Learn by Doing: The Power of Experiential Learning in Education and Professional Learning Communities

It’s a deeply ingrained understanding, almost intuitive: we learn best by doing. This principle isn’t new; millennia ago, Confucius eloquently stated, “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.” Educators universally recognize that profound insights and lasting understanding emerge from action, followed by thoughtful reflection and a continuous quest for improvement. Consider the journey of becoming an educator – years spent in classrooms, absorbing content, studying pedagogy, observing seasoned teachers, and undertaking student teaching. Yet, almost every educator will attest to the transformative learning experienced in their very first semester of teaching, dwarfing the knowledge gained during years of preparation. This isn’t a critique of educational institutions, but a powerful testament to the effectiveness of learning embedded within practical experience.

Our profession itself is built upon the cornerstone of experiential learning for students. We champion active engagement, hands-on activities, and authentic exercises that foster deep, practical understanding. It seems paradoxical, then, that a field so dedicated to the principle of “Learn By Doing” hesitates to apply this very principle to its own professional growth and development. Why are educational institutions, designed and dedicated to learning, often reluctant to empower their own professionals to enhance school effectiveness through direct, practical application – by actually doing the work of school improvement? Why has the education sector been so resistant to embracing “learn by doing” for its own advancement?

Understanding Professional Learning Communities Through Action

Since 1998, our work has consistently revolved around two core objectives: first, to convince educators that the most effective path to ensure every student achieves at high levels is by developing their capacity to function as a professional learning community (PLC); and second, to provide tangible strategies and frameworks to facilitate the transformation of schools and districts into thriving PLCs.

It’s been remarkable to witness the increasing popularity of the term “professional learning community.” However, this widespread adoption has led to a dilution of its meaning. The term is now often used so broadly and ambiguously, encompassing almost any loosely connected group with a shared interest in education, that it risks becoming devoid of real significance. This lack of clarity poses a significant challenge to the successful implementation of PLC practices. As Mike Schmoker (2004a) astutely pointed out, “clarity precedes competence” (p. 85). Therefore, it’s crucial to begin by reaffirming and clarifying what we mean by a Professional Learning Community. While this might seem repetitive to those familiar with our previous work, we believe that in effective communication, redundancy is preferable to ambiguity.

We’ve encountered numerous instances where educators mistakenly perceive a PLC as a program – a finite initiative with a start and end date. For example, one faculty described their annual cycle of implementing new programs, with “PLC” being the program of the previous year, preceded by “Understanding by Design,” and currently focusing on “differentiated instruction.” They jokingly referred to being “PLCed, UBDed, and DIed,” highlighting the fleeting nature of these initiatives.

The PLC approach is fundamentally not a program. It’s not something that can be purchased off-the-shelf or implemented by external consultants. Crucially, it’s an ongoing journey – a continuous, evolving process of conducting schooling that profoundly reshapes the structure and culture of a school, influencing the core beliefs and daily practices of the professionals within it.

Another common misconception is viewing a PLC as merely a meeting – an occasional gathering of colleagues to complete specific tasks. We frequently hear educators say, “My PLC meets on Wednesdays from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.” This perception is inaccurate on two counts. First, the PLC is the encompassing organization, not just the individual teams within it. While collaborative teams are essential components of the PLC framework, the collective impact of a PLC is far greater than the sum of its individual teams. Much of the essential work of a PLC requires school-wide or district-wide effort, extending beyond team-level activities. Therefore, it’s more accurate to consider the entire school or district as the PLC, with collaborative teams serving as its fundamental building blocks. Second, the PLC process is characterized by its pervasive and continuous influence on the school’s structure and culture. If educators simply meet regularly but then revert to “business as usual” in their individual practices, they are not truly functioning as a PLC. The PLC process is far more comprehensive and transformative than just a series of meetings.

Some educators believe they are part of a PLC because they engage in discussions based on shared readings. The entire staff might read the same book or article and then meet to share their individual interpretations. However, while collective study and dialogue are valuable components, a PLC is more than just a book club. The crucial element is that the PLC process necessitates action based on new information. It’s about translating shared learning and insights into tangible changes in practice.

