





































Education, Language and Sociology Research 

ISSN 2690-3644 (Print) ISSN 2690-3652 (Online) 

Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr 

52 
 

Original Paper 

Innovation and Teaching: Barriers and Opportunities 

Mandee Carmical1* & Louis S. Nadelson1 

1 College of Education, University of Central Arkansas, Conway, Arkansas, USA 

* Corresponding Author: Mandee_Carmial@me.com  

 

Received: December 26, 2024     Accepted: January 10, 2025    Online Published: January 19, 2025 

doi:10.22158/elsr.v6n1p52          URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.22158/elsr.v6n1p52 

 

Abstract 

This study explores the role of professional learning communities (PLCs) in mitigating barriers to 

innovative instruction. Using a cross-sectional survey with selected and open-response items, data were 

collected from educators participating in either a cohort-based immersive PLC training or a regional 

network train-the-trainer model. Both groups agreed on the definition and implementation of innovative 

instructional strategies. External barriers identified include limited resources and students’ resistance 

to alternative learning methods, which may reflect internal barriers such as reduced teacher efficacy. 

While survey responses suggest that professional development in innovative teaching is perceived as 

beneficial, many educators do not view innovative strategies as integral to their practice. A significant 

difference emerged between the two groups regarding the perceived impact of PLCs, with the cohort 

reporting a greater influence on their instructional strategies than the regional network. Although PLCs 

fostered collaboration and peer learning, evidence of widespread implementation of innovative 

strategies in classroom practice was insufficient. These findings suggest that while PLCs raise awareness 

of innovative teaching methods, persistent barriers hinder their execution. The report concludes with a 

discussion of these results, their implications, and recommendations for future research to enhance the 

integration of innovative instruction. 

Keywords 

teacher professional learning community, instructional innovation, teacher change, teacher learning, 

collaboration, psychological safety 

 

1. Introduction 

We were interested in documenting the relationship between teachers’ engagement in innovative 

teaching and their participation in professional learning communities. The teachers may perceive barriers 

that limit their engagement in innovative teaching practices, or external barriers may include 

psychological safety or peers. As Tschannen-Moran and Barr (2004) point out, schools are intertwined 

mailto:Mandee_Carmial@me.com


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

53 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

with the individual teacher’s efficacy and the building’s collective efficacy. Innovative teachers develop 

a student focus on problem-solving and skills to use in life that is immersive of the content. Hattie (2023), 

via meta-analysis, reports that collective teacher efficacy is the most effective process for positively 

influencing student success. Coupling John Hattie’s finding of the impact of collective efficacy and 

psychologically safe models, does the PLC at Work process establish the culture and environment to 

change teachers’ perceptions that inhibit their innovative teaching and for collective efficacy to flourish?  

 

2. Review of Literature 

2.1 Innovative Teaching 

We begin our exploration of innovative teaching with a definition of the construct. Similar to Nadelson 

et al. (2016), we consider innovative teaching can be considered through multiple lenses. We recognize 

that innovative teaching can be defined as a partial or complete amalgamation of student-centered 

learning (Lee & Hannafin, 2016), authentic inquiry (Nadelson, 2009), project-based learning 

(Surmilasari & Usman, 2022), place-based learning (Gruenewald & Smith, 2014; Nadelson et al., 2016), 

application of knowledge (Dole et al., 2015), integrated curriculum (Nadelson & Seifert, 2017), and 

authentic assessment (Huntington, 2021). Some may argue that our definition of innovative teaching is 

reflective of high-impact teaching practices. Yet, we maintain that the combination and engagement in 

the practices are outside of traditional educational practices, justifying the consideration of the 

combination of practices as innovative. Thus, the most effective way to consider innovative teaching is 

on a spectrum. The innovative teaching spectrum spans from one end of traditional teaching practices to 

innovative ones (see Figure 1). 

Our model reflects our perception that innovative teaching can occur on a spectrum ranging from 

traditional teaching practices at one end to innovative teaching practices at the other. Most teachers are 

likely between the two ends of the spectrum, moving between traditional and innovative teaching 

approaches. We are interested in the potential influence of teacher engagement in professional learning 

communities on their engagement in innovative teaching practices.  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

54 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 1. A Model of Innovative Teaching Practices 

 

The potential shifts in educational innovations require changing teaching and learning mindsets. Thus, 

collective exploration of ideas, experiences, challenges, and solutions in professional learning 

communities may be critical to the culture change needed to shift toward innovative educational practices. 

