardson and Placier (2001), organizational conditions related to autonomy, staff cohesiveness, TPD opportunities, leadership, and problem-solving and decision-making climates affect not only TPD but even commitment to teaching as a profession.

The most common factors that weaken teachers’ commitment to the profession seem to be role ambiguity and routinization, which lead to frustration and dissatisfaction (p. 927). Finally, student background and the surrounding community’s attitudes to education must be added to the list of school-context elements that have an impact on TPD as they affect teachers’ motivation and their belief that what they do is worthwhile (Stoll et al., 2006).

A third social or contextual factor affecting TPD is the process by which teachers adapt to their schools, sometimes called “teacher socialization”. There are several ways in which schools shape teachers’ identities (Avalos, 2011); however, the research has demonstrated (Richardson & Placier, 2001, p. 924) that teachers are not passively molded by schools but rather they actively respond to context. Additionally, as a teacher’s greatest challenge is coping with students, students are the most important force in teachers’ process of adaptation to a school. Another differential factor in teacher socialization is whether schools devise strategies to adapt new teachers to their vision (training, mentoring) or whether teachers are left to their own resources (sometimes called “self-socialization”). The latter case most often results in individualistic, isolated teachers, characterized by a culture of privatism. It is also worth noting that although beginning teacher learning (a particular and complex stage of teacher learning) and teacher socialization often overlap, occurrences of the latter that are not occurrences of the former are not unusual.

As suggested at the beginning of this section, models of dTPD must be able to take into account both the individual and social factors affecting that process. Otherwise, either the personal might be overemphasized and the context ignored, or the solutions might be structural and the individual core of teaching will be ignored. Moreover, effective dTPD models must take those two sets of factors into consideration to the extent that they are intertwined: socio-cultural change entails individual changes in beliefs and understandings, and the latter may lead to the former. Richardson and Placier (2001, p. 939) proposed a focus on students over the whole schooling process so that the focus shifts from the students taught by a particular teacher to the students within their schools. This shift demands both individual teaching practices and organizational aspects be taken into account, which requires a rethinking of accountability.

New Approaches to dTPD

For the last twenty years or so, and given the failure of the classical dTPD approach, there has been growing concern about the need to develop new forms of dTPD that guarantee what are sometimes referred to as “second order”, “high” or “deep” changes in teachers (as opposed to the “first order”, “low” or “superficial” changes associated with the classical approach; see Richardson & Placier, 2001, p. 908). The flaws of the classical approach easily explain why it is insufficient to substantially transform what teachers teach or the way in which they teach (Boyle, While, & Boyle, 2004): as TPD, dTPD must be a sustained long-term effort that must be tightly linked to the reality of teachers’ educational practice and that must lead to lasting changes in said practice (Borko et al. 2010; Fullan, 1990). Furthermore, as Stallings and Krasavage (1986) put it, “innovative practices will not be maintained unless teachers (…) remain interested and excited about their own learning. A good staff development program will create an excitement about learning to learn” (p. 137).

Criticisms of the classical approach to dTPD have given way to conceptions with an emphasis on cognition (rather than on behavior), and they have been framed under constructivist views of learning and leaching (Avalos, 2011; Borko et al., 2010). Concepts from cognitive psychology have become central —among which beliefs stand out both as factors affecting teaching practice and as outcomes of change processes. In those new approaches to dTPD, the approach is seen as a long-term, collaborative and dialogical, voluntary, and inquiry-oriented process; control over the process is horizontal and includes the individuals involved in it, whereas change is boosted by shared reflection on beliefs and practices. As we will show, there is growing evidence suggesting that this approach constitutes an important avenue for significant and worthwhile change that appears to have lasting effects that favor students’ results and that help prevent burnout (see Richardson & Placier, 2001, and below).

