Feature Article
Professional Learning Communities: A Model
for Curriculum Reform in Japan?
James Venema
Nagoya Women’s University

本論は、日本の大学における言語教育プログラム再生手法としてのプロフェッショナルラーニングコミュニティ（PLC）の可能性について論じる。
PLCとは、会社組織及び教育の両分野における研究に基づいて構築された教育機関のための組織論である。本稿では特に、PLCとは何か、それは本当に新しい理論なのか、そしてその理論を日本の大学教育に適用することの妥当性と現実性について論説を試みる。PLCは以下の三つの基本的思想によって特徴付けられる。教育より学習に焦点を当てること、コラボレー
ション手法に力点を置くこと、そして個人の成果に焦点を当てることである。PLCのどの要素にも取り立てて革新的な新規性は見出せないものの、その特徴のすべてを備えた言語教育プログラムを見出すことは容易ではないだろう。PLC理論は教育改革における有意なモデルとなり得るが、その効果を適正かつ最大限に引き出すためには、特定の条件を満たした教育環境が必要である。PLCについての評価を行うためには、更なる調査研究が必要とされる。

Introduction
A recent educational trend cutting across educational sectors inNorth America is Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). Its origins
lie both in the fields of corporate research (Deming, 1986; Peters &Waterman, 1982; Seng, 1990) and educational research (Little, 1987;
Lortie, 1975; Rosenholtz, 1989). More recently, the introduction of
the standards based movement in the U.S. has granted impetus to the3Venema

PLC trend in educational circles (Elmore, 2000; Reeves, 2005) and the
movement has caught on north of the border. Alberta’s Commission on
Learning has gone so far as to recommend Alberta “require every school
to operate as a professional learning community dedicated to continuous
improvement in students’ achievement” (2003, Recommendation 13).
The quotes below provide some indication of current optimism amongproponents:“Professional learning communities may very well be thecontext we need to truly enhance second language learning for all
children in our schools” (Seaward-Gagnon, 2000, ¶7).
“(PLCs) …improve the quality of teaching and pays big, often
immediate, dividends in student learning and professional moralein virtually any setting” (Schmoker, 2005a, p. xii).
“My personal experience in the process tells me that whenteachers work in this type of environment, great things are possible.
Professional learning communities will empower teachers to be
the leaders in school improvement” (Skytt, 2002, p. 1).
Determining whether this kind of exuberant optimism is warranted
from a tertiary level EFL perspective in Japan requires looking at three
related questions:•••

What are PLCs?
Are they really new?
Can they be effectively and appropriately applied to ourteaching context here at universities in Japan?

I will briefly look at the three questions and draw some tentative
conclusions.

4

OnCUE Journal

What Are PLCs?
Corporate and Educational Research
On the corporate side, contributions to the development of PLCscome from researchers such as Peters and Waterman (1982), who
noted the critical importance of effective corporate teams. In theseteams they noted a focus on continued collective effort, guided bymeasurable goals as well as the celebration of successes. Successful
corporations were defined by successful management teams thatincorporate individual as well as team accountability and “provide
abundant opportunities for individuals to share their collective andcomplementary skills and abilities toward better results” (Schmoker,
2005b, p. 146). On the educational side, research by Rosenholtz(1989) seemed to find similar evidence of goal-directed teamwork
in successful schools. Her research indicated that high achieving
schools differ fundamentally from other schools in the level of goalcongruence and teacher collaboration. Proponents of PLCs haveworked to combine the results of corporate and educational research
into a coherent organizational framework which would allow schools
to implement key aspects.
PLCs and Learning Communities
As the popularity of PLCs has grown the meaning has lost some ofits clarity and its proponents have been struggling to reassert their own
definition: “Many schools and districts that proudly proclaim they areprofessional learning communities have shown little evidence of either
understanding the core concepts or implementing the practices of PLCs”(DuFour, Eaker, & DuFour, 2005, p. 9). Some of the misunderstanding
probably results from confusion over the difference between PLCs
and often more vaguely defined “learning communities.” Mitchell andSackney (2001) write that a learning community “consists in a group of5