So, what truly defines a PLC? We define it as an ongoing process where educators collaboratively engage in recurring cycles of collective inquiry and action research, all aimed at achieving better outcomes for the students they serve. PLCs operate on the fundamental principle that continuous, job-embedded learning for educators is the key to improved learning for students. Transforming a traditional school into a PLC fundamentally alters its culture and structure. These shifts are summarized in the “Cultural Shifts in a Professional Learning Community,” which highlights the key transitions necessary for successful PLC implementation. The following sections will further examine the core elements of the PLC process.

Three Foundational Ideas Driving the PLC Approach: Embracing ‘Learn by Doing’ for School Improvement

Three core ideas are the driving force behind the PLC approach. The progress a school or district makes on its PLC journey is largely determined by the degree to which these ideas are considered, understood, and ultimately embraced by everyone involved. These ideas are not just theoretical concepts; they are principles that come to life through action and practical application – embodying the essence of “learn by doing.”

1. A Relentless Focus on Learning: Learning by Doing as the Core Purpose

The first, and most significant, of these core ideas rests on the fundamental premise that the primary purpose of a school is to ensure all students learn at high levels (at or above grade level). This unwavering focus on and commitment to the learning of each student is the very essence of a learning community. It’s not just about teaching; it’s about ensuring learning happens – a principle best realized through active engagement and “learning by doing.”

When a school or district functions as a PLC, educators within the organization fully embrace high levels of learning for all students as both the reason the organization exists and the fundamental responsibility of everyone working within it. To achieve this purpose, PLC members collectively create and are guided by a clear and compelling vision of what the organization must become to effectively support all students’ learning. They make collective commitments, clarifying the specific actions each member will take to build such an organization, and they use results-oriented goals to track their progress. Members work together to clearly define what each student must learn, monitor each student’s learning regularly, provide systematic interventions to ensure struggling students receive additional time and support, and offer enrichment opportunities when students have mastered the intended learning outcomes. This entire process is a cycle of “learn by doing” – identifying needs, taking action, assessing results, and refining approaches based on what works.

A crucial corollary to this is the understanding that for the organization to become more effective in facilitating student learning, the adults within the organization must also be engaged in continuous learning. Therefore, PLCs establish structures to ensure staff members are actively involved in job-embedded learning as an integral part of their routine work. This job-embedded learning is, in itself, a powerful form of “learn by doing” for educators.

There’s no ambiguity or hedging regarding this commitment to learning. While many schools operate as if their primary purpose is merely to ensure students are taught or given an opportunity to learn, PLCs are dedicated to the principle that their organizations exist to ensure all students actually acquire the essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions within each unit, course, and grade level. Every potential organizational practice, policy, and procedure is evaluated based on this central question: “Will this action ensure higher levels of learning for our students?” All other characteristics of a PLC stem directly from this fundamental shift in perspective about the school’s core purpose.

2. A Collaborative Culture and Collective Responsibility: Learning by Doing Together

The second major idea driving the PLC approach is that ensuring high levels of learning for all students necessitates educators working collaboratively and taking collective responsibility for every student’s success. Collaboration in a PLC is not optional; it’s an expected and required aspect of professional practice. Consequently, the fundamental structure of a PLC is built upon collaborative teams of educators whose members work interdependently to achieve shared goals for which they are mutually accountable. These shared goals are directly linked to the overarching purpose of learning for all. The collaborative team is the engine that drives the PLC effort and the fundamental building block of the organization. This collaborative work is, in essence, “learning by doing” together – sharing expertise, problem-solving collaboratively, and refining practices collectively.

