Blog 2: The Importance of Teacher Discourse Communities

     One of the responsibilities in my job is actively working with my colleagues (four other11^th grade English teachers) in a Professional Learning Community (aka “PLC”). In fact, in the school district in which I work, there are 55 minutes set aside weekly specifically for Professional Learning Communities to meet. For those who are not familiar with PLCs, a PLC is a group of educators who “meet regularly, share expertise, and work collaboratively to improve teaching skills and the academic performance of students” (DuFour). A large body of research indicates that the single most important factor in increasing student achievement is the quality of instruction a student receives; PLCs are employed as a strategy for making system-wide changes, starting with the teachers who provide instruction and know students best.

     PLCs are—in essence—discourse communities. A “‘discourse community’ is a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated” (Porter 228). This includes language, but also involves a multitude of other factors, such as shared ways of “thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, and using symbols” (Gee 13). In education, PLCs were implemented in response to the isolation of teachers struggling to improve instructional effectiveness alone. By joining PLCs, teachers work in groups to discuss issues, review research on best instructional practices, and analyze student data to determine the next steps to be taken. This sounds easy enough, but some PLCs are more effective than others; there are a number of factors which determine a PLC’s functionality.  

     A few years ago, I was in an incredibly dysfunctional, ineffective PLC. We met every week (as we had been directed) but got little done, and—more often than not—at least one member left the meeting upset. The first problem: PLCs were a fairly new concept, and they involved a paradigm shift for most of us. Administration dictated that we—as teachers in the same subjects and grade levels—meet weekly, but administration provided no direction whatsoever. They just erroneously assumed that requiring participation in a PLC would yield significant, positive educational changes. The second problem: Many of the members did not want to meet for one reason or another; some didn’t like the idea of being forced into “another meeting” by administration, some didn’t want to collaborate, some felt it was a “waste of their time,” and some didn’t want to share their good ideas, preferring instead to keep their ideas for their classroom alone. Many enjoyed the autonomy of closing the door to their classrooms, while others wanted to collaborate and share ideas. Some of the resistance may have come from sheer insecurity, fearing judgment and criticism from other group members, but there was also the issue of cohesiveness.

     As I described earlier, a discourse community needs to share values and ways of thinking and acting, but clearly, the members of this PLC did not. Richard DuFour*, an expert on PLCs in education, notes that many PLCs are ineffective because members are prisoners to the traditional mythology of education, which includes the myth of the conquering hero who closes his/her classroom door and “performs miracles” all by him/herself, along with the myth that it is enough for teachers to provide educational opportunities; educators have no moral obligation to ensure all students succeed. Wanting to adhere to a traditional model of education was one of the factors at play in this PLC. Some wanted to stick to traditional pedagogy and curriculum (isolated grammar and vocabulary lessons, e.g.), while others wanted innovation and “outside the box” thinking. The mismatch of values simply couldn’t be overcome. Eventually, several of the members changed grade levels and joined other PLCs.

     When I joined my current junior team (just this year), the PLC experience became a much more positive one for me. Our team is effective for a variety of reasons. The first is that we are a “self-selected.” When several teachers moved from junior English to other grade levels, there were several openings; those of us who enjoy working together asked to teach juniors, knowing we all wanted to collaborate, keep up with the latest research, and think outside the box. When people are simply put together based solely on what they teach, there is no guarantee the team will function well—there has to be more “buy in” in order to become an effective discourse community.

      The second reason our PLC works well is because we share “thinking, acting, interacting, valuing, feeling, and using symbols” (Gee 13). While none of share the same brain and we all have our own ideas, our interactions are based on mutual respect. We have all agreed to separate ideas and people; we refrain from personalizing and judging. We typically come to decisions by consensus, but there are times when what works for one teacher won’t work for another, and we allow for this autonomy. For example, I have a student teacher this semester; two of her requirements are writing lesson plans and designing assessments, etc. Some of what she needs to do does not fit neatly into what the other four members are doing. In that case, we go our separate ways—so to speak—but find common ground in other areas. My student teacher designed and is teaching a unit on “debate,” while my colleagues are teaching students to write a problem/solution essay. To a marked degree, we are all teaching to the same standards (the “what”), but have gone in different directions with the learning activities (the “how”). What will inform our teaching will be the results we obtain from our students, which will be comparable because we are measuring the same English standards.

Wednesday Morning Junior English PLC Meeting
Rebeca, me, Jenny, and Katie

     A third reason this PLC works well is because we all value the importance of being open to making changes in our teaching according to the changing needs of our students. The traditional teaching model (“the sage on the stage”) no longer works for most students. We are currently reading “Project-based Writing” by Liz Prather and collaborating on several projects that allow students to use their reading, writing, and research skills in more engaging ways, such as designing/writing public service announcements, designing virtual museums, designing products made from 50% recycled materials.

     Jenny, Katie, and I have asked to continue teaching Junior English next year (Rebeca is a student teacher who will not be at our school next year), in part because we work so well together. We are trying new things and--even though Jenny and I are digital immigrants--we are working to find new ways to teach English to our students that make them more members of a discourse community than mere "recipients of information."

    * I am including a link to a 4 minute tedtalk on Professional Learning Communities by Richard DuFour. You may find it useful, particularly if you are new to PLCs or struggling to make one work well.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Professional+Learning+Communities%2c+tedtalk&view=detail&mid=4A1F0B4FC46BD0BA89974A1F0B4FC46BD0BA8997&FORM=VIRE

     Next Week's Blog: Writing a Grant

Works Cited

“Discourses and Social Languages.” An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method,

     James Paul Gee. Routledge, 2014.


DuFour, Richard. “What Is a Professional Learning Community?” Educational

     Leadership, vol. 61, no. 8, May 2004, pp. 6–11. Academic Search Complete [EBSCO].


Porter, James E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community.” Rhetoric Review, vol. 5, 1986,

     pp. 34–47. Academic Search Complete [EBSCO].