Professional learning communities may be the ideal structure for fostering a culture of change and 

exploring new innovative approaches to teaching and learning. Thus, there is value in empirically 

documenting teacher engagement in professional learning communities and their consideration and 

engagement in innovative educational practices by possibly reducing the external and internal barriers 

within the teacher or teaching team. 

2.2 Barriers to Innovative Teaching 

As we study innovative teaching practices, just as in other industries, some barriers interfere with and 

reduce the creativity and innovation of the workforce. We are asking what barriers prohibit innovative 

teaching. Internal barriers may include teacher efficacy; external barriers may include a lack of 

psychological safety, colleagues, and leadership.  

An internal barrier to teacher efficacy is an obstacle to innovative teaching practices. Teacher efficacy is 

the belief that teachers can instruct and influence student learning regardless of the student’s situation 

(Cantrell & Callaway, 2008; Carmeli & Schaubroeck, 2007). Notably, research has shown that teachers 

with high self-efficacy predict innovative behaviors (Hsiao et al., 2011). The more confident the educator 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

55 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

feels about their abilities to teach, the more it has been found that their behavior will be that of an 

innovative teacher (Gkontelos et al., 2023). We know that a necessary condition of innovative instruction 

is the teacher’s attitude and understanding of pushing their students further, which requires confidence 

and efficacy (Hasanefendic et al., 2017).  

Edmondson and Lei (2014) developed a model for establishing psychological safety in the workplace, 

illustrating a leader who is a model to the organization of ongoing study and growth/development. Team 

development is essential for establishing trust and transparency, leading to curiosity and innovation 

(McManus, 2006). Clark (2020) describes the four stages of psychological safety in the workplace: 

inclusion, learner, contributor, and challenger. Clark describes the team as reaching an innovative 

threshold between contributor and challenger safety stages. The challenger safety stage allows 

participants to challenge protocol safely and thinking within the organization. Both models include 

transparency and trust among the participants to achieve improvement and innovation.  

2.3 Influences on Adopting Innovation 

In addition to barriers to innovation, several potential influences may positively catalyze as well as 

impede or repress engagement in innovative teaching. For example, a school culture in which risk-taking 

is anticipated and supported may lead to higher exploration or engagement in innovative teaching 

practices (Beghetto, 2018). However, if the school culture is more aligned with maintaining traditional 

approaches and is risk-averse, then there would likely be no support for exploring and engaging in 

innovative teaching (Fuad et al., 2022). Similarly, the consideration and adoption of innovative teaching 

practices may be associated with teacher preparation (Williams et al., 2009), administrative philosophy 

(Feldner, 2003), teacher mindsets (Nadelson et al., 2015), available resources (Chatterji, 2018), and the 

teachers’ communities of practice (Cai & Tang, 2021).  

Of interest to us is the potential association between engagement in a long-term professional learning 

community and teacher perceptions and engagement in innovative teaching. Given the potential for 

learning communities to be associated with shifts in teacher practices (Andrews & Lewis, 2007), there is 

justification to empirically determine if the shifts are toward more innovative teaching practices.  

2.4 Teacher Engagement in Innovative Teaching 

Teacher engagement in innovative teaching would likely involve teachers shifting from a didactic or 

teacher-centered instructional approach to methods that apply dialectic or Socratic exchange and student-

centered learning. Thus, innovative teaching requires shifts in teachers’ perception of their role, from 

delivering content to inspiring and facilitating students to seek meaning in ideas and phenomena (Dovey 

& Fisher, 2014; Fisher, 2021; Hattie, 2012; James & McCormick, 2009).  

When instruction is didactic, students are passively engaged, leading to disinterest in the content and 

lethargy toward learning (Fullan & Langworthy, 2013; George et al., 2000; Lord, 1999; Secker, 2002). 

In contrast, when instruction shifts from teacher-centered to student-centered problem or project-based 

learning, students experience and display increased interest and engagement in learning (Barron & 

Darling-Hammond, 2008; Bell, 2010; Dole et al., 2015; Thomas, 2000). Due to increased engagement in 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

56 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

learning, student-centered teaching leads to higher student achievement (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 

2008; Thomas, 2000). It is important to note that innovation instruction may be observed at differing 

levels of implementation (Lambriex-Schmitz et al., 2020). 

