Professional Learning Communities and Student Performance

An Investigation at River Heights Elementary

by

Kristin Hildebrandt

A Research Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for the Master of Science Degree

III

Education

Approved: 2 Semester Credits

James Lehmann

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin-Stout

July, 2011

2

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin Stout

Menomonie, WI

Author: Hildebrandt, Kristin L.

Title: Professional Learning Communities and Student Performance

An Investigation at River Heights Elementary

Graduate Degree/Major: MS Education

Research Advisor: Jim Lehmann, Ph.D.

Month/Year: July, 2011

Number of Pages: 40

Style Manual Used: American Psychological Association, 6th

edition

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine if the implementation of professional

learning communities would have an effect on improving student achieve in reading.

This study includes data collected from 2008 to 2011 from approximately 75 students in

the form of a graduated data track. Student running record scores from their kindergarten

year before professional learning communities were in place to the end of their first grade

school year when they were established were compared. Results were gathered,

compared, and totaled to determine if there was a significant increase, decrease, or if

student test scores stayed the same after the implementation of professional learning

communities. While the achievement levels of beginning, developing, and proficient had

a minimal increase in student performance levels, the most significant increase was

3

students progressing to the advanced proficient achievement level, making the

implementation successful.

4

The Graduate School

University of Wisconsin Stout

Menomonie, WI

I would like to thank my advising professor Dr. James Lehmann for the guidance

and valuable advice he provided me during the process of writing this paper. I would

also like to thank my father for his encouragement and support in writing this thesis

paper. Dad, I never could have done this with out your loving guidance. Thank you

mom for entertaining my children when I needed to work on my thesis paper and taking

over my role as a mother, cooking meals for my family. I cannot go with out thanking

my husband and three amazing children. I could not have completed this master program

and thesis paper if it weren’t for the love and support of my husband. He was an endless

source encouragement for me. My three children have had to wait for their mom to finish

her homework countless times. They have been incredibly patient and loving throughout

this process. They were my inspiration and my cheerleaders. Finally, I would like to

thank my sister for believing in me and encouraging me to go on when I felt frustrated.

To all the family I have thanked, I love you all dearly.

5

Table of Contents

.................................................................................................................................................... Page

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................2

Chapter I: Introduction ....................................................................................................................7

Statement of the Problem ....................................................................................................9

Purpose of the Study ...........................................................................................................9

Definition of Terms...........................................................................................................10

Methodology .....................................................................................................................11

Chapter II: Literature Review ........................................................................................................12

Chapter III: Methodology ..............................................................................................................21

Subject Selection and Description ....................................................................................21

Instrumentation .................................................................................................................22

Data Collection Procedures ...............................................................................................24

Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................25

Limitations ........................................................................................................................26

Chapter IV: Results ........................................................................................................................27

Item Analysis ....................................................................................................................27

Chapter V: Discussion ...................................................................................................................30

Limitations ........................................................................................................................31

Conclusions .......................................................................................................................31

Recommendations .............................................................................................................32

References ......................................................................................................................................33

Appendix A: Year End Assessment scores for Experimental and Control Group .......................35

6

Appendix B: Running Record Assessment Tool ...........................................................................37

7

Chapter: 1 Introduction

Schools are continuously under pressure to achieve measurable results of student

outcomes. In most cases, schools are striving to improve student learning and design a high

quality curricular experience for all students. However, the multiplicity of variables in education

makes school transformation a difficult process. Over time schools have sought professional

development training for teachers, purchased quality curriculum, added student centered

programming before and after school, and enhanced classrooms with technology. Yet student

test scores show many schools are not improving, and in some cases student test scores are

deteriorating.

Like many schools across the nation River Heights Elementary in Menomonie,

Wisconsin was in search of school improvement. River Heights is a Title 1 school that services

379 children in kindergarten through fifth grade. Within our student population 64.6% are

economically disadvantaged, 14.1% are students with a disability, and over 10% are English

language learners. River Heights has been fortunate to be part of a Wisconsin education grant

targeting the reformation of schools with high populations of low-income students. The Student

Achievement Guarantee in Education program (SAGE) provides funding that supports extra

teaching staff in kindergarten through third grade, keeping classroom populations lower than 18.

River Heights has a dedicated staff that is committed to the students they serve. In 2008 the staff

at River Heights Elementary was actively seeking a school model that would facilitate school

improvement. The pursuits for school transformation lead the staff at River Heights to discover

professional learning communities.

Research regarding education shows schools that schools sharing a common vision and

are committed to working together as a community, are improving student performance. “When

8

we look at the research on improving schools over a long period of time and examine what the

keys to school improvement are, invariably it boils down to the ability of the people within the

school to function as a professional learning community” (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, as cited in

Lunenburg ,2010, p.1). Professional learning communities have been around for more than

thirty years. Servais et al., as cited in Spanneut (2010) stated “professional learning communities

have been recognized and used as a viable means for consciously placing curriculum, teaching,

learning, and achievement at the center of schools” (p. 100-101).

Recently River Heights Elementary explored the practice of professional learning

communities. The school began implementing professional learning communities in the fall of

2009 and is currently committed to the practice with all grade levels from kindergarten through

fifth grade participating in professional learning communities. Each professional learning

community is comprised of a number of different educators such as: general education, para-

educators, guidance staff, speech and language teachers, and special education staff.