Venema

people who take an active, reflective, collaborative, learning-oriented,
and growth-promoting approach toward both the mysteries and the
problems of teaching and learning” (Underpinnings of the learning
community sectiond. ¶4), PLCs take a more organizational approachas is evident in the following common themes identified by DuFour etal. (2005) and Hord (1997):§ Sustaining the hard work of change§ Transforming school culture§ Supportive and shared leadership§ Shared value and visions§ Learning for all vs. teaching for all§ Collaborative culture vs. teacher isolation§ Shared personal practice§ Collective creativity§ Collective capacity vs. individual development§ Developing and applying shared knowledge§ Supportive conditions (to facilitate meeting and sharing)§ A focus on results not activities§ Assessment for learning vs. assessment of learning§ Widespread leadership vs. charismatic leadership§ Self-efficacy vs. dependency
Three Key Parameters in PLCs
DuFour (2005) seeks to specifically address the problem of defining
PLCs by specifying three key parameters or “big ideas”:
a. There is a focus on student learning rather than teaching. DuFour
further identifies three crucial questions (p. 33):
• What do we want each student to learn?
••

How will we know when each student has learned it?
How will we respond when a student experiences difficultyin learning?
DuFour (2005) claims that it is the response to the last question
6

OnCUE Journalthat differentiates PLCs from regular schools:
When a school begins to function as a professional learning
community… teachers become aware of the incongruity between
their commitment to ensure learning for all students and their lackof a coordinated strategy to respond when some students do notlearn. (p. 34)
He goes on to elaborate that a school needs to identify
students who need additional support and to intervene in a timely
fashion. In addition, “Instead of inviting students to seek additional
help, the systematic plan requires students to devote extra timeand receive additional assistance until they have mastered thenecessary concepts” (p. 34).
b. There is a “culture of collaboration” in which teachers systematicallywork together to analyze and try to improve what they do in theclassroom. Teachers regularly meet and discuss what worked, what
didn’t work, and any problems and/or successes they may be having.
DuFour (2005) specifies the kinds of collaboration he envisions as
an ongoing systematic process of analysis and collaboration byteams of teachers (p. 36). A key part of this collaborative effort is
openness, in which teachers willingly share all aspects of theirteaching practices (p. 38).
c. Teachers and administrators make their judgements about whatworks or doesn’t work on the basis of results, defined in termsof measurable student learning. In addition assessment, in thisparadigm, is not simply a one-time end of course action but acontinuous, interactive, system of assessment for learning. DuFour(2005) writes: “every teacher team participates in an ongoingprocess of identifying the current level of student achievement,
establishing a goal to improve the current level, working together
to achieve that goal, and providing periodic evidence of progress”(p. 39-40). A focus on individual students’ progress, rather than7

Venemaoverall averages, is central to a PLC, as is the direct confrontationof “unfavourable data” wherever it appears. Similarly teachingpractices that are demonstrably effective are given due recognition
and replicated in team members’ classes.

Are PLCs New?
It would probably be difficult to describe any specific componentof PLCs as radically new. By proposing a focus on student learning
DuFour (2005) is, in essence, advocating the introduction of goals
and objectives, a common theme in the literature on curriculum
development (Richards, 2001, p. 112). As for a “collaborative culture,”teacher collaboration is generally recognized as a critical componentof teacher development programs (Richards & Farrell, 2005). Similarly
educators have been advocating for increased openness of theclassroom for decades since Lieberman and Miller (1978) noted thatteaching isolation defined the professional life of most teachers. Finally,
Richards has described two means of assessing a course’s effectiveness,“mastery of objectives” and “performance on tests” (p. 292) that also
encourage a focus on measurable results.
Are PLCs Common in Japanese Universities?
While no single component of PLCs is revolutionarily new, thiscertainly does not mean that they are regularly applied in tertiary
language programs in Japan. Ask yourself the following questions
about your program:•

Does your program, and all courses, have clear objectives
defined in terms of student learning goals?

•

Does your program have a system to continuously assess
students’ mastery of the objectives of the program and thecourses they take?
In the case students are failing to meet the objectives of the•8

OnCUE Journal

program or courses, is there a systematic plan to actively
intervene in helping students attain them?
• Do all teachers, part-time and full-time, regularly meet to share
information on what they are doing in their courses?
• Do the teachers and coordinators in your program base syllabus
and pedagogical decisions on the regular compilation of data
regarding individual student achievement?
• Does your program directly confront and deal with “negative
data,” and are demonstrably effective teaching practices sharedand implemented by all teachers?
If you can answer yes to all the questions above, you would indeed
appear to be a member of a PLC, whether you have elected to call it soor not. In fact, this would require a level of curriculum coordination,
as well as teacher collaboration, which is quite rare in the Japanese
university context. As a model for the systematic and collaborative
incorporation of objectives and accountability, as well as ongoingteacher and curriculum development, PLCs do have something tooffer language programs at Japanese universities. The question remains
whether the model is realistic or even appropriate in the Japanesetertiary education system.