The evolution of teacher consideration, adoption, and implementation of innovative instruction 

progresses through multiple stages, from awareness to complete integration (De Jong & Den Hartog, 

2008; Fullan, 2015; West & Farr, 1989). Teacher consideration of innovative instruction begins with the 

recognition of a problem, such as dissatisfaction with teaching (Cai & Tang, 2022) using traditional 

approaches, lackluster student engagement in learning, and mediocre levels of student achievement (De 

Jong & Den Hartog, 2008; Fullan, 2015; West & Farr, 1989). If the dissatisfaction is sufficient, teachers 

are likely to begin to explore more innovative instructional approaches such as project-based learning, 

collaborative learning, and curriculum integration. The successful initial implementation of innovative 

instruction may initiate a positive feedback loop, further motivating and solidifying continued innovative 

instructional practices (De Jong & Den Hartog, 2008; Fullan, 2015; West & Farr, 1989). However, the 

perceived barriers to the adoption of innovation may be considered to be too overwhelming, motivating 

the teachers to resist the risk-taking required to explore new instructional approaches.  

Of interest to us is how teacher engagement in long-term school-wide professional learning communities 

influences their perceptions, understanding, consideration, and implementation of innovative teaching 

practices. The lack of empirical documentation of the association between engagement in professional 

learning communities and innovative teaching provides motivation and justification for our research on 

the phenomenon. 

2.5 Innovative Teaching and Professional Learning Communities 

At the heart of the teacher-professional learning community is collaboration. This collaboration between 

teachers is the idea of an increasing emphasis on student achievement and elevating the expertise of the 

educator (Bradbeer, 2021; Fullan & Langworthy, 2014; Goddard et al., 2007; Hattie, 2023; Stoll et al., 

2006). As teachers collaborate and increase their self-efficacy, these attitudes should be fostered and 

maintained, as research has indicated that after a given amount of time, these methods and beliefs are left 

behind and return to commonplace or traditional methods of instruction (Verloop et al., 2001). Goddard, 

Hoy, & Hoy (2004, p. 8), “The sense of collective efficacy in a school can affect teachers’ self-referent 

thoughts and, hence, their teaching performance and student learning.” This is further evidence of the 

meshing and molding of educators within their team and school climate, who must have a sense that there 

can be an increase in student achievement regardless of the outside dynamics that may affect the student 

(Eells, 2011).  

Given the evidence that teacher self-efficacy is positively associated with innovative work behavior (Cai 

& Tang, 2021; Gkontelos et al., 2023) and high-performing professional learning communities predict 

higher levels of collective teacher efficacy (Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2017), there is justification for 

predicting PLCs would motivate teachers to adopt innovative instructional practices. To document the 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

57 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

potential for this phenomenon, we explored the relationship between teacher PLC engagement and their 

perceptions, knowledge, and engagement in innovative teaching.  

 

3. Methods 

3.1 Research Question 

Our overarching research question was, what are teachers’ levels of innovative practices, and how are 

they influenced by engagement in professional learning communities? To answer this question, we 

developed the following subset of guiding research questions: 

1) How do teachers define innovative teaching practices? 

2) What external barriers do teachers perceive limiting their engagement in innovative teaching 

practices? 

3) What teacher perceptions or knowledge limits their engagement in innovative teaching practices? 

4) How does engagement in professional learning communities influence innovative teaching 

practices? 

3.2 Participants 

Our participants were K-12 teachers participating in two different configurations of professional learning 

communities and, on average, had been working in the learning communities for three years. We had 79 

participants from the “network” configuration and 93 participants from the “cohort” configuration 

complete at least 90 percent of our survey items. The average age of the participants was 43.65 years (SD 

= 11.67). The teachers had been teaching an average of 15.57 years (SD = 10.20). There identified as 131 

females, 38 males, two as Other, and one participant preferred not to answer. Of the 172 participants, 27 

had a bachelor’s degree, 29 had a bachelor’s degree with some graduate coursework, 72 had a master’s 

degree, 33 had a master’s degree with some postgraduate coursework, 10 had an education specialist 

degree, and one had a doctorate. A slight majority of the participants worked in rural communities 

(50.6%), while 32.6% indicated working in suburban settings, 15.7% indicated they worked in urban 

settings, and 1.2% taught all online. Almost half of the participants taught in high schools (47.7%), with 

26.2% teaching in middle schools, 14.5% teaching in elementary/primary schools, and the remaining 

11.6% of the participants teaching in some other school configuration, such as grade K-12 schools, grade 

6-12 schools, or grade K-8 schools. 