Additionally, it is not uncommon for before and after school club coordinators to sit in on

professional learning community meetings to learn the needs of the students in their programs

and carry over the day’s learning into their programming. The professional learning

communities meet for one hour each week, and for an afternoon once a month during district

early release days that are designated for professional development. Since the implementation of

professional learning communities in 2009 the River Heights staff has received over 30 hours of

professional development in the area of professional learning communities.

9

Statement of the Problem

The 2008 Wisconsin Concepts and Knowledge Exam (WKCE) test scores showed

that River Heights students were not achieving the minimal expectations on the reading

standards portion of the test. The standard teaching practices were not helping students

achieve expected reading benchmarks. Professional learning community schools may

provide an intervention through a collaborative teaching practice that could achieve

significant improvement in the area of student reading performance. Research that has

already been conducted on Professional Learning Communities and the impact the

practice had in other schools was utilized in this study.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to research professional learning communities in

practice at River Heights Elementary and their potential effect on improving student’s

scores regarding reading. This study includes data collected from 2009 to 2011 from

approximately 75 students. This is a graduated data track that followed student’s running

record scores from the end of their kindergarten year to the end of their second grade

school year. Measuring student progress through running record test scores over a period

of time beginning before professional learning communities were in place and ending

after they are established may perhaps show that a school working as a cohesive unit

towards change and improvement could advance student learning and performance. The

findings of the study will be used to encourage the practice of professional learning

communities at other schools within the School District of the Menomonie Area.

10

Definition of Terms

Bench Mark Targets. Student learning goals that are typically established by a

school district’s or a state’s standards.

Common Formative Assessment. Assessment used on an ongoing basis to

monitor individual student learning and to impact instructional practice so that all

students master intended outcomes (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker & Karhanek 2004, p. 24).

Intervention. A prescribed lesson that accommodates an individual child’s

academic needs.

Professional Learning Community. A professional learning community is

educators committed to working collaboratively in an ongoing process of collective

inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve (Dufour,

Dufour & Eaker, 2008, p. 15).

Running Record. A tool for coding, scoring, and analyzing a child’s precise

reading behaviors. This is document of a child’s actual reading of text, it provides both

quantitative and qualitative information (Fountas & Pinnell 1996, p. 89).

Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE). The state of Wisconsin’s

standardized test that is given yearly to students third grade through eighth grade.

Assumptions and Limitations

An assumption is that the data collected at River Heights Elementary is valid and

reliable. River Heights has a very transient population with students moving in and out

of the school, this factor may affect data results. This population of students could distort

running record test data. As a result of teacher’s individual preferences, not all students

11

experienced the professional learning community process. Therefore not all grade levels

devoted their professional learning community work to improving reading scores.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to determine if the practice of professional learning

communities at River Heights Elementary had an effect on student running record scores.

Classroom teachers performed the monthly running record assessments. A graduated

data track followed students’ running record scores from the end of their kindergarten

year to the end of their first grade school year was used. A comparison of data from the

experimental group and the control group will be presented within this study. This data

was collected from the school years 2009 through 2011.

12

Chapter II: Literature Review

This chapter will review literature in relation to the practice of professional learning

communities (PLC) in elementary schools as well as increase the understanding of how a

professional learning community functions within a school. The review of literature will also

discuss the roles of professional learning community members, the design and function of

weekly professional learning community meetings, common assessment methodology and

teacher benefits from the PLC. In addition, collective responsibility and common goals will be

reviewed since they are two of the primary factors of effective professional learning

communities.

Professional Learning Communities

The evolution of the educational professional learning community (PLC) began within

the business community. “The term ‘learning community’ began to enter the educational

vernacular broadly in the early 1990s following the publication of Peter Senge’s book The Fifth

Element” (Hamos et al., 2009, p. 14). This proposed radical restructuring of business

management strategies transformed corporations into learning organizations that shared a vision

among employees and management, sharing vision for change through group discussions of

goals and problems. The term was modified to ‘learning communities’ as educational

practitioners and researchers began to create a collection of literature on this topic (Senge, as

cited in Hamos et al., 2009, p. 14). Professional learning communities have become an intensive

approach to school improvement.

According to DuFour, DuFour, and Eaker, (2008) a professional learning community, is

educators committed to working collaboratively in an ongoing process of collective inquiry and

action research to achieve better results for the students they serve. Professional learning

13

communities (PLC) function under the assumption that to improve learning for all students;

educators must meet on a regular basis and engage in conversation about learning issues. “If

shared purpose, vision, collective commitments, and goals constitute the foundation of a PLC,

then the collaborative team is the fundamental building block of the organization. A PLC is

composed of a collaborative team whose members work interdependently to achieve common

goals- goals linked to the purpose of learning for all- for which members are held mutually

accountable” (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008, p. 15). Mellard and Johnson (2008) concurred

with the findings of DuFour, DuFour and Eaker, and affirmed that a PLC holds the promise of

marked improvements in student achievement with quick identification of unproductive teaching

methods, and the prospect of having timely professional development available to staff.

Out of Isolation and into Professional Learning Communities

All levels within an educational system in a school district concerned with school

improvement work together to create common goals and meaningful interventions for all

abilities of children. This collaborative, systematic response provides prevention,

intervention, and acceleration to answer two essential professional learning community

question: “How will we respond when students do not learn?” and “How will we respond

when students have already learned the essential knowledge and skills?” (Erkens et al.,

2008, p. 180).