Can & Should PLCs Be Incorporated in English Educationin Japanese Universities?
Differing Educational Contexts
The context in which many PLCs are currently taking root is theprimary and secondary education system of the U.S., particularly schools
adapting to the standards reform movement. Much of the concern
over the decline in education voiced in the U.S., which prompted
the introduction of national standards, would probably resonate withcomplaints now being expressed here in Japan. However, there are a9Venemanumber of key differences between the teaching situation in a primaryor secondary school in the United States and that of university teachersin Japan, including the following:• Departments at universities in Japan generally have a department
head who is less involved in educational issues than a school
principal.
• Part-time teachers often teach half the classes or more in many
departments, and there is typically no tradition of holding
regular meetings, involving all teachers, with a primary focus
on education.
• Research plays a far more important role than teacher
development in day-to-day life and career advancement in thetertiary context.
• While there have been calls for reform at the tertiary level inJapan, there has been no movement toward the systematicincorporation of standards that have contributed to thedevelopment of PLCs in the United States.
• Post-secondary education is non-compulsory.
• The student-teacher ratio is generally higher at universities inJapan. In addition, the number of class contact hours between
teachers and students is considerably less, particularly compared
to primary schools where the students have the same teacher
much of the day.
Are PLCs Feasible in the Japanese Tertiary System?
The first issue, when considering PLCs in the Japanese university
context, is whether it would be feasible to incorporate them inlanguage programs. By and large, I suspect most university teachers
here in Japan would see tremendous hurdles in doing so in their own
teaching context. PLCs demand a level of coordination, of both thecurriculum and teachers, which might defy most post-secondary
language programs. In addition PLCs require a single-minded focus on
10

OnCUE Journal

education, with an accompanying teacher and student accountability
that might conflict with aspects of traditional university culture, where
the professor’s primary role is often seen as that of scholar (Kelly &Adachi, 1993, p. 161), and even students may not see learning as theirprimary goal (Kelly, 1993, p. 177). However, due to demographics anddeclining student numbers, many universities are now engaging in alevel of soul-searching that may make the present era an opportune
one in which to implement systematic and extensive program reforms,
including increased coordination and a renewed focus on education(Gossman & Cisar, 1997; Kelly, 1998). That has, indeed, been the caseat my university, which has allowed for a level of curriculum andteacher coordination never seen before. The changes to the program
have included the implementation of clear and specific objectives for
all courses as well as the introduction of “coordinating meetings”. To
allow for part-time teacher involvement in the meetings, all teachers
for a given course are asked to finish class thirty minutes early, twice
a semester, in order to meet and share information and ideas on thecourse they are teaching.
In the present competitive environment among universities
in Japan PLCs may be able to offer language programs, with thewill and flexibility to pursue wide-ranging reform, an effective andcomprehensive model based on the successes of schools in North
America. However the effective implementation will involve, as Skytt(2002) notes, both structural and cultural changes. The structuralchanges would include the development of objectives and teacher
teams as well as the allocation of time and resources, while thecultural changes would include a renewed focus on education and
an atmosphere that encourages collaborative dialogue and reflective
teaching practice. There can be little doubt that the introduction ofthese changes would present a real paradigm shift for many tertiary
language programs.

11

Venema

Are PLCs Appropriate in Japanese Universities?
A second, related, issue is whether it would be appropriate toemploy PLCs in the context of Japanese universities. A strong theme
running through the literature on PLCs is the development of a common‘organizational vision’ in the form of a collective commitment tocoordinated learning goals. Tarnoczi (2006) argues that, instead offacilitating educational creativity or learning, PLCs actually operate
primarily as a means of organizational control over its individuals,
the teachers. This criticism might strike a strong chord with university
professors in Japan, where any move towards increased curriculum
coordination is sometimes viewed as interference in the traditional
domain of the lecturer. In PLCs collaboration is a key and criticalcomponent, a point Eaker (2002) makes quite strongly: “Collaboration
by invitation will not work. It is never enough. This is a key point.
In a professional learning community, collaboration is embedded
into every aspect of school culture” (p. 11). This, of course, begs thequestion as to whether true and effective collaboration can be induced
from participants. However, setting aside for the moment the processof implementing PLCs and bringing everyone on board, it would
probably be difficult to find anything particularly controversial withany of the following core characteristics:• Clear and measurable goals, defined in terms of student learning,and determined by teachers and program coordinators at the
local level.
• A strong culture of collaboration, with teachers working
together and sharing ideas on how to help students achievelearning goals.
• Clear accountability for learning as well as teaching, wherestudents’ and teachers’ actions are guided by data on the actual
learning progress of students.
No doubt, though, the movement towards the increased collaboration
demanded by PLCs would require negotiation, patience, and tact, and
12