3.3 PLC Configurations 

Our sample was drawn from two groups of teachers participating in one of two PLC configurations: the 

cohort or network configuration. The cohort configuration of PLC schools began in August 2017. A 

cohort school is awarded fifty-two onsite training sessions yearly from the professional development 

company associates for three consecutive years. The associates include a literacy coach, a math coach, 

an assessment coach, a monthly PLC coach, a PLC leadership academy year 1, an assessment leadership 

academy year 2, and an RTI leadership academy year 3 (Walley, 2023). 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

58 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

The PLC regional network configuration began in August 2021. A regional network school is partnered 

with an Arkansas Practitioner who either participated in the PLC Project or led a school through the PLC 

processes. The professional development associate facilitates in-depth learning by guiding coalitions and 

administrative teams over three years. The first year is Laying the Foundation, year two is Assessment 

training, and year three is structuring Response to Intervention (Walley, 2023). 

 

4. Methodology 

To answer our research questions, we selected to use a cross-sectional survey research methodology. We 

selected this methodology due to the large sample size, the desire to gather data from a widely distributed 

sample, and the goal of gathering both quantitative and qualitative data. We also determined that the 

exploratory nature of our research necessitated establishing a baseline of understanding of how engaging 

in professional learning communities may influence how teachers embrace and implement innovative 

teaching practices. 

4.1 Survey Development 

Given the unique focus of our research, we could not locate a survey that directly aligned with our study 

questions. Thus, we determined it was necessary to develop a survey specific to our research focus. To 

develop the survey, we adapted and modified items from three extant surveys (Edmondson, 2019; 

Gkontelos et al., 2023; Lambriex-Schmitz et al., 2020; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy, 2001). We modified 

the items based on considering each of our guiding research questions. To meet our goal of gathering 

both quantitative and qualitative data, we developed or adapted at least five selected response items and 

one free-response item for each of our guiding research questions.  

Once we completed an initial survey draft, we engaged a panel of experts to establish our instrument’s 

face, content, and construct validity. Following the review, we made some minor adjustments to the 

survey. Our final survey contained 21 selected response prompts and five free-response prompts. The 

selected response items contained positively and negatively phrased prompts such as, “The PLC 

experience has enhanced my teaching of an integrated curriculum” and “I am not encouraged to take 

risks in my teaching.” These were to be answered using a standard five-point Likert scale. The reliability 

was calculated to have a .81 Cronbach alpha.  

The free-response items included prompts such as, “Please provide your definition of innovative teaching 

practices” and “What are the barriers you encounter when using innovative teaching?” The participants 

were provided with unlimited space to answer these prompts. 

The final version of the survey also contained several demographic items. We ported the survey to an 

internet-based online survey site to distribute and archive the survey data. 

4.2 Data Collection 

Our participants included secondary educators employed by schools that are part of the Arkansas 

Regional Network or Cohorts 1-6 of the Professional Learning Communities grant. The teachers’ email 

addresses were collected from school website listings. One thousand five hundred eighty-one surveys 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

59 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

were distributed via email and sent to the Regional Network Secondary Schools, and seventy-nine 

surveys were completed. Two thousand one hundred thirty-six surveys were distributed via email to the 

Cohort 1-6 secondary schools, and ninety-three surveys were completed.  

4.3 Data Conditioning 

We began our data conditioning by removing all participants who had not completed most of the selected 

response items. We retained all participant responses in which at least 90% of the selected response items 

were answered. For the occasional missed or skipped item, we replace it with the value of the series mean 

using the SPSS routine. We then reverse-coded all negatively stated items to analyze the reliability and 

report consistency. We then coded all selected responses for analysis, adding labels associated with the 

response values. 