A situated perspective

A crucial component of these new approaches to dTPD (henceforth NdTPD) is the acknowledgement of the complexity of the teaching profession as well as the importance (and variability) of the context —on which the effectiveness of teaching partly depends. This “situated” perspective reveals, on the one hand, the need for teachers to be seen as reflective and empowered professionals —such that simply training them in particular practices is not as appropriate as allowing them to develop ways of thinking and enabling them to make the right decisions.

On the other hand, the new approaches imply a view on professional knowledge as situated in the day-to-day practice and experience of teachers. Consequently, what teachers are learning must be relevant to their everyday professional practice. This assessment does not mean that such knowledge is merely technical or procedural but rather inductively construed.

Reflection and practice

As Avalos (2011) highlights, reflection is an essential condition for TPD, leading to awareness of needs, problems, and beliefs, among others. Reflection makes teachers able to explicitly identify the important characteristics of their practice, which includes their sources (particularly the influence of their beliefs on their instructional decisions), their means, and the effects of their approach on student learning. Of course, reflection does not necessarily mean the modification of every teaching practice (some may be affirmed). Above all, reflection is a permanent disposition, a form of practice —that is why authors such as Farrel and Ives (2014, p. 596) speak of a reflective practice that entails reflecting on practice, in practice and for practice.

As an example of an NdTPD model built on reflective elements, Ross and Bruce (2007) report the implementation of a model based on teacher self-assessment. That model articulates different types of observation of teaching practice (self-observation, co-observation, and hetero-observation); the collection of views on the attainment of goals as well as on whether the outcome is satisfactory; and the examination of self-judgments about the fulfillment of goals. Again, a teacher’s prior beliefs and cultural values are revealed to be important factors that strongly affect their results (p. 155) —such beliefs account for shortfalls and the extent to which teachers recognize the need for change (and thus their commitment to attempt changes in their teaching practice).

No doubt, there are teachers who lack a disposition to reflect, and leading teachers to examine their own practice may be difficult (O’Sullivan, 2002). However, getting teachers to reconstruct their beliefs and practices and then reflect on them and question the relevance of such beliefs and practices to their current teaching situation constitutes an immense contribution to TPD and to teachers’ capacity to provide better learning conditions for their students. That is why opportunities for reflection should be encouraged.

Collaboration

NdTPD’s emphasis on reflection is intertwined with a collaborative modus operandi by which learning is no longer left to individuals. Activities involve critical reflection on teaching practice through dialogue as well as the sharing of knowledge and practice. As shown above, teaching practice has traditionally been characterized by a culture of individualism, privatism and isolation, which usually leads to burnout. Thus, collaborative activities contribute to the deprivatization of said practice, the ease of isolation, and an emphasis on peer rather than supervisor feedback —in this way, they also contribute to “de-dramatize” evaluation, as Savoie-Zajc and Dionne (2001) put it, making it a learning source and a diagnostic tool to track professional development. Participation in those activities unavoidably shifts the way in which teachers approach their work. As Avalos (2011) notes, teachers generally talk to one another, and collaboration gives that talk a professional purpose.

Collaborative activities, and the collaborative learning to which they give rise, have both individual and collective components (Charlier, 2001). Accordingly, those components, along with a common framework, the type of joint activity in which participants engage (and its link to teaching practice), and the resources required and used, are key aspects that collaborative activities must take into account. In turn, those activities can be grounded on either the building of knowledge or the endorsement of scientific theories, or both. This approach leads to a process of shared reflection on practice, whereby teachers seek to identify the traits that make their teaching ineffective, brainstorm means by which to improve their own teaching (Tam, 2015), and clarify and examine their pedagogical positions with colleagues.

In this way, genuine collaborative work and learning transcend mere collegiality (which rather encompasses every form of interaction among colleagues) and must be distinguished from ‘contrived’ forms of collaboration (Savoie-Zajc & Dionne, 2001). Although it may not always be spontaneous but ‘organizationally induced’, true collaborative work entails voluntarily taking the initiative, that is, having a desire for collaboration.