Unfortunately, this is not the case in some schools. In the past many educators,

for fear of being judged negatively by peers, kept their teaching methods and curricular

planning private, and chose to work in seclusion. Because of these established

expectations, in many schools teachers continue to practice this approach, attempting to

meet the needs of their students with little or no collaboration with peers. Not only do

14

students benefit from the systematic support of a professional learning community

approach, but teachers do as well. “An army of adults is there to help the teacher help the

student. The teacher is not alone” Wong et al, as cited in Hamos et al., (2009) noted that

isolation is the common thread and complaint among new teachers in U.S. schools (p.

14). Educators are dealing with a vast spectrum of learners, possibly making it difficult

to achieve improved academic performance for all students. Even though most teachers

are very capable of helping their students achieve benchmark goals, many are working in

situations beyond their control. Some of these teachers are in classrooms with large class

sizes working with students with various academic and social needs. With the vast

amount of curricular resources, district, and state standards it can be difficult for a teacher

to decide what is relevant to teach. Erkens et al., (2008) suggested even teachers with a

great deal of experience have a difficult time choosing from among all the possible

curricula written for their grade level or subject area. Furthermore, when considering

new teachers it is even more difficult to distinguish essential content. Teachers working

alone may find it challenging to utilize student data to change and improve curriculum.

These teachers “are still teaching in the dark without using data hoping to hit but often

missing their critical target: high performance for all students” (Erkens et al., 2008, p.

137). As aforementioned, many teachers have to learn to teach in seclusion. This lack of

collaboration can lead to minimal academic growth for students and a high level of

frustration for teachers.

Schools cannot achieve the essential purpose of learning for all if educators work in

seclusion. According to Hammond & McLaughlin, as cited in Lieberman & Pointer Mace,

(2009) it has become clearer that teachers learn in communities that are long term and

15

collaborative, that necessitate enabling polices that are shaped by the people who are involved in

routines of schools and have an investment in reform (p. 459). Evidence clearly suggests that

school administrators and teachers must build a collaborative philosophy in which they work

together and assume collective responsibility for the learning of all students (DuFour, DuFour, &

Eaker, 2008). The Harvard Business School’s publication: The Wisdom of Teams, (1993) further

corroborates the notion of collective responsibility. Katzenbach and Smith did extensive

qualitative research to determine the characteristics of high performing teams. They found

mutual accountability is a key factor. “No group ever becomes a team until it can hold itself

accountable as a team” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 64). Their research reframed the idea of

collective responsibility as mutual team accountability. They also corroborated the importance

of having common goals. “The best teams invest a tremendous amount of time and effort

exploring, shaping and agreeing on a purpose that belongs to them both collectively and

individually.” (Katzenbach & Smith, 1993, p. 50). In other words, two key competencies of the

high performing teams Katzenbach and Smith outline in business and industry mirror the

competencies of professional learning communities: collective responsibility and common goals.

When teachers and administrators are guided by collective commitments that are widely

understood and honored by all, each member recognizes the important role he or she can play in

shaping the success of a school or district. “There is ample evidence that effective classroom

and school management support high academic performance in students” (Howell, Patton &

Deiotte, 2008, p. 70). When teachers working in a professional learning community are united in

a common endeavor, and are contributing to creating a better future for their schools and

districts, they are far more likely to see their work as rewarding contrary to the isolated teachers

16

and principals whose interests may not extend beyond their individual classrooms or schools

(DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008).

The Roles of Professional Learning Community Members

Based on the work by DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, and Many (2006), four basic questions are

stated as the driving force of a professional learning community (PLC): 1. What do we want

students to learn? 2. How will we know they have learned? 3. How will we respond when they

don’t learn? 4. How will we respond if they have already learned it? Members of a PLC work

together to explain exactly what each student must learn, then monitor each student’s learning on

a timely basis and provide systematic interventions that ensure students receive additional time

and support for learning when struggling. The PLC members also extend and enrich learning

when students master the intended outcomes (DuFour, DuFour & Eaker, 2008). The

relationships on these teams are professional, and are focused entirely on student learning.

“There is a feeling of personal responsibility from all PLC members” (Erkens et al., 2008 p.

139).

Frequent and Common Assessment

“The development of common formative assessments is an essential process that

influences so much of what teachers do on a daily basis” (Erkens et al., 2008). O’ Neill and

Conzemius concurred when teachers look at the performance data as a team, they can work

together to create more options for improvement (O’Neill & Conzemius, 2006). Common

assessments built by assessment literate teachers and collaboratively scored using rubrics

developed around district or state standards and outcomes will provide this shared foundation

(DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many). O’ Neill and Conzemius (2006) noted when common

assessments, developed by teams of teachers are formative and summative, teachers get the

17

benefits of both promoting student learning as well as gaining insight into their own learning.

This tacit learning by teachers is indeed a powerful factor in creating a team culture to improve

student outcomes. The professional learning community becomes a method by which shared

values are created that enhances the positive outcomes for students. Here again, lessons from

business reinforce this concept. “What really drives the culture- its essence-is the learned,

shared, tacit assumptions on which people base their daily behavior” (Schein & Edgar 1999, p.

24).