To condition our qualitative data, we exported the values to a spreadsheet, created a tab for each item, 

and then included the associated participants’ responses in the first column of the sheet. We had five tabs 

in our spreadsheet, each containing one of the responses to the open-ended prompts. We then populated 

the first row of the sheet with our a priori and emergent codes for analysis.  

4.4 Data Analysis 

4.4.1 Qualitative Data 

To analyze the data, we used a combination of deductive and inductive coding. We generated a set of a 

priori codes for our deductive coding based on the literature, experience working with teachers, and 

knowledge of the associated professional learning community goals (see Table 1). We also remained 

open through inductive coding to emergent codes, which we added to our analysis as we proceeded in 

our coding. As we added the codes, we re-reviewed our coded data to determine if our emergent codes 

were present in the data from the previous codes. Note that the coding frequency was based on the 

presence of the coded-related responses from the survey. 

 

Table 1. Research Question Themes and the Aligned A Priori and Emergent Codes 

Theme A Priori Codes Emergent Codes 

Definition of 

Innovative 

Teaching  

Student-Centered, Active Learning, Inquiry 

Based Learning, Focus on Ideas and Problems, 

Differentiation, Project Based Learning, 

Authentic/Performance Based Assessment 

Integrated Curriculum, Place-Based Learning, 

Teacher as Learning Coach, Interdisciplinary, 

Teacher Risk Taking, Evidence-Based, 

Alternative Assessment, Culturally Appropriate 

Altering Instructional Approach, Using 

Technology, Application of Knowledge, 

Collaboration, Student Choice, Sharing  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

60 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Definition of 

Student Center 

Teaching  

Student Choice, Differentiation by Ability, 

Student Collaboration, Problem-Based Learning, 

Culturally Responsive, Alternative Assessments 

Active Learning, Teaching as a Learning 

Coach, Life Skill Development, Direct 

Instruction 

Barriers of 

Innovative 

Teaching  

Time, Lack of Materials/Resources, Lack of 

Comfort, Fear of Failure, Need to Cover 

Content, High Student Needs, Limited 

Autonomy, Classroom Management Challenges, 

Unsupportive Leadership 

Lack of Culture of Innovation, Lack of Student 

Knowledge, Student Resistance, Lack of 

Student Motivation, No Barriers, Class Size, 

Highly Individualized Instructional Needs, 

Lack of Personal Knowledge or Creativity, 

Student Absentee  

Benefits of 

Innovative 

Teaching  

Professional Growth, Positive Impact on 

Students, Sense of Achievement, Evidence of 

Success, Empowerment, Greater Autonomy, 

Administrative Support, Peer Support, Parental 

Support 

Increased Student Engagement/Motivation, 

More Enjoyment in Teaching, Collaboration 

with Colleagues, Cross Curricular Success, A 

Culture of Innovation, Positive Impact on 

Future Teachers, Increased Reflective Practice, 

Better Use of Instructional Time, Inclusive 

Teaching/Differentiation, Examples of 

Innovative Teaching 

PLC Influence 

on Innovative 

Teaching  

Collaboration, Peer Learning, Peer Support, No 

Impact, Risk Taking, Action Research, 

Reflective Practice, Comfort with Change, 

Student Focused, Administrative Support, 

Increased Autonomy 

New Strategies/Instruction, Data Sharing, 

Student Growth, Facilitated Communication, 

Cross-Curricular Integration, Professional 

Growth 

 

 

4.4.2 Quantitative Data 

We analyzed our quantitative data descriptively. We began our analysis with a pairwise comparison of 

the responses to our selected response items. We only found two prompts where the two sample groups 

had significant differences. The first prompt we found to be significantly different was, “I am encouraged 

to take risks in my teaching” t(170) = 2.03, p = .04, with the cohort group scoring lower (M = 2.02, SD 

= .93) and the network group scoring higher (M = 2.32, SD = .97). The second prompt in which we found 

a significant difference was “The PLC encourages innovative teaching” t(170) = 2.70, p < .01 with the 

cohort group (M = 3.56, SD = 1.21) scoring significantly higher than the network group (M = 3.11, SD 

= .95).  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

61 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

We reported all others collectively and descriptively because we only found the two significant 

differences between the groups in their responses. We did report the means of both groups for 

transparency, but we did not compare the responses to each other due to the lack of significant differences 

for the remaining items.  