Continuous teacher learning and innovation

Another major feature of NdTPD is the encouragement of continuous teacher learning in which teachers see themselves as learners with their colleagues, constantly developing new skills, transforming the way in which they represent their role, and continuously modifying their practice. Continuing teacher education includes for the search for scholarly literature and innovative ideas, with an enquiry-oriented practice that bolsters taking risks.

The continuous modification of practice and an enquiry orientation are inseparable from the possibility of trying new things in one’s class room practice. An NdTPD model could allow teachers to model proposed instructional strategies such that other participant teachers would have the opportunity to experience such strategies as learners and thus provide valuable feedback. Moreover, NdTPD should encourage teachers to pay attention to their students’ attitudes toward proposed instructional strategies to inform their instructional decisions. As observed by Savoie-Zajc and Dionne (2001), dTPD should allow teachers to conceive of new practices and new understandings, which could occur through their dialogue with colleagues about professional practice as well as by trying new things in the classroom.

Given the above, non-superficial change demands time; teachers cannot focus on improving their teaching practice and student learning if they are compelled to turn their attention, for instance, to a burdensome amount of paperwork. The school must be organized so that it allows time (and space) for teachers to meet regularly (Stoll et al., 2006; Tam, 2015). For example, in the case reported by Tam (2015), teachers’ classroom workload was reduced, and in the one reported by Savoie-Zajc and Dionne (2001), teachers were allocated the equivalent of two and a half working days for participating in a collaborative activity. Consequently, the role and leadership of administrators becomes a decisive factor in creating and sustaining effective NdTPD models, depending on whether they are committed to supporting that type of effort (Tam, 2015).

NdTPD approaches can take several forms. There is, for instance, the “collaborative continuing professional development” (Stoll et al., 2006) that emphasizes the collaborative work that must make-up part of NdTPD. This approach seems to have a positive impact to the extent that it enhances teachers’ feelings of efficacy, which in turn eases anxiety about classroom observation and increases disposition to change practice. Other strategies include study groups around topics identified by the participants in which they can share expertise, ideas, knowledge, skills, and didactic materials, and reflect on their teaching. There are also networks linking teachers or groups of teachers (either in person or electronically) who share information, explore and discuss topics of interest, and pursue common goals. Teachers’ networks may promote collaborative learning and the skills for collaborative work at the same time that they bolster individual learning (Charlier, 2001). Finally, there are also school initiatives to tackle specific needs, concerted co-observations among colleagues, peer coaching, and school-university partnerships (see Avalos, 2011; Boyle et al., 2004).

Professional Learning Communities

Within the variety of NdTPD approaches, we find professional learning communities (Vescio et al., 2008; Avalos, 2011; Borko et al., 2010). Such communities consist of groups of teachers in their schools that share values and norms, who create spaces to work together collaboratively and reflect on the improvement of their teaching practice, with a specific focus on meeting students’ educational needs. Thus, the concept of a professional learning community (PLC) rests on the premise of improving student learning by improving teaching practice (Vescio et al., 2008). As we will show, PLCs seek to deepen and enhance the essential traits of NdTPD approaches while they attempt to avoid the flaws that are present in some of those approaches.

Regarding the situated perspective on teacher professional knowledge, PLCs add that this knowledge is meaningful not only when it can be articulated in everyday practice but when teachers treat their classrooms and schools as research sites (Vescio et al., 2008) —thus linking the situatedness of knowledge with the enquiry-orientation characteristic of continuous teacher learning and innovation. PLCs are also inherently collaborative, and collaboration is understood to include shared reflection; a common example of such collaborative activities (Tam, 2015) is discussion groups that combine co-observation aimed at giving and receiving feedback about different teaching practices.