OnCUE Journal

will probably not take place in the absence of strong and committed
leadership, a fact of which PLC proponents are well aware. In fact,
advocates of PLCs are quite specific regarding the kind of leadership
required: “The PLC concept operates from the premise that leadershipshould be widely dispersed throughout a school, and thus developing
the leadership potential of all staff members is imperative” (DuFour etal., 2005, p. 23). This does not appear to mean that PLCs can take placein the absence of committed administrative leaders. Louis and Kruse(1994) write that the supportive leadership of principals in schools
is crucial in the process of becoming a PLC. While the importanceof the school principal, particularly in a transition stage, is widely
recognized in the literature on PLCs, one cannot simply substitute thedepartment head in the Japanese tertiary context, as they occupy quite
different roles. It would appear that, at the very outset, a department
would need strong support amounting to a near consensus of full-time
language teachers before taking steps to implement the characteristics
of PLCs.
Another issue is the direct and active intervention in the caseof students who are failing to meet specific learning goals. At thetertiary level, many might argue that students have significantly more
responsibility for their own learning than, say, primary school students.
In addition, can teachers of large language classes that meet once aweek, be really held accountable for dealing directly and immediately
with those who are failing to meet specific learning targets? While
teacher options may be more limited at the tertiary level, teachers could
certainly draw students’ attention to areas of concern and, ultimately,
withhold credit for those who fail to meet course objectives.
In our own program absolute minimum standards have been
introduced in the form of a “four strikes and you’re out” system. Students
acquire strikes for such things as failing weekly quizzes, incomplete
homework, or simply failing to show up for class without adequate
reason and advance notice. In addition, students in all courses are13

Venemapresented with learning objectives, as well as the means by which
they will be assessed, at the start of a semester. Such clear coursewide standards have been successful in raising the performance ofmany students who might have simply attained credit in the past
based solely on minimum attendance. In addition, by agreeing on
course-wide standards, individual teachers have been relieved to acertain degree of the subjective burden of determining whether or
not to grant credit to border line students. Where teachers lack thetime to work with students having particular difficulties, the students
in question have been encouraged to solicit help at the Self-AccessCenter, where they have the option of consulting a full time languagestudy counsellor. In general, for students and language programs, thesystematic incorporation of learning objectives and accountability
would be a significant improvement on a curriculum involving simply
the “superficial collection of titles” (Gatton, 1999).
Do Teachers Stand to Gain?
As a movement focused on improving schools and programs at
the organizational level the advantages for teachers might be lessapparent. Proponents have argued the following:••

PLCs provide the opportunity to break down the isolation thattypifies the work environment of many teachers. Teachers would
be able to confront “failures,” share their own successes, andbenefit from the successes of peers in an environment where
innovation and risk-taking are encouraged.
PLCs operate at the local level and allow for teacher input inthe syllabus as well as pedagogical decisions. In this context
teachers regularly meet to work together to establish learning
targets, methods of assessment, and responses to results. A
common assumption underlying PLCs is that teachers alreadyhave all the skills necessary and that disciplined, collective
effort can serve to make maximum use of those knowledge
14

OnCUE Journaland skills.
• PLCs demystify the teaching-learning process. Focusing on
measurable learning results, and continuously acting on thoseresults, serves to professionalize the practices of all teachers
who take part.
The key question is whether these advantages would be enough topersuade teachers in Japan to willingly give up on a strong tradition ofteacher autonomy and the sanctity of the individual classroom.

Conclusion
Is the PLC movement an appropriate model for reviving educationand teaching practices? I suspect that, for many teachers, there are few
ideas that are revolutionarily new. Perhaps an analogy can be madebetween PLCs and Communicative Language Teaching (CLT). Could
anyone seriously claim that language teachers before CLT didn’t realizethat languages served a communicative purpose? Its importance was inapplying what educators already knew to teaching practices. Yet, despite
the hallowed position CLT occupies in the minds of many teachers
today, educators are increasingly recognizing the importance of context
in mitigating the ultimate appropriateness and effectiveness of CLT
methodology (Bax, 2003; Hu, 2005). Similarly, while PLCs may offer amodel for program reform, ultimately their feasibility and effectivenesswill depend to a large degree on the specific organizational and teachingenvironment. We would probably do well to approach PLCs in thesame way Swan (1985) suggested we approach CLT. Instead of asking,“Is it true?” ask “What good does it do?” (p. 87) Tentative steps taken
in our own department have been promising, but any determinationon the ultimate success of PLCs as a model for program reform in theJapanese tertiary education context requires more research. At the very
least, PLCs warrant a closer look from those language programs withthe will and means to introduce comprehensive reforms.
15