Data From Assessment Guides Instruction

The development of common formative assessment is an essential process that influences

so much of what teachers do on a daily basis (Erkens et al., 2008). Common assessments built

by assessment literate teachers and collaboratively scored using rubrics developed around district

and state standards and outcomes, will provide a foundation for the PLC members to develop a

prescribed plan of learning for each student (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006). Garrett

(2010) described part of the professional learning community process “the common curriculum,

effective instructional strategies, and key assessments students are given are consistent from

teacher to teacher" (p. 5). PLC teachers use the data from common formative assessments to

look for patterns of strengths and weaknesses, paying attention to where students scored highest

and lowest or the classes that scored highest or lowest, and the particular items most students

answered incorrectly (Erkens et al., 2008). After determining the top areas of greatest need

shown by the data, PLC teachers use the results to guide instruction. The knowledge teachers

acquire about students progress allows them to target specific strategies for improving student

learning (Erkens et al., 2008).

Common Assessment Data Leads to Appropriate Interventions

18

“Many teachers are still teaching in ‘the dark’ (sic) without using data hoping to

hit but often missing their critical target: high performance for all students” (Erkens et al.,

2008, p. 137). The charge of a professional learning community (PLC) is to use student

data to drive instruction and intervention placement. “When used formatively,

assessments help students grow rather than merely holding them accountable for their

learning” (Stiggins & Chappuis 2008, para. 1). Not only do formative assessments help

PLC educators decide what happens with curriculum in the classroom, but these

assessments also compel prescribed intervention for students. The efforts of a

professional learning community to create common assessments and view data during

PLC meetings leads members to work together to identify students who are having

trouble and intervene early (Garrett, 2010). Concurring with Garrett “These early

interventions allow teachers to focus intensive instruction to assist students that are not

making benchmark. A PLC team works together to create systematic intervention

strategies and develop daily schedules that create opportunities for more time and support

during the regular school day (Erkens et al., 2008). During an intervention session every

teacher and aide in the building is available to work with students on pre-teaching or re-

teaching of concepts (Erkens et al., 2008). By providing more frequent in-school

intervention opportunities, the PLC team ensures that students do not “slip through the

cracks” and that those struggling with a concept or missing homework assignments do

not fall behind (Erkens et al., 2008). At the first indication students are experiencing

difficulty the PLC team ensures timely intervention that direct rather than invite students

to devote the extra time and take advantage of the additional support until they are

experiencing success (DuFour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006).

19

Teacher Benefits from Professional Learning Community Collaboration

Cooperation between professional learning community (PLC) members in meeting the

learning needs of their students will create collaborative cultures in which educators pool their

knowledge, effort, and energy to learn from one another (Erkens et al., 2008). Garrett (2010)

offered, “A lone teacher, however capable, may languish in isolation. The encouragement,

expertise, and support of colleagues in the learning community create a team even more resilient

than the strengths of its individual experts” (p. 6). The sustained open sharing culture of a PLC

not only offers support but an improved wealth of knowledge. Teachers may observe

opportunities for changes in their roles and responsibilities as they progress from working in

seclusion, to being members of a functioning PLC, to becoming teams of in-house experts

(Spanneut, 2010).

Teacher Support Each Other’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Within a professional learning community (PLC), the assurance that all students make

adequate progress falls on all team members. The entire professional learning community has

the responsibility to see that all children succeed. "The members of each team regard all the kids

as, our kids” (Garrett, 2010, p. 5). This reduces the sense of isolation some teachers have, and

increases their mutual support of each other, their collegiality. They share the workload and they

share their responsibility for student success (Boger, as cited in Garrett, 2010, p. 6). This

collective work that happens within a PLC "It's a whole different atmosphere when you, as a

teacher, walk into a room and other teachers are saying to you, 'Gee, all of our 5th-grade kids did

really well on fractions except your kids. Maybe we could help you with that. Let me show you

what I do,’ It's a different atmosphere when you have your very best teachers leading your

instructional teams” (Boger, as cited in Garrett, 2010, p. 9). The shared learning that happens

20

within a professional learning community provides educators with new strategies for delivery of

instruction and builds confidence in their teaching methods. “Working collaboratively in

curriculum teams, teachers are finding new innovative ways to develop lessons, improve their

instructional practice, and engage students in meaningful learning opportunities” (Erkens et al.,

2008, p. 97).

Student benefits from professional learning communities

Students that are the product of a school functioning as professional learning community

(PLC) benefit from a prescribed education tailored for the individual. Teachers committed to

PLC practices use frequent formative assessments to guide individual instruction for students.

“A key element of this inquiry cycle is looking at student work to better understand student

thinking and change instruction accordingly” (Nelson, LeBard, & Waters, 2010 p. 36). The

frequent examination of student work allows teachers to modify lessons that may have been

poorly designed. When paying close attention to students’ misconceptions, teachers can then

develop appropriate learning tools. This practice allows teachers to identify what specific areas

students improved in and which they still made mistakes (Nelson, LeBard, & Waters, 2010).

These collaborative investments are even more meaningful when students are involved in the

process. Sadler as cited in Erkens et al., (2008) argued “teachers must make students aware of

what the learning targets or goals are, where they are relative to those targets or goals, and what

they must do to close the gap in their performance” (p. 166). Through the practice of

professional learning communities it is apparent that teachers and students may benefit.

21

Chapter III: Methodology

This chapter will describe the overall research methodology for the study of professional

learning communities at River Heights Elementary School. This chapter describes the selection

and description of the sample, the instrumentation, data collection and analysis. Limitations

specific to this study will conclude the chapter.

Subject Selection and Description

At the time of this study River Heights Elementary had a total population of 379

students. Of which 64.6% of the students were economically disadvantaged with a

remaining 35.4% not economically disadvantaged. Within the general population of

River Heights 86.8% of the students were English proficient, 9.5% were Hmong, 0.3%

were Spanish, and 3.4% were classified as other. River Heights services students with a

varying degree of disabilities, 14.1% of the student population is labeled with some type

of disability leaving 85.9% of the students with out a disability.