In this sense, PLCs highlight mutual trust, respect, and support among members as important features that make collaborative work possible. Those features enable dialogues that are at the same time challenging and supportive, maintaining a balance between respecting and critically analyzing issues in participants’ teaching practices (Borko et al., 2010). Similarly, the enhancement of teachers’ ownership and involvement (essential to improving students’ learning) is sought through the enhancement of their capacity to make decisions (with regard both to their PLC and to aspects of school governance). Thus, PLCs promote a form of horizontality that extends from teachers’ activities, resources and responsibilities within the community to the school life itself.

Nevertheless, the most distinctive characteristic of PLCs is their strong focus on student learning, specifically on instructional strategies and their impact on student learning (Vescio et al., 2008; Stoll et al., 2006; Savoie-Zajc & Dionne, 2001). That focus involves systematically obtaining student data and an iterative cycle of data collection, analysis (reinforced by literature reviews), reflection and modifications of teaching practice. Therefore, the values, norms, and vision that are shared in a PLC are geared toward student learning. In other words, in working collaboratively, conceiving knowledge as situated and changing one’s teaching practice are the means, not the goal.

With their particular form of empowerment and a voluntary and horizontal view on co-learning, as well as with the recognition of the importance for teachers of continuous learning, PLCs have the potential to change school cultures (Borko et al., 2010; Vescio et al., 2008; Stoll et al., 2006; Tam, 2015; Savoie-Zajc & Dionne, 2001). Such school cultures influence readiness for change and innovation rather than keeping individuals satisfied with their situation. In them, continuing education becomes second nature by which a permanent metacognitive perspective on one’s own professional development is adopted, despite the time and energy it may demand (Savoie-Zajc and Dionne, 2001). Moreover, a true PLC is also called a community because its collaborative activities lead not only to individual learning but to collective learning in a strong sense —i.e., the community itself learns–which is only possible through interaction and participation, interdependence, and meaningful relationships (Stoll et al., 2006). Of course, working for a collective objective (specifically, student learning) means a collective rather than an individual responsibility for its achievement. For that reason, PLCs contribute to the development of a sense of autonomy and responsibility that goes beyond the individual teacher and moves toward the school and the community.

We insist above on the need to take into account teachers’ educational beliefs. Arguably, through deep, shared reflection on practice, the encouragement of continuous learning, and the horizontal empowerment of teachers, PLCs address the underlying beliefs that influence teachers’ behavior. If so, PLCs would be able to become a major source of change in teachers’ beliefs (Tam, 2015).

How are PLCs different from other NdTPD models? For most school initiatives, “collaborative continuing professional development” does not seem to be based on teacher participants identifying their own TPD focus such that those approaches risk becoming forms of contrived collegiality instead of genuine collaboration. As shown above, PLCs arise from and are conducted by the teachers themselves. PLCs comprise and exercise mechanisms that allow the participant teachers to include in the process topics related to their professional practice that they have identified as necessary (Savoie-Zajc & Dionne, 2001). PLCs are also expected to be truly supported by the school administration more than merely allowed by it. Spontaneous groups of teachers and the occasional sharing and dialogue tend to be episodic, sporadic, and ephemeral whereas PLCs aim to be durable and deep-rooted in the school culture. Finally, unlike teachers’ networks, PLCs are workplace-based and always collaborative and reflective.

To summarize, PLCs make TPD a horizontal, collective, active, reflective and situated process. They are not fixed but durable and constantly evolving entities with accumulating collective experience in which teacher change is seen as a long-term goal (Tam, 2015; Vescio et al., 2008; Stoll et al., 2006). Among the conditions for the success and consolidation of a PLC that are worth underscoring in advance are empowerment through shared leadership and flexible managing structures. As McLaughlin states, “enabling professional growth is, at root, about enabling professional community” (1994, 31).

Effects

There is growing consensus around the effectiveness of NdTPD to change teachers’ beliefs and practice as well as to foster student learning (Tam, 2015; Avalos, 2011; Borko et al., 2010; Vescio et al., 2008; Stoll et al., 2006). Those studies agree that there is some evidence indicating that those models are workable and that their positive impact on teacher development and student achievement is potentially sustainable over time. Of course, they are recent models, and TPD is a slow, gradual, ongoing, and complex process; thus, miraculous oneday-to-another improvement is not to be expected.