4.4.3 Trustworthiness 

We satisfied the trustworthiness of our research in multiple ways. First, we created a survey with input 

from a panel of experts directly aligned with our research questions. The survey enhances the opportunity 

for replication of the data collection, which contributes to both the credibility, transferability, and 

dependability of our research. Second, we developed and shared a coding scheme to allow others to 

replicate our qualitative data analysis, which enhanced the confirmability of our project. Third, we 

established a Cohen’s Kappa above .91, which can be interpreted as nearly perfect consistency in coding, 

thus establishing intercoder reliability and contributing to dependability.  

 

5. Results 

5.1 Defining Innovative Practices 

Our first guiding research question was, how do teachers define innovative teaching practices? We 

examined the responses to the related quantitative and qualitative items to answer this question. Our 

qualitative analysis examined our coded responses from the regional network and cohort survey 

responses. The results of the quantitative analysis revealed the two sample groups were not significantly 

different in their responses to our selected response items associated with innovative practices (see Figure 

2). Both groups were neutral, agreed with their perceptions of their teaching being out of the ordinary, 

and nearly agreed on encouraging student risk-taking. These results indicate a tentative perspective of 

considering the likelihood of their teaching being out of the ordinary and likely to encourage their 

students to take risks when learning. Overall, these results do not reflect innovative teaching practices. 

 

 

Figure 2. Defining Innovative Teaching Practices by Sample Group 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

62 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

We continued our analysis of the quantitative data by examining the level to which teachers self-report 

engaging in innovative teaching practices (see Figure 3). We found no significant difference between the 

responses of the two sample groups (p > .05). Collectively, their results indicate an above-average level 

of engagement in innovative teaching practices. Interpreted, the responses reflect the teacher’s self-

reports of engaging in teaching practices relatively frequently. 

 

 

Figure 3. Teacher Engagement in Innovative Teaching Practices by Sample Group (10-Point 

Scale, 0 No Engagement, 10 Continuous Engagement) 

 

To continue answering this research question, we examined the frequency of the codes for innovative 

teaching practices for trends (see Table 2). We found the focus on student engagement, such as being 

student-centered, to be a dominant trend (N = 86). Our coding also exposed a trend centered on activities 

associated with innovative instruction, such as using active learning (N = 74), technology (N = 35), 

focusing on ideas and problems (N = 19), and authentic or performance-based assessment (N = 11). We 

noted an additional trend in which the participants focused on concepts emphasized in the professional 

learning community structure and content, such as altering instructional approach (N = 90), 

differentiation (N = 33), and collaboration (N = 23) 

It’s important to note that the cohort sample participants provided more in-depth and lengthy responses 

than the regional network participants, resulting in the cohort group having approximately 3.93 codes per 

participant compared to 2.65 codes per participant for the regional network participants. When comparing 

our two sample responses, we found the cohort group had notably more frequent codes for differentiation 

(cohort = 28.92%, regional network = 12.33%), project-based learning (cohort = 20.48%, regional 

network = 10.96%), teacher risk-taking (cohort = 21.69%, regional network = 0%), alternative 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

63 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

assessment (cohort = 8.43%, regional network = 0%), and evidence-based (cohort = 7.23%, regional 

network = 0%).  

 

Table 2. Codes and Frequency by Sample Group and Combined Samples Associated with Defining 

Innovative Teaching Practices 

 Combined Samples Regional Network Cohort 1-6 

Code N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Altering Instructional Approach 90 57.69% 33 45.21% 57 68.67% 