It’s hard to overstate the importance of collaborative teams in the school improvement process. However, it’s even more critical to emphasize that collaboration alone doesn’t automatically lead to improved outcomes unless the focus of the collaboration is on the right work. Collaboration is a means to an end, not the end itself. In many schools, staff members are willing to collaborate on various topics, as long as the conversation doesn’t extend beyond their individual classroom doors. In a PLC, collaboration is a systematic process where teachers work together to directly influence their classroom practice in ways that will lead to improved results for their students, their team, and the school as a whole. This is “learn by doing” in a team context, where collective action leads to tangible improvements.

Working together to build shared knowledge about the most effective ways to achieve goals and meet the needs of those they serve is precisely what professionals in any field are expected to do, whether they are treating patients, winning legal cases, or ensuring all students learn. Members of a professional learning community are expected to learn and work together, engaging in a continuous cycle of “learn by doing” to enhance their collective expertise and impact.

3. A Results Orientation: Learning by Doing to Measure Impact and Drive Improvement

The third key idea driving the PLC approach is the critical need for a results orientation. To evaluate their effectiveness in helping all students learn, educators in a PLC focus on results – tangible evidence of student learning. They then use this evidence to inform and refine their professional practice and to provide targeted support or enrichment for individual students. PLC members understand that all their efforts must ultimately be judged based on results, not just intentions. Without ongoing assessment of initiatives based on concrete outcomes, their efforts risk becoming aimless and ineffective, rather than purposeful improvement. As Peter Senge and colleagues (Senge, Kleiner, Roberts, Ross, & Smith, 1994) concluded, “The rationale for any strategy for building a learning organization revolves around the premise that such organizations will produce dramatically improved results” (p. 44). This results-oriented approach is deeply intertwined with “learn by doing” – learning from data, adjusting strategies, and continuously improving based on measurable outcomes.

This constant pursuit of better results, aimed at helping more students learn at higher levels, leads to a cyclical process in which educators in a PLC:

• Gather evidence of current levels of student learning.
• Develop strategies and innovative ideas to build upon strengths and address areas of weakness in student learning.
• Implement these strategies and ideas in their classrooms and schools.
• Analyze the impact of these changes to determine what was effective and what was not, using data to guide their understanding.
• Apply this new knowledge in the next iteration of the continuous improvement cycle, constantly refining their practices.

This cyclical process, often visualized as a continuous improvement cycle, is not simply about learning a new strategy and implementing it. It’s about creating a culture of perpetual learning – an environment where innovation and experimentation are not seen as isolated projects, but as integral parts of the daily work of educators, ongoing and continuous. Furthermore, participation in this process is not limited to designated leaders; it’s a shared responsibility of every member of the organization. This whole cycle is a structured approach to “learn by doing” – a continuous loop of action, reflection, and refinement.

This results-focused approach drives each team to develop and pursue measurable improvement goals for student learning that are aligned with school and district-wide goals. It also motivates teams to create a series of common formative assessments that are administered to students regularly throughout the year to gather ongoing evidence of student learning. Team members analyze the results of these assessments to identify and address program-level concerns (areas where many students are struggling). They also examine the results to identify strengths and weaknesses in their individual teaching practices, fostering peer learning and sharing of best practices. Critically, these assessments are used to identify students who require additional time and support for learning. We argue that frequent common formative assessments are among the most powerful tools in the PLC toolkit, providing data that fuels the “learn by doing” cycle.

Alt: Educators collaboratively engage in a hands-on learning activity, embodying the learn-by-doing approach within a professional learning community.

A Culture of Balanced Autonomy and Alignment: ‘Loose and Tight’ in Action

The PLC approach empowers educators to make significant decisions and encourages their creativity and innovation in the pursuit of improving both student and adult learning. As you delve deeper into the principles of PLCs, you’ll find that when a school operates as a PLC, teachers collectively make many crucial decisions, including:

• What content to teach.
• The optimal sequencing and pacing of the curriculum.
• The assessments used to monitor student learning progress.
• The criteria for evaluating the quality of student work.
• The norms and protocols for their collaborative team.
• The specific goals for their team’s improvement efforts.

