Educators universally acknowledge the profound impact of practical experience on understanding and skill development. This principle, known as “Learning By Doing,” is not a novel concept. Millennia ago, Confucius articulated its essence, stating, “I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand.” This timeless wisdom underscores the fundamental truth that true comprehension arises from active engagement and practical application, rather than passive reception of information. The journey of educators themselves often exemplifies this. Despite years of formal training encompassing content knowledge, pedagogical theories, classroom observations, and student teaching, most educators concede that their most significant learning occurs during their initial semesters in the classroom. This isn’t a critique of educational institutions but a testament to the unparalleled power of learning embedded within real-world practice.
This recognition of experiential learning extends to our educational philosophies for students. We strive to involve students in active, authentic, hands-on activities designed to foster deep, experiential understanding. It seems paradoxical, therefore, that a profession so committed to the principle of “learning by doing” often hesitates to apply this very principle to its own professional development and capacity building. Why are educational institutions, inherently designed for learning, often reluctant to empower their professionals to enhance school effectiveness through practical, hands-on school improvement initiatives? Why the hesitation to embrace “learning by doing” for ourselves?
The Power of Learning by Doing in Professional Learning Communities
Since 1998, extensive research and publications have consistently advocated for a transformative strategy in education: the development of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs). The core argument is that fostering a PLC environment is the most effective approach to ensuring high levels of learning for all students. These resources also offer concrete strategies and frameworks to guide schools and districts in their PLC transformation.
The term “Professional Learning Community” has gained significant traction, yet its widespread use has, paradoxically, led to a dilution of its meaning. It has become a catch-all phrase, loosely applied to diverse groups in education, risking its core significance. This ambiguity hinders the effective implementation of PLC practices. As Mike Schmoker (2004a) aptly noted, “clarity precedes competence” (p. 85). Therefore, it’s crucial to re-emphasize a clear definition of a PLC, especially in the context of “learning by doing.” Redundancy in clarifying this concept is preferable to the confusion caused by ambiguity.
A common misconception is viewing a PLC as a mere program, a discrete initiative to be implemented and then replaced. Some schools adopt “PLC” as the program of the year, much like previous initiatives such as “Understanding by Design” or “differentiated instruction,” treating them as temporary fixes rather than fundamental shifts. The PLC approach is not a program; it cannot be purchased or externally implemented. It is an ongoing, organic process, deeply embedded within the staff, continuously shaping the school’s structure and culture, and fundamentally altering the assumptions and practices of its educators.
Another misconception equates PLCs with meetings, occasional gatherings for task completion. The phrase “My PLC meets Wednesdays from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m.” reflects this limited view. This perception is inaccurate on two fronts. First, the PLC encompasses the entire organization, not just individual teams. While collaborative teams are integral components, the PLC’s impact is greater than the sum of its parts, requiring school-wide and district-wide efforts. Thinking of the school or district as the PLC, with collaborative teams as its building blocks, is more accurate. Second, the PLC process is not episodic; it’s a continuous and pervasive influence on the school’s culture. Regular meetings that don’t translate into sustained changes in practice do not constitute a functioning PLC. A PLC is far more than just a meeting schedule.
Some educators believe engaging in dialogue based on shared readings qualifies them as a PLC. While collective study and discussion are valuable components, a PLC transcends a book club. Action, informed by new insights, is the defining characteristic.
So, what truly defines a PLC? It is a continuous journey where educators collaboratively engage in recurring cycles of inquiry and action research to enhance student outcomes. PLCs operate on the premise that student learning improvement is intrinsically linked to ongoing, job-embedded professional development for educators – fundamentally, “learning by doing.” Transforming a traditional school into a PLC necessitates a profound shift in its culture and structure.
Three Core Principles of Professional Learning Communities: Embodied in “Learning by Doing”
Three fundamental principles drive the work of a PLC. A school’s or district’s progress in becoming a PLC hinges on the degree to which these principles are understood, embraced, and, crucially, implemented through action – through “learning by doing.”
1. A Relentless Focus on Learning: Experiencing Impact Through Action
The primary tenet, the cornerstone of a PLC, is the unwavering commitment to ensuring all students achieve high levels of learning, meeting or exceeding grade-level standards. This dedication to each student’s learning is the very essence of a learning community. It’s not just about teaching; it’s about ensuring learning happens – and educators learn how to achieve this by actively engaging in the process, by “learning by doing.”