Avalos (2011) has categorized reported changes in teachers’ cognition and beliefs resulting from NdTPD strategies in three areas: ideological (accepted norms and values); empirical (ascribed connections among phenomena) and technical (views on methods). Her findings reveal that the reported changes are mostly in technical cognition and beliefs and that changes in beliefs about student achievement are occasionally reported. Avalos also argues that a distinction between high and low implementers must be drawn, to the extent that the influence of those strategies on teachers is a matter of degree —and, more importantly, such influence is not related to years of experience but to the extent to which teachers become involved in NdTPD activities.

Further aspects of teacher’s professional practice, related to habits, change as a result of participation in NdTPD initiatives. According to Charlier (2011) and Savoie-Zajc and Dionne (2001), teachers become used to analyzing situations together and to devising possible solutions for them, and they develop the habit of describing, discussing, attempting, and establishing new teaching practices. Similarly, participant teachers learn to build a support network that plays a key role of counterweight to burnout.

For her part, Tam (2015) specifies five areas of teacher change due to work in a PLC. In the first (curriculum), teachers overcame the belief that they were supposed to endorse a delivered top-down curriculum. Teachers began to contribute to curriculum design, created instructional materials, and devoted effort to implementing those innovations. In the second area (teaching), she describes how the collaborative activities of the PLC helped teachers to change their practice. Teaching was teacher-centered and textbook-driven, the main learning strategy was memorizing, and the activities were carried out individually by students. Such emphasis on interests external to students changed to a constructivist, student-centered learning based on intrinsic motivation. That coincides with the findings from Vescio et al. (2008) who report that the teaching practice of PLCs’ participants became more student-centered over time (teachers increasingly added flexibility in their classroom arrangements and consistently strove to accommodate their instruction to varying levels of student comprehension). Tam (p. 33) also reports that, although all teachers declared that they had shifted their teaching practices, observation revealed that a few remained attached to their old ways.

The fourth area of teacher change is tightly linked to the first and second areas, specifically, teachers’ conception of their own role. Tam mentions (2015, p. 34) that there was a transformation in teachers’ beliefs about their roles, by which they were willing to transcend conservatism, try new things and relinquish the idea of the teacher as a mere implementer of a top-down curriculum. The fifth area (learning to teach in the workplace) was boosted by regular classroom observations. Tam (p. 30) underscores that some teachers may be uncomfortable with being observed (because of fear of being criticized) such that it is necessary not to give an evaluative impression during observations. Tam concludes that the PLC transformed longstanding workplace traditions of privacy and conservatism by bringing teachers together to reflectively discuss their professional practice and encouraging them to experiment with new ways of teaching.

Finally, the third area of teacher change that Tam (2015) identifies is student learning. According to her, teachers found that appropriately designed and guided innovative classroom activities had a positive effect on students’ thinking and motivation to learn. However, she does not report whether that effect was registered or measured. That can make her results appear too modest to support the claim of a positive influence of PLCs on student learning. Nevertheless, among the studies she reviews, Avalos (2011, p. 13) finds that 11 of them support the claim that such a positive influence exists. Similarly, based on reports of improved achievement scores and other data, Vescio et al. (2008, p. 88) agree that the empirical evidence suggests that PLCs have a positive impact on student achievement. More importantly, there are a couple correlations that are worth noting. First, the improvement in student achievement varied with the strength of the PLC. Second, this correlation was only present when the PLC had a strong focus on student learning —as Vescio et al. note (p. 88), this differential effect discards a Hawthorne Effect. dTPD programs may improve professionalism, morale, and the involvement of teachers; however, but it is the focus on student achievement that prevents such programs from becoming pointless.