Teachers working in collaborative teams are primarily responsible for analyzing evidence of student learning and developing strategies for improvement. They are also given the autonomy to utilize the instructional strategies they believe will be most effective in helping their students learn. This empowerment and autonomy in key decision-making areas are considered the “loose” aspects of the PLC approach.

However, simultaneously, certain elements of the PLC process are “tight” – meaning they are non-negotiable and universally adhered to by everyone in the school. These “tight” elements ensure alignment and consistency across the school, while the “loose” elements foster innovation and ownership. This balance of “loose and tight” is crucial for effective “learn by doing” within a PLC, allowing for experimentation and adaptation within a clear framework.

The long-standing debate about whether school improvement should be a top-down, administratively mandated process or a bottom-up approach left to individual teacher discretion has been effectively resolved by the PLC model. Neither extreme is successful in isolation. Top-down approaches often fail to generate the deep understanding and commitment necessary for sustained improvement. A purely laissez-faire, bottom-up approach, on the other hand, often lacks the necessary impetus for change and can even be associated with declines in student achievement (Marzano & Waters, 2009). High-performing PLCs navigate this “too-tight/too-loose” dilemma by engaging educators in an improvement process that empowers them to make key decisions while simultaneously ensuring adherence to core, non-negotiable elements of the process (DuFour & Fullan, 2013). This “loose and tight” dynamic is a recurring theme in the successful implementation of PLCs.

The Vital Role of Effective Communication: Ensuring Clarity in ‘Learn by Doing’ Initiatives

The key to establishing a PLC culture that is both “loose and tight” lies first in identifying and agreeing upon the “tight” elements (the non-negotiable core principles) and then communicating these elements clearly, consistently, and unequivocally to all stakeholders. Marcus Buckingham (2005) argues that the single most crucial element for effective leadership in any organization is clarity. Powerful communication is simple, concise, driven by a few core ideas, and repeated at every opportunity (Collins, 2001; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Leaders must recognize that the most impactful element in communication is the alignment between their actions and their words. Eloquence or cleverness is less important than demonstrating consistent congruence between stated priorities and actual behaviors (Collins & Porras, 1994; Covey, 2006; Erkens & Twadell, 2012; Fullan, 2011; Kanold, 2011; Kouzes & Posner, 1987). When leadership actions contradict stated priorities, these actions overwhelmingly overshadow all other forms of communication (Kotter, 1996). In the context of “learn by doing,” clear communication is essential to ensure everyone understands the goals, processes, and expected outcomes of improvement initiatives.

One key way leaders communicate their priorities is through their focus of attention (Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Peters & Austin, 1985). Subsequent chapters delve into specific examples of how leaders communicate their values by establishing systems and structures to support priorities, monitoring essential metrics, reallocating time strategically, asking the right questions, responding to conflict constructively, and celebrating evidence of collective commitments moving the school closer to its shared vision. All of these communication strategies are crucial for ensuring that “learn by doing” initiatives are understood, supported, and effectively implemented.

It’s vital to help your staff develop a shared understanding of your school’s current communication effectiveness. Addressing this critical component of a PLC helps establish a strong foundation for all other improvement efforts. The need for clear communication is so fundamental to the PLC process that a continuum of effective communication has been developed for consideration. This continuum, “The Professional Learning Communities at Work® Continuum: Communicating Effectively,” serves as a valuable tool for schools to assess and enhance their communication practices. Accompanying worksheets further guide action planning to bridge the “knowing-doing gap” in communication effectiveness.

Addressing Both Structure and Emotions: The Human Element in ‘Learn by Doing’

Creating and aligning the necessary structures for implementing the PLC at Work process is essential, but focusing solely on organizational structure is never sufficient. Ultimately, for PLCs to be truly effective, leaders must also prioritize human emotions – how people feel, both students and adults. Effective leaders are effective motivators, and while structural changes may be necessary, structures alone are rarely motivating. In the context of “learn by doing,” it’s crucial to acknowledge and address the emotional aspects of change, fostering a supportive and encouraging environment for educators to engage in new practices and learn from their experiences.