Participants of this study were kindergarten and first grade students at River

Heights Elementary. Do to the somewhat transient population at River Heights several

subjects were removed from the study. Some of the subject that were removed moved

away, moved in, and in some cases moved and then came back. Since the subject’s data

could not be tracked authentically, they were removed from the sample at the time of

analysis. The researcher pulled all of the students that moved in or out from the data.

In total there were 93 kindergarten and first grade subjects assessed in this study.

The data was collected from two different groups. The experimental group consisted of

54 students. There were 29 female subjects and 25 male subjects. Data collected from

this group occurred from 2009 to 2011. This experimental group had kindergarten

22

teachers that were involved in the River Heights professional learning community and the

following year had first grade teachers that were also involved in the River Heights

professional learning community. A graduated data track that followed students’ running

record scores from the end of their kindergarten year to the end of their first grade school

year was used (see Appendix A). This experimental group was compared to a control

group of 49 students. There were 25 female subjects and 24 male subjects. These

students did not have kindergarten and first grade teachers participating in a professional

learning community at River Heights. The same graduated track of these student running

record scores from the end of their kindergarten year of 2008 to the end of their first

grade year in 2009 was collected (see Appendix A). Throughout this study 93 total

subjects were assessed. These 93 students matriculated through kindergarten and first

grade. Kindergarten and first grade students that left or entered River Heights from the

end of their kindergarten school year to the end of the first grade year were not included

as part of the population of this study.

Instrumentation

The final year-end running record reports of both groups was used (see Appendix A).

The subjects were assessed in September, January and May. In order to show progress from year

to year within the control group and the experimental group, the May year-end data results were

compared. Running record assessments from the Fountas and Pinnell Guided Reading System

assessment kit were used. The running record assessment displayed data on the student’s

fluency, accuracy, and comprehension in reading (see Appendix B). The Fountas and Pinnell

assessment kit is the assessment tool that all elementary schools within the Menomonie School

District use to identify a student’s reading behaviors and level of reading. This assessment kit

23

has a range of assessments from level A to level Z. Level A through level C are considered

kindergarten levels and level C through I are considered first grade levels. Typical protocol was

followed, and before administering the assessment the classroom teacher selected a reading level

that she believed her student would find success. The child was then allowed the choice within

that reading level of a fiction or a non-fiction book. The 4 kindergarten and 4 first grade teachers

implementing the running record assessments were all experienced in using the Fountas and

Pinnell Guided Reading System’s assessment kit. The classroom teacher administered the

assessment to each subject individually. The running record assessment began with the teacher

introducing the book that the subject was to read. After the introduction the student began

reading aloud and the teacher recorded the subject’s reading on an assessment recording form.

The teacher recorded the student’s accuracy with the text by tracking the errors and self-

corrections on the running record form (see Appendix C).

As the student read the teacher listened for fluency and dependent on how the student

sounded the teacher marked a score on the running record form. The fluency scoring scale has a

range of 0 to 3. The running record assessment tool provided the teacher with a fluency scoring

key that defined the student’s score. A fluency score of zero indicated that the student primarily

read word-by-word with irregular pausing and no attention to punctuation; a student with a score

of one demonstrated primarily slow reading in two to three word phrases with almost no

expressive interpretation or pausing at punctuation; a score of two displayed that the student read

in three and four word phrases that were some what smooth with understanding of expression

and punctuation; a fluency score of three confirmed the student read smoothly in larger phrases

with appropriate attention to expression and punctuation.

24

At the conclusion of the running record assessment the teacher asked the student a series

of comprehension questions to determine the subjects level of understanding. Some examples of

typical comprehension questions that were used are; a question about the setting, the main

characters, the problem within the story, the main idea, or questions regarding the sequence of

the story. The comprehension responses were scored on a scale from 0 to 7. Students with a

score of zero to three points demonstrated unsatisfactory comprehension, a score of four verified

limited comprehension, a five indicated satisfactory comprehension, and a score of six to seven

confirmed an excellent comprehension score. The running record recording form provided the

teacher with the comprehension questions and examples of student responses as an evaluation

guide for the teacher. Even with student response examples the comprehension assessment

portion of the running record is somewhat subjective. At the completion of the comprehension

portion of the assessment the teacher tallied the score.

Data Collection Procedures

Each kindergarten and first grade teacher administered running records during the months

of September, January and May. For the purpose of this study only the May running records

were used given that the intent of the data collection within this study was to find if students

obtained the year-end benchmark expectation of a proficient score. The running record

assessment delineates the students’ reading behaviors: accuracy, fluency, and comprehension.

The running record assessments are leveled A through Z and geared toward the individual

student’s current reading level. A student scoring 95% or higher on the running record

assessment is considered proficient at that reading level. A student scoring 100% was given the

following level assessment. The 4 kindergarten and 4 first grade teachers implementing the

25

running record assessments were all experienced in using the Fountas and Pinnell Guided

Reading System’s assessment kit.