In a PLC, educators collectively embrace high levels of learning for every student as the organization’s raison d’être and their fundamental professional responsibility. To realize this purpose, PLC members collaboratively create and are guided by a clear, compelling vision of the school’s transformation needed to support all learners. They make collective commitments, defining individual contributions to this vision, and use data-driven, results-oriented goals to track progress. The PLC framework mandates a “learning by doing” approach to improvement: educators work together to precisely define essential learning outcomes for each student, continuously monitor individual student progress, implement systematic interventions for struggling learners, and provide enrichment for those who have mastered the material. This cycle of defining, monitoring, intervening, and enriching is itself a powerful form of “learning by doing” for educators.
A crucial corollary is the recognition that organizational effectiveness in student learning is directly tied to the continuous learning of the educators within it. Therefore, PLCs establish structures that ensure job-embedded professional development, integrating learning into daily work practices – “learning by doing” as a routine.
This commitment to learning is unequivocal. While traditional schools may operate with the aim of teaching or merely providing learning opportunities, PLCs are fundamentally dedicated to ensuring all students actually acquire essential knowledge, skills, and dispositions within each unit, course, and grade level. Every organizational practice, policy, and procedure is evaluated against the critical question: “Will this action enhance learning outcomes for our students?” All other PLC characteristics stem directly from this fundamental shift in perspective about the school’s purpose – a purpose realized through the active, iterative process of “learning by doing.”
2. A Collaborative Culture and Shared Responsibility: Building Expertise Through Collective Action
The second core principle of the PLC framework is that achieving high levels of learning for all students necessitates collaboration and collective responsibility among educators. Working in isolation is no longer viable; collaboration becomes an expectation, a fundamental requirement of professional practice. The foundational structure of a PLC is collaborative teams of educators, working interdependently towards 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 driving the PLC initiative, the fundamental building block of the organization – and the effectiveness of these teams is built on “learning by doing” together.
The importance of collaborative teams in school improvement cannot be overstated. However, it’s crucial to emphasize that collaboration is not an end in itself. It is a means to improved student outcomes, and its effectiveness depends on focused action. In many schools, collaboration may be limited to superficial discussions, stopping at the classroom door. In a PLC, collaboration is a structured process where teachers work together to directly influence their classroom practices in ways that demonstrably improve student learning, team effectiveness, and overall school performance. This is “learning by doing” in a collaborative context.
Professionals in any field – medicine, law, engineering – are expected to collaborate to build shared knowledge and improve service delivery. In education, this translates to educators working and learning together to better meet the needs of all students. This shared learning, this “learning by doing” together, is the hallmark of a professional learning community.
3. A Results Orientation: Data-Driven Improvement Through Action and Reflection
The third driving principle of PLCs is a strong results orientation. To gauge their effectiveness in fostering student learning, PLCs focus on tangible evidence of student achievement. This data then informs professional practice improvement and guides targeted interventions and enrichment for individual students. PLCs recognize that all efforts must be evaluated based on outcomes, not just intentions. Without continuous assessment of results, initiatives become aimless, lacking purposeful direction. 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 cycle of action and reflection, of “learning by doing” and analyzing the results, is at the heart of a results-oriented PLC.
This continuous pursuit of improved student outcomes through data analysis and action leads to a cyclical process inherent in PLCs:
- Gathering evidence of current student learning levels.
- Developing strategies and innovative ideas to build on strengths and address weaknesses identified in the data.
- Implementing these strategies and ideas in classrooms and across the school.
- Analyzing the impact of these changes to determine what was effective and what needs refinement.
- Applying new knowledge gained from the analysis in the next iteration of continuous improvement.
This cyclical process, visually represented below, is not merely about adopting new strategies; it’s about cultivating a culture of perpetual learning – an environment where innovation and experimentation are not projects but integral aspects of daily practice, forever evolving through “learning by doing.” Participation in this process is not limited to designated leaders; it is a responsibility shared by every member of the organization. This is collective “learning by doing” at an organizational level.
Alt text: Cyclical process of continuous improvement in a Professional Learning Community. The cycle includes gathering evidence of student learning, developing strategies, implementing strategies, and analyzing impact, leading back to gathering evidence in a continuous loop.