Bridging the Knowing-Doing Gap: From Theory to Action in Educational Improvement

As we’ve shared our work on PLCs with educators globally, a common response resonates: “This just makes sense.” It’s inherently logical that a school dedicated to ensuring high levels of learning for all students would prioritize learning over just teaching, foster collaboration among educators, ensure equitable access to curriculum, regularly assess student learning using consistent standards, and establish systematic interventions and enrichment opportunities. It’s also intuitively clear that we can achieve more collectively than in isolation and that our effectiveness should be measured by tangible results. Indeed, overt opposition to the core principles of a PLC is rare. The inherent logic of “learn by doing” within a PLC framework is readily apparent.

So, why do schools often fall short of implementing what they already know makes sense? In their book, “The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge Into Action,” Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton (2000) explore this very question, identifying it as a central mystery in organizational management: the disconnect between knowledge and action. They ask, “Why does knowledge of what needs to be done so frequently fail to result in action or behavior that is consistent with that knowledge?” (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000, p. 4). This “knowing-doing gap” is a significant obstacle to educational improvement, and “learn by doing” is a powerful strategy to overcome it.

“Learn by Doing” is specifically designed to help educators bridge this knowing-doing gap by transforming their schools into PLCs through practical application. It provides purposeful, realistic, actionable steps educators can take to develop their capacity to function as a PLC. It aims to achieve five key objectives:

1. Developing a Common Vocabulary and Shared Understanding: To help educators establish a common language and consistent understanding of key practices within the PLC process, ensuring everyone is speaking the same language and working towards shared goals.
2. Presenting a Compelling Moral Imperative: To articulate a strong moral argument for American educators to continuously improve their individual and collective practice, emphasizing the critical importance of educational excellence for all students.
3. Facilitating Current Reality Assessment: To guide educators in honestly assessing the current state of their own schools and districts, providing a clear picture of strengths and areas for growth.
4. Offering Practical Tools and Resources: To provide educators with tangible tools, templates, protocols, and sample products to support their PLC journey, making the process more manageable and accessible.
5. Eliminating Excuses for Inaction and Promoting Action-Oriented Learning: To dispel reasons for inaction and convince educators that the most effective way to become proficient in the PLC process is to actively engage in the practices of a PLC – to “learn by doing.”

Alt: Teachers participate in a collaborative planning session, actively reviewing student work and strategizing instructional approaches, demonstrating learn-by-doing in professional development.

1. Building a Shared Language for Collective Action: Clarity Through Common Vocabulary

Michael Fullan (2005) observes that “terms travel easily . . . but the meaning of the underlying concepts does not” (p. 67). Terms like “professional learning community,” “collaborative teams,” “formative assessments,” and countless others are prevalent in contemporary educational discourse. They’ve become part of the “educationese” lexicon. However, when pressed for precise definitions, many educators struggle. Implementing these concepts in a school or district is challenging even with a shared understanding of their meaning; it becomes nearly impossible when there’s no common understanding, and these terms hold different meanings for different people within the same organization. “Learn by doing” within a PLC requires a shared language to ensure everyone is working towards the same understanding and goals.

Developmental psychologists Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey (2001) argue that transforming individuals and organizations requires new language. They write, “The places where we work and live are, among other things, places where certain forms of speech are promoted or encouraged, and places where other ways of talking are discouraged or made impossible” (Kegan & Lahey, 2001, p. 7). As educators transition from traditional school structures to PLCs, a new language emerges. Therefore, defining and highlighting key terms used in implementing the PLC process is crucial for building shared knowledge of both critical vocabulary and the underlying concepts. A comprehensive online glossary further enhances precision and clarity in the evolving language of PLC transformation.

2. A Moral Imperative for Continuous Improvement: ‘Learn by Doing’ as a Professional Obligation

Criticism of public schools has been a recurring theme throughout American history. However, since the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, the media and political landscape have seemed to wage an increasingly aggressive campaign not just against the public school system, but also against the educators within it. This trend has continued into the 21st century. Despite this negativity, American educators have achieved significant progress.