Each teacher within this study performed the assessment correspondingly. The teacher

sat with an individual student in a quiet place within the classroom for the assessment. The

students were very comfortable completing the assessment with their teacher since the

assessment tool was used often throughout the school year. The students were asked to read

aloud a book selected from the Fountas and Pinnell Guided Reading System’s assessment kit by

the teacher. As the students read the teacher recorded reading behaviors. Marking when the

subject read the text correctly, self corrected, asked for the word, or made an error. When the

students finished reading they then answered a series of questions based on what they read. The

testing time varied in length from 10 to 20 minutes depending on the level of the book and the

skill level of the student. The kindergarten and first grade teachers individually loaded this data

onto Menomonie School District’s Link for Learning database. The 2008-2011 data from both

the experimental group which was made up of a total of 54 students with 29 female subjects and

25 male subjects and control group of 49 students with 25 female subjects and 24 male subjects

was collected by the researcher.

Data Analysis

The average scores derived from the year-end running record scores of both the

experimental and control group were compared to determine if the group taught by professional

learning community teachers had significantly higher reading scores. Since there are two

groups, a comparison was used to determine the significance of the difference between the two

groups. A significance level of year-end reading level benchmark scores was set by the school

district. The benchmark targets were also compared. The kindergarten end of year benchmark is

26

level C and the first grade end of year benchmark is level I. The experimental and control

groups running record reading scores were calculated to determine the critical difference (see

Appendix A).

Limitations

There was a systematic weakness in this study in that four different kindergarten teachers

and four different first grade teachers implemented the assessment. Each teacher has received

similar training but the varied levels of experience were noted. Within the population of eight

teachers, years of teaching experience varied from as little as three years to as many as 32. Level

of education is another variable affecting the teacher population. Within the population of eight

teachers three of the teachers had received master degrees. The teacher population had received

a wide range of professional development training as well. Other variables affecting the students

that were difficult to diagnose were considered as well: diverse testing environments, the

student’s nutrition, and the amount of sleep the student received prior to testing.

27

Chapter IV: Results

The purpose of this study was to determine if the group of students taught by

professional learning community teachers had significantly higher reading scores than those

taught by teachers not participating in professional learning communities. The research design

was descriptive and an experimental methodology was used to collect data on the variables.

The subjects of this study were kindergarten students between the ages of five and six,

and first grade students between the ages of six and seven at River Heights Elementary School in

Menomonie. Wisconsin. A total of 93 subjects participated in this study, 54 of which were

female and 49 of which were male. The control group consisted of 49 students of which 25 were

female and 24 were male. The experimental group consisted of 54 students of which 29 were

female and 25 were male. The subject’s end of year reading scores after kindergarten and first

grade were gathered. The May year-end first grade running record assessment scores were

analyzed for this study.

Item Analysis

The research question in this study addressed the effect of professional learning

community teaching practices on student reading levels. Reading levels were measured by a

proficient score of 95% or higher in accuracy, fluency, and comprehension. Reading levels were

assessed using the Fountas and Pinnell Guided Reading System assessment kit. In order for a

student to obtain a benchmark score, level I was required.

Reading achievement levels were categorized by; beginning, developing, proficient, and

advanced proficient. Students receiving a beginning achievement score were reading at levels A

through D. The developing scores were students that read within levels E through H. While

28

students scoring in the proficient category achieved level I and students that received an

advanced proficient score read text that was level J or higher.

The year-end May data showing the number of students in each category for the two groups is

displayed in Table 1.

Four Achievement Levels Control Group 49

Number Percent

Experimental Group 54

Number Percent

Beginning 3 6 % 2 4%

Developing 9 18 % 7 13%

Proficient 13 26% 10 18%

Advanced proficient 24 49% 35 65 %

Table 1 displays the percent for each group per level of achievement. The four achievement

levels represented on Table 1 were selected since the achievement levels are represented on the

Menomonie School District’s report card. Within the control group three subjects scored in the

beginning achievement level representing 6% of the total control group population. In the

experimental group two subjects scored in the beginning achievement level representing 4% of

the total experimental group population. Developing achievement scores with in the control

group show nine students representing 18% of the population and in the experimental group

seven students represent 13% of the population. With in the control group 13 students scored

proficient signifying 26% of the population and in the experimental group 10 subjects scored in

the proficient achievement category representing 18% of the population. The 24 students in the

control group that achieved the advanced proficient level represented 49% of the population of

the control group. The 35 students in the experimental group that received the advanced

proficient level represent 65% of the population in that group. The 24 students in the control

29

group that achieved the advanced proficient level represented 49% of the population of the

control group.

It is also interesting to note that 37 of the 49 students in the control group received either

a proficient or advanced proficient level. These two categories comprise 75% of the total control

group population. The experimental group had 45 of the 54 students in either the proficient or

advanced proficient level. These two categories comprise 83% of the total experimental group

population. It is also interesting to note the greatest difference in the percent of students at a

particular achievement level was the advanced proficient level. The control group had 49% of its

population in the advanced proficient category while the experimental group had 65%. This is a

difference of 16%.

30

Chapter V: Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine if the group of students taught by professional

learning community teachers had significantly higher reading scores than those taught by

teachers not participating in professional learning communities. The underlying theme of the

research question addressed by this study was to determine if the implementation of professional

learning communities would generate students who could achieve benchmark reading level

scores of proficient or advanced proficient.

The basic design of this study was descriptive and an experimental methodology was

used to collect data on each of the subjects. The subjects for this study were 93 kindergarten and

first grade students at River Heights Elementary in Menomonie, Wisconsin. The year-end May

running record reading scores were a variable. This variable was chosen since reading is the

foundation for much of the learning that happens in a typical school day. The variable selected is

the preferred assessment of the Menomonie School District. The benchmark reading level

variable was examined to determine if there was an increase, decrease, or if the students stayed

the same in classrooms where teachers were participating in professional learning communities.