Building and Sustaining an Effective form of dTPD: Some Guidelines

Meeting student’s educational needs seems to require teachers with specific skills and knowledge. Since the view of those professional attributes as “gifts” belongs to the folklore, there can be no doubt that the development of those skills and knowledge demands giving TPD a precise direction.

Moreover, as we argue above, not merely any approach to dTPD will suffice. It must be the type of approach we dubbed NdTPD, to the extent that the classical approach to dTPD has proven to be a complete failure. The classical approach is unable to produce deep and durable modifications in teachers’ beliefs and practices and, instead, aggravates individualism, privatism and isolation. However, as the above discussion shows, their situated perspective makes NdTPD models intrinsically context-related and better at taking into account the social factors that influence TPD.

We have contended that, among all the available models, PLCs are those that more deeply integrate the essential characteristics of NdTPD. In PLCs, situatedness, reflective and collaborative practice, and continuing teacher education are adopted in their most radical forms. Accordingly, our persuasion is that the most promising model of NdTPD —and thus the form of dTPD with the highest potential of being effective— are PLCs.

Therefore, we would like to conclude by highlighting some of the aspects related to PLCs that might constitute a set of minimal guidelines (so to speak) for creating and sustaining them. First, distinguishing the means by which power is exercised and recognizing others is a condition of possibility for establishing a PLC. We have noted that participation in them can be in no way contrived, even if teachers are induced to engage. Once they become members, interaction within the group must be as horizontal as possible —teachers must feel comfortable enough to express doubts about proposed activities and to propose others, and the figure of a teacher educator should weaken as much as possible. Teachers’ involvement in school-related decisions is also desirable, not only because of the very empowerment of teachers but because that would propel the life of the PLC close to that of the school.

The first condition imposes a further condition, specifically, a particular type of school administration and management. PLCs require administrators who encourage them, are committed to allocating time, space and other resources to the ongoing, long-term endeavor of making teachers better. That involves awareness of the importance of shared leadership and the existence of flexible managing structures for the empowerment of teachers as well as of the need for a de-dramatizing of teacher evaluation by making it a learning tool and not a tool of control.

Third, if schools and PLCs seek teacher improvement, they must do it for the sake of student learning. Thus, the creation of multiple mechanisms to measure a PLC’s effects on student learning to assess its success is indispensable.

Creating a PLC is different from sustaining it (Hargreaves, 2003; Stoll et al., 2006). The latter requires maintaining motivation and encouraging interest in many individuals and strengthening their capacity to adapt and learn from one another. It may also depend on the links their members and administrators are able to make with external partners which, in turn, requires the capacity to procure external support, to share and transfer knowledge between communities, to spread improvements beyond individual schools, and to co-create new knowledge.

The radicality of PLCs may be perceived as a threat to some teachers, to their interests, status, and even their careers; thus, teachers must overcome fears related to collaborative work, peer pressure, and closer involvement with students (Richardson & Placier, 2001). To overcome those fears, Charlier (2001) recommends a set of “transit tools” (p. 132) that support change and innovation processes: this approach involves an appraisal of the conditions under which each participant teacher undergoes the process, a consideration of the characteristics of the local context in which teachers’ change process is carried out, and the common representations to which the process gives rise. Furthermore, according to Charlier (p. 135), those transit tools can only play their role if they are a product of the teachers themselves. The transit tools must be accompanied by a methodology in which those guiding the process adopt the role of facilitators and not of instructors. Therefore, a high degree of participation on the part of the teachers in the definition of the process objectives and contents must not only be allowed but encouraged.

Finally, there is also the worry that autonomous, collaborative groups of teachers will become limited by the very beliefs that are supposed to be modified (Vescio et al., 2008). The only way to avoid this threat is for teachers to commit to questioning all aspects of their practice and the learning environment, as PLCs invite them to do. There is no doubt that PLCs may seem highly demanding for institutions, administrators and teachers; however, their potential to improve schools makes them clearly worth the effort.