We reject the notion that American schools are failing and that educators are the cause. In the first two decades of the 2000s, educators achieved some of the best results in U.S. history. Consider these achievements:

• Record-high high school graduation rates, with improvements across all student subgroups.
• Unprecedented success of high school students in rigorous college-level coursework.
• Steady improvements in scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) since its inception in the 1970s (Ravitch, 2014).
• Top-ten global rankings and significantly above-average performance of American students on Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) exams (Martin, Mullis, Foy, & Stanco, 2012; Mullis, Martin, Foy, & Arora, 2012).
• High levels of parental satisfaction with local schools, among the highest recorded in decades (Phi Delta Kappan/Gallup Poll Archive, 2014).
• Outperformance of international peers with similar poverty rates by American students in low-poverty schools (Shyamalan, 2013).
• Consistently high ratings from American students for their teachers on qualities like fairness and support (DuFour, 2015).

Contemporary American educators have achieved more, with a more diverse student population, than any previous generation. They deserve respect, not condemnation. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has undeniably impacted the educational progress made since 2000. The need to ensure every student succeeds in school is now greater than ever, as the consequences of failure in the K–12 system are more severe than ever before. “Learn by doing” is not just a methodology; it’s a moral imperative to continuously improve and address the challenges facing education today.

Evidence gathered following the COVID-19 pandemic reveals devastating impacts on teacher well-being, retention, preparation, student well-being, and student learning:

• Significant teacher attrition and burnout, exacerbating existing shortages.
• Increased anxiety and depression among both adults and students.
• Record low levels of job satisfaction reported by teachers.
• Substantial increases in teacher retirements and resignations in major urban districts.
• Decline in the number of new teachers entering the profession.
• Elevated levels of stress, anxiety, and depression reported by middle and high school students.
• Academic progress significantly lagging pre-pandemic levels.
• Record numbers of students scoring at the lowest performance levels on national assessments.

Throughout much of the 20th century, a high school dropout could still access the middle class. In 1970, high school graduates and dropouts comprised 74% of the middle class. By 2007, this figure had dropped to 31% for high school graduates and only 8% for dropouts (Carnevale, Smith, & Strohl, 2010). Furthermore, many high school graduates seem ill-prepared for the demands of higher education. The ACT, a leading college admissions exam, reported a record low average composite score in 2023, with a significant percentage of test-takers failing to meet college readiness benchmarks across multiple subjects (Jones & Kallingal, 2023). These statistics are alarming because individuals unprepared for post-secondary learning will be increasingly marginalized in the American economy (Carnevale et al., 2010). Consider the implications for students who are unsuccessful in the K–12 system:

• Significantly lower employment rates for high school dropouts compared to college graduates.
• Substantially higher poverty rates for high school dropouts compared to bachelor’s degree holders.
• Significantly lower annual earnings for high school graduates compared to bachelor’s degree holders.
• Shorter average lifespan for high school dropouts compared to high school graduates.
• Higher rates of incarceration among high school dropouts.
• Substantial financial costs to taxpayers associated with each high school dropout over their lifetime.

While rejecting the notion that American schools are universally failing, we acknowledge the moral imperative to improve schools so that all students are prepared for post-secondary learning and success in life. American educators must treat every student as if they were their own child, providing the same quality of education they would want for their own (DuFour, 2015). The added challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic have created an unprecedented situation requiring urgent action. PLC at Work, with its emphasis on “learn by doing” and continuous improvement, is more critical now than ever before in American educational history.

3. Assessing Current Reality for Targeted Improvement: ‘Learn by Doing’ to Understand Our Starting Point

For many educators, school improvement initiatives have been marked by uncertainty and confusion regarding their school’s current state and desired future. Consequently, improvement efforts often become fragmented and inconsistent, lacking purposeful direction. A crucial step in any effective improvement process is an honest assessment of the current reality – a diligent effort to uncover the truth about current practices and outcomes. Educators can more effectively move forward when they have a shared understanding of their starting point. “Learn by doing” begins with honestly assessing where we are and what needs improvement.