Performing the research this way provided an in depth analysis of the effect professional learning

communities have on student reading scores.

The running record assessment tool used in this study was from the Fountas and Pinnell

Guided Reading System assessment kit. The running record assessment displayed data on the

student’s fluency, accuracy, and comprehension. The four kindergarten and four first grade

teachers administered the assessment to each subject individually. After an introduction, the

student began reading aloud and as the teacher listened for fluency she also recorded the

subject’s reading errors and self-corrections on an assessment recording form. At the conclusion

31

of the running record assessment the teacher asked the student a series of comprehension

questions to determine the subject’s level of understanding.

Limitations

There was a systematic weakness in this study in that four different kindergarten teachers

and four different first grade teachers with various teaching backgrounds, years of experience,

and levels of education implemented the assessment. Each teacher has received similar training

but the varied levels of experience were noted. Other variables affecting the students that were

difficult to control were considered these include: diverse testing environments, the student’s

nutrition, and the amount of sleep the student received prior to testing.

Conclusion

The question of this study asked what effect professional learning communities have on

students reading performance. The results of this study were encouraging to the researcher

because of the difference between the proficient scores and the advanced proficient scores. The

data from the running record assessments indicated that the implementation of professional

learning communities and the work that happens within them, might have a positive affect on

student reading scores. Menomonie School District’s benchmark goal is for all students to attain

a proficient score. The experimental group of students learning in classrooms where professional

learning communities worked to advance students had 83% or 45 of the 54 students scoring

proficient or advanced proficient. In other words, 83% of the experimental group achieved year-

end benchmark. However, the data showed that 65% of the students within the experimental

group attained advanced proficient while 49% of the control group achieved this level. This is

significant because the other three levels of assessment did not have as large of a marginal

difference. Therefore, the researcher concludes that professional learning communities have a

32

significant impact upon the advanced proficient level of reading. However, it is highly probable

that professional learning community practices have an even greater impact on the advanced

proficient level. The data suggests that there are less significant differences within the

beginning, developing, and proficient groups. It is less likely that professional learning

communities have an impact on students in

Recommendations

Based on the findings and conclusions of this study, the following recommendations were

determined:

1. Execute an action research study to determine teacher’s view of professional learning

communities.

2. Replicate this study at other sites to see if this study aligns with the researchers findings.

3. Survey other past and current PLC sites to determine if their data is congruent with the

data sited in this study.

4. Analyze classroom teachers that have been part of professional learning communities and

those that have not been part of these communities within the same school districts to

validate that there are no significant differences between these two populations.

5. Implement the proven strategies deployed in professional learning communities at a state

and national level to improve reading scores at the advanced proficient level.

6. Conduct some qualitative research with professional learning community teachers and

those that do not practice professional learning community efforts to further corroborate

this paper’s research findings.

33

References

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Professional learning communities at work.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Karhanek, G. (2004). What ever it takes.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., Many T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook

for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree

Press.

Erkens, C., Jakici, C., Jessie, L. G., King, D., Kramer, S. V., Many, T.W., Ranells, M.,

Rose, A.B., Sparks, S. K., Twadell, E. (2008). The collaborative teacher.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Fountas, I. & Pinnell, G. (1996). Guided Reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann

Garrett, K. (2010). Professional Learning Communities Allow a Transformational

Culture to Take Root. Education Digest, 76(2), 4.

Hamos, J. E., Bergin, K. B., Maki, D. P., Perez, L. C., Prival, J. T., Rainey, D. Y., & ...

VanderPutten, E. (2009). Opening the Classroom Door: Professional Learning

Communities In the Math and Science Partnership Program. Science Educator,

18(2), 14-24.

Howell, R., Patton, S., & Deiotte, M. (2008). Understanding response to intervention.

Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Katzenbach, J. & Smith, D. (1993). The wisdom of teams. New York, NY: McKinsey &

Co Company, Inc.

Lieberman, A., & Mace, D. (2009). The role of 'accomplished teachers' in professional

34

learning communities: uncovering practice and enabling leadership. Teachers &

Teaching, 15(4), 459-470.

Lujan, N., & Day, B. (2009). Professional Learning Communities: Overcoming the

Roadblocks. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 76(2), 10-17.

Lunenburg, F. (2010). Creating a professional learning community. National Forum of

Educational Administration and Supervision Journal, 27(4), 1-7.

Mellard, D. F. & Johnson, E. (2008). RTI practioner’s guide to implementing response to

intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Nelson, T., LeBard, L., & Waters, C. (2010). How to Create a Professional Learning

Community. Science & Children, 47(9), 36-40.

O’Neill, J. & Conzemius, A. (2006). The power of smart goals. Bloomington, IN:

Solution Tree Press.

Schein, E. (1999). The corporate culture survival guide. San Fransisco, CA: Josey-Base

Inc.

Spanneut, G. (2010). Professional learning communities, principals, and collegial

conversations. Kappa Delta Pi Record, spring, 100-103.

Stiggins, R, & Chappuis , J., (2008). Enhancing student learning: Create profound

achievement gains through formative assessments. District Administration.