This results-driven approach compels each team to establish and pursue measurable learning improvement goals aligned with school and district-wide objectives. It also drives teams to create common formative assessments, administered regularly to track student progress. Team members analyze assessment data to identify program-level concerns (areas where many students struggle) and to identify strengths and weaknesses in individual teaching practices, fostering peer learning and improvement. Critically, these assessments pinpoint students needing additional support or enrichment. Frequent common formative assessments are a powerful tool in the PLC toolkit, enabling data-informed “learning by doing” at both the student and teacher level.
A Culture of Balanced Autonomy and Alignment: Empowerment and Direction Through “Learning by Doing”
The PLC model empowers educators to make significant decisions and fosters creativity and innovation in pursuit of enhanced student and adult learning. In a PLC, teachers collectively make critical decisions, including:
- Curriculum content and learning objectives
- Content sequencing and pacing
- Student learning assessments
- Criteria for evaluating student work quality
- Team norms and operating procedures
- Team goals and improvement targets
Teachers, working in teams, are primarily responsible for analyzing student learning data and developing improvement strategies. They have the autonomy to choose instructional methods they deem most effective. This decentralized decision-making reflects the “loose” aspects of the PLC process – empowering teachers to “learn by doing” and adapt their practices.
However, the PLC process also includes “tight” elements – non-negotiable aspects that everyone in the school must adhere to. These “tight” elements ensure alignment and coherence across the school, while the “loose” elements allow for flexibility and teacher agency. This balance is crucial for effective “learning by doing” within a structured framework.
The long-standing debate about top-down versus bottom-up school improvement approaches is resolved within the PLC framework. Neither extreme is effective. Top-down mandates lack teacher ownership and deep understanding needed for sustained change. A laissez-faire bottom-up approach can lack direction and may not drive significant improvement. High-performing PLCs navigate this “too tight/too loose” dilemma by engaging educators in an improvement process that empowers decision-making while ensuring adherence to core principles (DuFour & Fullan, 2013). This simultaneously loose and tight culture is a recurring theme in PLC implementation, facilitating effective “learning by doing” within a supportive and structured environment.
Effective Communication: Essential for Collaborative “Learning by Doing”
Creating a “loose and tight” PLC culture hinges on clearly and consistently communicating the “tight” elements. Marcus Buckingham (2005) emphasizes the paramount importance of clarity for effective leadership. Powerful communication is simple, concise, focused on key ideas, and consistently reinforced (Collins, 2001; Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000). Crucially, leaders must demonstrate congruence between words and actions. Consistency in leadership actions, aligning with stated priorities, is more impactful than eloquent pronouncements (Kotter, 1996). Leadership actions are a form of “leading by doing,” demonstrating the values and priorities of the PLC.
Leaders communicate priorities by what they pay attention to (Kouzes & Posner, 2003; Peters & Austin, 1985). Effective PLC leadership involves creating systems and structures that promote priorities, monitoring essential elements, strategically reallocating time, asking pertinent questions, addressing conflict constructively, and celebrating progress toward the shared vision. These are all active, “doing” oriented leadership behaviors that reinforce the PLC culture.
Building shared understanding of effective communication practices is crucial for PLC success. Addressing this critical component strengthens the PLC foundation. Clear communication is vital to the PLC process.
Balancing Structure and Human Factors: Motivation and Engagement in “Learning by Doing”
Implementing the necessary structures for PLC at Work is essential, but structural changes alone are insufficient. Effective PLCs must also address human emotions – how people feel, both students and adults. Effective leaders are motivators. While structural changes may be necessary, they are rarely inherently motivating. Creating a culture that fosters intrinsic motivation for “learning by doing” is key.
Bridging the Knowing-Doing Gap: Action as the Catalyst for Change
Educators consistently respond to the PLC concept with, “This just makes sense.” The logic of focusing on learning, fostering collaboration, ensuring curriculum alignment, monitoring student progress, and providing targeted support is intuitively appealing. The benefits of collaborative work over isolation are evident. The importance of data-driven decision-making based on results is undeniable. The PLC principles resonate with common sense. Yet, despite this widespread agreement, many schools struggle to fully implement PLC practices. Why does knowing what makes sense not consistently translate into action? This is “the knowing-doing gap.”
In “The Knowing-Doing Gap: How Smart Companies Turn Knowledge Into Action,” Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert I. Sutton (2000) explore this organizational paradox: 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).
“Learning by Doing” is specifically designed to help educators bridge this knowing-doing gap and transform their schools into effective PLCs. It provides practical, actionable steps to develop PLC capacity. The objectives are:
- Establish a shared vocabulary and consistent understanding of key PLC practices.