Even with sincere efforts to assess their schools, teachers and administrators face considerable challenges. Every school has a culture – a set of assumptions, beliefs, expectations, and habits that define the norm and guide the work of educators. Perhaps it’s more accurate to say that educators don’t have school cultures, but rather that school cultures have them. Teachers and administrators are often so deeply immersed in traditional ways of operating that it’s difficult to step back and critically examine conventional practices from a fresh perspective. Therefore, resources like continua and frameworks are designed not only to provide examples of effective PLC practices but also to help educators honestly evaluate the current conditions in their schools. This self-assessment is a crucial form of “learn by doing” – learning about our own practices and identifying areas for growth.

4. Providing Tools and Resources for Practical Application: Facilitating ‘Learn by Doing’ Through Actionable Resources

Through our work in schools and districts, we’ve discovered that providing the right tools, templates, protocols, and sample products can simplify complex processes and enhance educators’ confidence in their ability to implement change. We’ve compiled these practical resources to provide educators with readily accessible support at various stages of their PLC journey. These resources are designed to be helpful starting points, not rigid prescriptions. Adapt and modify them to suit your unique context and needs. These tools are designed to facilitate “learn by doing” by providing concrete starting points for action and experimentation.

5. Action Over Preparation: Embracing ‘Learn by Doing’ as the Most Effective Path to PLC Implementation

Our primary aspiration in developing resources and frameworks is to empower educators to take immediate and concrete steps to bridge the knowing-doing gap in education by implementing the PLC process in their schools and districts. There’s unprecedented agreement on what educators can do to improve their schools. Our profession has a clear understanding that more students achieve at higher levels when:

• Schools are committed to high levels of learning for every student.
• Educators collaboratively clarify the essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions students should acquire in each unit, course, and grade level.
• Student learning is consistently monitored throughout the learning process.
• Schools have systematic processes to provide struggling students with extra time and support and to offer enrichment for proficient learners.
• Educators collaborate to inform and improve their individual and collective practice, using transparent evidence of student learning.

Conversely, there’s no credible evidence to suggest that schools are more effective when educators work in isolation, and decisions about curriculum, assessment, and interventions are left to individual teacher discretion. “Learn by doing” in a PLC context is about moving away from isolated practice towards collaborative, data-informed action.

When professionals possess better knowledge, they have a responsibility to act accordingly. Our profession now has a clear understanding of what works best. The weight of evidence from research, professional organizations, high-performing schools and districts, and common sense overwhelmingly demonstrates that schools operating as PLCs are more effective. It’s time for educators to act on this knowledge. The central question facing most schools and districts isn’t, “What more do we need to know to improve?” but rather, “Will we translate what we already know into action?” “Learn by doing” is the answer to this question – action is the key to improvement.

Perhaps the most profound insight gained from our work with schools and districts worldwide is that organizations that commit and begin doing the work of a PLC develop their capacity to help all students learn at high levels far more effectively than schools that spend years preparing to become a PLC through extensive reading or training. Michael Fullan, a leading expert in school improvement, echoes this conclusion, arguing that educators must swiftly transition from mission and vision discussions to action because “it is learning by purposeful doing that counts most” (Fullan & Quinn, 2016, p. 21). “Learn by doing” isn’t just a principle for students; it’s the most effective path to professional growth and school improvement for educators as well.

This resource is not intended as a study guide; it is emphatically an action guide. Developing the collective capacity of educators to create high-performing PLCs requires more than book studies and workshops. It demands “the daily habit of working together, and you can’t learn this from a workshop or course. You need to learn it by doing it and having mechanisms for getting better at it on purpose” (Fullan, 2005, p. 69). Let’s now explore some of the challenges of working together and consider mechanisms for continuous improvement through “learn by doing.”