35

Appendix A: Subjects End of Year Reading Level

Control Group (49) Experimental Group (54)

Identification Number May Reading

Level Identification number May Reading

Level

27739 R 31242 J

30022 I 33418 G

30864 N 32803 P

30813 D 32741 I

31561 L 27743 K

30825 H 32857 K

28518 I 32818 L

32785 R 27806 K

32119 M 33384 K

32437 I 32360 O

32134 G 28693 M

28404 N 34939 I

32684 R 32836 K

32216 J 33854 N

29561 I 28660 C

33360 J 34788 K

25704 J 32869 V

32157 M 27714 K

28093 J 34950 G

28280 G 32045 I

33347 I 35413 K

28439 A 32136 G

33344 I 27694 M

31978 P 33153 O

33067 I 34269 K

31955 K 27408 M

32191 L 34809 L

33175 I 34031 R

28536 A 27577 K

31944 I 33381 J

30881 Q 35016 Q

27576 N 33001 K

31990 K 30429 Q

33327 I 33012 I

26529 K 32604 H

33253 J 30598 I

32001 J 30599 J

25407 M 30597 K

30637 P 32005 L

30660 G 34996 J

31991 H 33872 M

32789 I 32412 I

31491 H 30562 I

36

26027 I 33102 J

27713 E 30562 I

28824 L 33123 F

28634 I 33131 I

32056 G 30477 O

27223 F 33813 C

33045 M

33718 M

35289 H

33033 I

32058 F

37

Appendix B: Running Record Assessment

~ • LEVEL H • NON~ Retording Form

Stud" t JL-_________ -----'L Grade _ _ _ Date -,,5,,--'2='Z--'-l1l _ _ Teacher _______________ _ School _J£J:l-\L_----,,,_=? '-.-- --

Recording Form Part One: Oral Reading

Pl~(e the book in front of the student. Read the title and introduction.

Introduction: There are many kinds of trucks and they do important jobs. Read to find oul about the different kinds of trucks and the jobs they do.

SOvtces 0/ 1nformation Used

E SC Page Text Trucks Level H, RW: 188 E se

M S V M S V

(;g v v - ~ -

2 trucks are on the road.

"" .....- ~ v -They are gOing to many

cI ,-.fA' ./ ./ different places.

,/" '-" 0/ .... v ./ They are going t o do many

't -wi j .{ important JO s .

.,,- -- ./ --- ./ 4 This is a fire truck.

v L.-- c.-- ...-Fire trucks help put out fire s.

v ~ -' -~ 0 ."':J '-""" This truck has a long hose

v .....- - ~ - ---that shoots water on the fire .

Subtotal I- ~

38

Recording Form

~

~

}. Part One: Oral Reading continued .. "

I l 1 i , • • I

Page

6

8

Text

~ ~ ~ -n;'is truck picks up trash .

./ -\fv.cJ< be.; b.-ack"! '" 0/ The trash goes In the back J' .....- ~

of the truck.

1./ ./ C rv~l,-,/ ...- .... The truck crus es the trash

v ./ V' SI'1-,d-\-/ to make it smaller.

'-'" ~ -Then the truck

~ries J' v V the trash away.

.-- ~ ./ c-e: ,./" This is a mail truck.

'" .; 0/ V .f/lpp"d It picks up mal~ ./ <./ ~_st -+Y<d<ISc-

from the post office_

./ v- '"" ...---~ .,-

Then the truck carries the mail ./

----V

all over town.

Ttudcs • LMl. H • N!lNf1CT1ON

, SC , SC

M S V M S V

I

\

SO t.A nd ./

I

Subtotal ~

Foontos & PinneO 8enchmak AssewneIll5ystem I

39

Trucks • lEvEL H • NONFlCl10N

Part One: Oral Reading continued

Page Text

./ ~ ./ ~ ~ ./ 10 This big truck is a snowplow.

v fut.At-S V v

(-~.o.-J~U~ It ushes the snow

,/ v 51 d I~"....- ".. to the side of the road. '-- --"

./ v C/ V Then big trucks come ../"'

J?i,gIOS.Jl..1 f'tI e-o/' v- I/'

~ to carry the

- --of snow away.

\/ ..... .,... pi c..A-w Le.-12 This truck carnes

V Qo((lS- v- ......... all kinds of food .

n l·e ... - - v'

truck picks up corn ,/' ",- .-at the farm .

Tht6" J ./ I I/' it ta/, the corn

V ,/ to the market.

Fountas & Pinnell Benchmotk Assesmenl SyStem ,

, S(

} I I

I

I

Subtotal l? 12

Rt(ording Form

Sources of InforTMtion Us~ , SC

M S V M S V

I ] , & 1

j u

i $

~ •

40

Recording Form

~ ~ Part One: Oral Reading continued ~.

3' ~

Page Text

V' ~ ~ -14 This IS an Ice - -cream truck.

~ '--- ~ / ./ ./ ~

The Ice cream truck plays a song.

c.~ '.-1-/ \'It .. ./ 6 . '''3 Children hear the so'n't1

V'" '" '-" ....... "- --and run to get ice cream .

v J(,cd<:, .;' .." ., ., ~ -16 All kinds of trucks are on the road.

V Y" >/ fof Is'- v'" Some trucks are o~ w~'_ ./7 .,/ -/ V' And some trucks are for play. (2.

IrucJtS • LEVU n • NUNHUIUN

SOUrcts of Infl)nTlalion UStd , S( , S(

M S V M S V

12

I

)

Subtotal 3 1 Tolal

., ~ -'

Foontas & Pinnell Benchmork Asse5smenl System 1