Who cares about faculty learning and why does it matter now? The authors, Nancy Matthews and Amy Lean MacArthur, invite BELMAS readers to consider this timely question in higher education: how do faculty learn together, and to what effect?
While collaboration and professional learning communities are well established in K–12 systems, universities often rely on individual endeavor rather than collective growth. Drawing on research from educational leadership, this piece explores Faculty Learning Communities, their potential to move beyond collegiality towards meaningful collaboration, and the implications for leadership, engagement, and student outcomes across UK, Canadian, and US contexts.
The authors then call for your engagement beyond this blog with an invitation to take part in a research study to answer these questions.
If you have any comments or thoughts about this blog and the points it raises, then do share on social media using the hashtag #BELMASblog or contact the BELMAS Blog editorial team by emailing: blog@belmas.org.uk
In higher education, have we surmised that faculty are independently working on their teaching, research, and service agendas? It is likely that this will produce excellent researchers with sought after credentials, yet it is also likely to produce educators who champion student learning in a vacuum and disregard the potential in working together for students. This potential reality contrasts the mandate of professional learning communities in the K-12 system, where better outcomes for both faculty and students can be found. How could higher educational leaders facilitate that learning for faculty and what would encourage faculty to engage with it? These are the questions needing to be answered.
Faculty Learning Communities (AKA Professional Learning Communities in Higher Education) should serve as a long-term approach to providing the support needed in a dynamic higher education environment, beyond collegiality. Not to say that collegiality is not good, but there is more to it. It is working collaboratively. It is building relationships. It is beyond working alone. Fullan (2020) says, “If moral purpose is job one, relationships are job two, as you can’t get anywhere without them” (p. 63). He goes on to say, “The ‘soul at work’ is both individual and collective” (p. 64). FLCs could be the answer in higher education.
What are FLCs versus PLCs?
According to American author, Cox (2004), “an FLC [is] a cross-disciplinary faculty and staff group of six to fifteen members (eight to twelve members is the recommended size) who engage in an active, collaborative, yearlong program with a curriculum about enhancing teaching and learning and with frequent seminars and activities that provide learning, development, the scholarship of teaching, and community building” (p. 8). However, there is limited research on FLCs when it comes to Canada and the UK and the outcomes for faculty and students.
Comparatively, PLCs are well documented with tenets within K-12 settings, based on principles of collaborative learning, continuous improvement, reflective practice, and student-centeredness, as well as shared leadership (Dufour, et al., 2010). More recently, a study on PLCs revealed that there is “a strong level of collaboration due to a well-balanced distribution of tasks and good communication between the teachers, who not only shared didactic materials but also provided mutual support” (Basque et al., 2025, p. 13).
A key differentiator between PLCs and FLCs seems to be the on-going evaluation and focus on results, present in PLCs (DuFour & Eaker, 1998). The continuous collective inquiry and pursuit of goals create a level of collaborative accountability beyond a one-year collegial training opportunity.
Looking at Learning Communities through the lens of Educational Leadership
A historical examination (Matthews, 2024) of K-12 staff interactions shows an important distinction between collegial and collaborative schools. Matthews shares that prior to the Effective Schools movement (Lezotte, 1991), collegiality was the expected norm among school staff. In the collegial model teachers still worked in isolation and often their only interactions were pleasant exchanges. Because Lezotte’s research was based on improving school effectiveness it became apparent that teachers would need to share practices by which schools could become more effective. Conversations about how to improve schools led to differences of opinion and collegial interactions became less pleasant. By the late 80s and early 90s when DuFour and Eaker started proposing PLCs as a vehicle for improving teacher and school performance, a new form of interaction had surfaced – collaboration. This mirrors recent research on engagement (MacArthur, 2024) and the differences between one feeling welcome (i.e., collegial) versus feeling like one belongs (i.e., collaborative) with the latter focusing on relationship. If collaboration (as noted above) is the differentiator in faculties becoming supportive and effective learning communities then engagement is the key to successful collaboration, since engagement is the behavioural, emotional, and cognitive connection to one’s learning (Fredericks et al., 2004).
What is the difference a FLC (operating as a PLC) can make in Educational Leadership?
This is a call to educational leaders and faculty in higher education to engage with us in the knowledge production in this area. What could be learned from the adoption of FLCs at US universities? How could Canadian and UK institutions benefit and are there components of PLCs that aren’t even being realized in the US? Would faculty even see the benefit of long-term, collaborative FLCs or do they think it is just another administrative obligation taking time away from their teaching, research, and service? A comprehensive and comparative understanding of FLCs in higher education across national contexts, could inform theory, policy, and practice and improve outcomes.
An Invitation to Take Part in a Research Study
Would you be willing to speak with us regarding what is currently taking place (or not) on your campus for faculty learning? If so, please email us at the coordinates below. We can’t wait to hear from you!
Dr. Nancy Matthews
Dean of Education
Crandall University, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
Dr. Amy Lean MacArthur
Assistant Professor
Crandall University, Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada
AmyLean.MacArthur@crandallu.ca
Basque, M., Arseneault, P., & Bouchamma, Y. (2025). Winning Practices in Professional Learning Communities. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, 206.
Cox, M. D. (2004). Introduction to faculty learning communities. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2004(97), 5–23.
DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2010). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work (2nd ed.). Solution Tree Press.
DuFour, R. & Eaker, R. (1998). Professional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Solution Tree Press.
Fredricks, J. A., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Paris, A. H. (2004). School engagement: potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109.
Fullan, M. (2020). Leading in a culture of change (2nd ed.) Jossey-Bass.
Lezotte, L. W. (1991). Correlates of effective schools: The first and second generation. Okemos, MI: Effective Schools Products.
MacArthur, A. L. (2024). Thriving in First Year Higher Education Settings (chapter), Wellbeing in Higher Education Settings (edited book), Emerald.
Matthews, N. (2024). The role of leaders in educational decision-making: Examining implementation factors and providing a newfound model. Routledge.