- Present a compelling case for the moral imperative of continuous improvement in education.
- Facilitate honest self-assessment of current school and district realities.
- Provide practical tools, templates, protocols, and examples to guide PLC implementation.
- Eliminate excuses for inaction and emphasize that “learning by doing” is the most effective path to PLC development.
1. Developing a Common Language and Shared Understanding: Essential for Collective “Learning by Doing”
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 “goals” are commonplace in education jargon. However, precise, shared definitions are often lacking. Implementing these concepts is challenging even with shared understanding; it becomes impossible when terms are interpreted differently within the same organization. Clear, common language is foundational for effective collective “learning by doing.”
Developmental psychologists Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey (2001) argue that organizational transformation requires new language, fostering new forms of communication and discouraging old patterns (Kegan & Lahey, 2001, p. 7). As schools transition to PLCs, a new vocabulary emerges. Defining key terms is crucial for building shared knowledge and facilitating this linguistic and cultural shift, enabling more effective “learning by doing” in a PLC context.
2. The Moral Imperative for Continuous Improvement: Driven by Action and Results
While acknowledging the dedication and achievements of American educators, there is a persistent and critical narrative surrounding public education. However, despite challenges, American educators have achieved significant progress. Graduation rates have reached historic highs, rigorous college-level coursework participation has increased, and NAEP scores have shown steady improvement. American students perform well internationally, and parent satisfaction with local schools remains high.
Despite these successes, the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges, impacting teacher well-being, retention, student mental health, and academic progress. Learning loss and widening achievement gaps are significant concerns. The consequences of educational failure are more severe than ever.
Throughout the 20th century, a high school dropout could still access the middle class. Today, post-secondary education is increasingly essential for economic stability and social mobility. High school dropouts face significantly higher rates of unemployment, poverty, incarceration, and lower life expectancy. The economic and social costs of educational failure are substantial.
Therefore, a moral imperative exists to improve schools and ensure all students are prepared for post-secondary learning and success. Educators must act with urgency and dedication to address the challenges and opportunities of the current educational landscape. The PLC framework, with its emphasis on “learning by doing” and continuous improvement, is more critical now than ever.
3. Assessing Current Reality: A Foundation for Purposeful Action
School improvement efforts often falter due to a lack of clear understanding of the school’s current state and desired future. This ambiguity leads to fragmented and ineffective initiatives. Honest and accurate self-assessment is crucial for effective improvement. Agreeing on the current reality is the essential first step towards purposeful action and “learning by doing” for school improvement.
School culture, deeply ingrained assumptions, beliefs, and habits, can make objective self-assessment challenging. Educators are often so immersed in traditional practices that critical examination becomes difficult. Therefore, tools and frameworks are needed to help educators step back, critically evaluate current practices, and engage in honest self-reflection, paving the way for informed “learning by doing.”
4. Providing Practical Tools and Resources: Facilitating Actionable Steps
Practical tools, templates, protocols, and examples can simplify complex processes and enhance educator self-efficacy. Providing readily accessible resources empowers educators to take concrete action and engage in “learning by doing” more effectively. These resources should be adaptable and customizable to fit unique school contexts.
5. Action Over Preparation: Embracing “Learning by Doing” as the Path to Progress
The primary goal is to motivate immediate and concrete action, bridging the knowing-doing gap through PLC implementation. There is strong consensus on effective school improvement strategies. Schools are demonstrably more effective when they prioritize high levels of learning for all, foster collaborative curriculum development, monitor student progress, provide targeted support, and promote data-driven professional development. These principles are all enacted through active “learning by doing.”
Conversely, isolation, fragmented approaches to curriculum and assessment, and inconsistent support systems are demonstrably less effective. The evidence overwhelmingly supports the PLC model. The critical question is not “What do we need to know?” but “Will we act on what we already know?”
Schools that actively engage in PLC work, “learning by doing” from the outset, develop PLC capacity far more effectively than those who spend years in preparation. Action is the catalyst for change. As Michael Fullan argues, educators must move quickly from planning to action because “it is learning by purposeful doing that counts most” (Fullan & Quinn, 2016, p. 21). This is not a passive study guide but an action guide, urging educators to embrace “learning by doing” as the most effective path to creating high-performing PLCs and achieving improved outcomes for all students. Developing collective capacity demands ongoing collaborative work, a skill honed through practice, through “learning by doing” together.