Venema

References
Alberta’s Commission on Learning: Final Report (2003). Retrieved
September 25, 2006from <http://www.education.gov.ab.ca/
Commission/5_11.asp>
Bax, S. (2003). The end of CLT: A context approach to language
teaching. ELT Journal 57 (3), 278-287.
Deming, W.E. (1986). Out of crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DuFour, R. (2005). What is a professional learning community? In
R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground:
The power of professional learning communities (pp. 31 – 43).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). Recurring themes ofprofessional learning communities and the assumptions theychallenge. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On
common ground: The power of professional learning communities(pp. 7 – 29). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Eaker, R. (2002). Cultural shifts: Transforming schools into
professional learning communities. In R. Eaker, R. DuFour, & R.
DuFour (Eds.), Getting started: Reculturing schools to become
professional learning communities (pp. 9 – 29). Bloomington, IN:
Solution Tree.
Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership.
Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Gatton, W. (1999). Renewing ELT in Japan: The crack in the ricebowl. The Language Teacher Online. Retrieved October 16, 2006
from <http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/files/98/aug/gatton.
html>
Gossman, D. & Cisar, L. (1997). Renovating required English classes
at Kanto Gakuen University. The Language Teacher, 21(3), 30-35.
Hord, S. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities ofcontinuous inquiry and improvement. Retrieved April 26, 2007
from <http://www.sedl.org/pubs/change34/plc-cha34.pdf>
16

OnCUE Journal

Hu, G. (2005). CLT is best for China – an untenable absolutist claim.
ELT Journal, 59 (1), 65–68.
Kelly, C. (1993). The hidden role of the university. In P. Wadden(Ed.), A handbook for eaching English at Japanese colleges anduniversities (pp. 172-191). New York: Oxford University Press.
Kelly, C. (1998). Adult education: Do trends in America foreshadow
trends in Japan? The Language Teacher Online. Retrieved
November 1, 2006 from <http://www.jalt-publications.org/tlt/
files/98/apr/kelly.html>
Kelly, C. & Adachi, N. (1993). The chrysanthemum maze: YourJapanese colleagues. In P. Wadden (Ed.), A handbook for teaching
English at Japanese colleges and universities (pp. 156-171). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Lieberman, A. & Miller, L. (1978). The social realities of teaching.
Teachers College Record. 80, 54-68.
Little, J. W. (1987). Teachers as colleagues. In V. Richardson-Koehler(Ed.), Educators handbook. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Louis, K.S. & Kruse, S.D. (1994). Professionalism and community:
Perspectives on reforming urban schools. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Mitchell, C. & Sackney, L. (2001). Building capacity for a learning
community [Electronic version]. Canadian Journal of Educational
Administration and Policy. 19, 356-358. Retrieved October 1,
2007, from http://www.umanitoba.ca/publications/cjeap/articles/
mitchellandsackney.html
Peters, T. & Waterman, R. (1982). In search of excellence. New York:
Harper and Row.
Reeves, D. (2005). Putting it all together: Standards, assessment, andaccountability in successful professional learning communities.
In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour (Eds.), On common ground:17

Venema

The power of professional learning communities (pp. 45-65).
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Richards, J. (2001). Curriculum development in language teaching.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, J. & Farrell, T. (2005). Professional development for
language teachers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenholtz, S. (1989). Teachers’ workplace: The social organizationof schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
Schmoker, M. (2005a). (Foreword) Here and now: Improving
teaching and learning. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R. DuFour(Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional learning
communities (pp. xi - xvi). Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
Schmoker, M. (2005b). No turning back: The ironclad case forprofessional learning communities. In R. DuFour, R. Eaker, & R.
DuFour (Eds.), On common ground: The power of professional
learning communities (pp. 135-153). Bloomington, IN: Solution
Tree.
Seaward-Gagnon, S. (2000) Professional development. Retrieved,
August, 2006 from http://www.caslt.org/research/prodev.htm
Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of thelearning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Skytt, J. (2002). Professional learning communities: Empoweringteachers in school improvement. The ATA Magazine, 83 (4).
Retrieved August, 2006 from <http://www.teachers.ab.ca/NR/
exeres/2AA83A76-FE5F-471E-AFD0-BEF8AF8DE3C3.htm>
Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach (2).
ELT Journal, 39 (2), 76-87.
Tarnoczi, J. (2006). Critical reflections on professional learning
communities in Alberta. Electronic Journal of Sociology.
Retrieved, October, 2006 from <http://www.sociology.org/
content/2006/tier2/tarnoczi.html>

18