Student Centered 86 55.13% 35 47.95% 51 61.45% 

Active Learning  74 47.44% 34 46.58% 40 48.19% 

Using Technology 35 22.44% 19 26.03% 16 19.28% 

Differentiation 33 21.15% 9 12.33% 24 28.92% 

Application of Knowledge  28 17.95% 13 17.81% 15 18.07% 

Project Based Learning 25 16.03% 8 10.96% 17 20.48% 

Inquiry-Based Learning 24 15.38% 12 16.44% 12 14.46% 

Collaboration 23 14.74% 7 9.59% 16 19.28% 

Focus on Ideas and Problems  19 12.18% 10 13.70% 9 10.84% 

Teacher Risk Taking 18 11.54% 0 0.00% 18 21.69% 

Student Choice 14 8.97% 5 6.85% 9 10.84% 

Sharing  12 7.69% 3 4.11% 9 10.84% 

Authentic/Performance Based 11 7.05% 6 8.22% 5 6.02% 

Alternative Assessment 7 4.49% 0 0.00% 7 8.43% 

Integrated Curriculum 6 3.85% 2 2.74% 4 4.82% 

Evidence Based  6 3.85% 0 0.00% 6 7.23% 

Teacher as Learning Coach 5 3.21% 1 1.37% 4 4.82% 

Place based Learning  4 2.56% 2 2.74% 2 2.41% 

Interdisciplinary 4 2.56% 0 0.00% 4 4.82% 

Culturally Appropriate 1 0.64% 0 0.00% 1 1.20% 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

64 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Additional support for the trend focused on student engagement can be found in the quote from Table 3, 

in which a cohort participant shared, “address the needs of the new generation of students and meet 

diverse learners where they are.” The response by the cohort participant illuminates the trend for the 

focus on activities associated with innovative instruction, “A variety of teaching methods incorporates 

everything from hands-on activities and technology.” Our third notable trend is emphasizing the 

differentiation of instruction for students, which is apparent in a cohort member’s quote: “Different and 

effective teaching strategies to engage students based on their needs.” 

 

Table 3. Representative Responses (Code) for the Trends Associated with Defining Innovative 

Teaching 

Trend Representative Responses 

Student Engagement Teaching practices that defy the “norms” of teaching from previous 

generations. These practices may seem counter-intuitive or not traditionally 

appropriate for the classroom. They seek to address the needs of the new 

generation of students and meet diverse learners where they are. (Student-

Centered)  

Activities Associated with 

Innovative Instruction 

Innovative teaching strategies are instructional approaches that involve the use 

of technology, hands-on activities, and other materials to help students learn in 

a meaningful way. (Active Learning) 

 A variety of teaching methods incorporates everything from hands-on 

activities and technology use to chunking and micro-lectures but it all comes 

together to be most effective for each student’s best style of learning. (Using 

Technology)  

Differentiation of Instruction for 

Students 

The process of using different and effective teaching strategies to engage 

students based on their needs can be differentiated depending on the student 

and class culture. (Differentiation)  

 Being willing to try new ways of teaching content to students, as well as new 

ways of checking for understanding. Whatever it takes for students to succeed. 

(Altering Instructional Approach code)  

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

65 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In our analysis of the qualitative responses, we found trend data defining student-centered learning 

focused on students taking an active role in their learning (see Table 4). This is observed by the combined 

responses coded for student choice (N = 116), active learning (N = 96), student collaboration (N = 35), 

and teacher as learning coach (N = 49) and consequently as the lesser response of direct instruction (N = 

2). This trend is also supported by consistency in responses between the two sample groups: student 

choice (cohort 71.08%, regional network 78.08%) and teacher as learning coach (cohort 31.33%, regional 

network 31.51%).  

It’s important to note that the cohort sample participants provided more in-depth and lengthy responses 

than the regional network participants, resulting in the cohort group having approximately 2.8 codes per 

participant compared to 2.38 codes per participant for the regional network participants. When comparing 

our two sample responses, we found the cohort group had notably more frequent codes for active learning 

(cohort = 78.31%, regional network = 42.47%) and differentiation by ability (cohort 32.53%, regional 

network = 19.18%).  

 

Table 4. How Do You Define Student-centered Learning?  

 Combined Samples Regional Network Cohort 1-6 

Code N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Student Choice 116 74.36% 57 78.08% 59 71.08% 

Active Learning 96 61.54% 31 42.47% 65 78.31% 

Teacher as Learning Coach 49 31.41% 23 31.51% 26 31.33% 

Differentiation by Ability 41 26.28% 14 19.18% 27 32.53% 

Student Collaboration 35 22.44% 14 19.18% 21 25.30% 

Problem-Based Learning 37 23.72% 14 19.18% 23 27.71% 

Culturally Responsive 15 9.62% 9 12.33% 6 7.23% 

Alternative Assessments 12 7.69% 6 8.22% 6 7.23% 

Life Skill Development 4 2.56% 4 5.48% 0 0.00% 

Direct Instruction 2 1.28% 2 2.74% 0 0.00% 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

66 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Additional support for the trend focused on students taking an active role in their learning can be found 

in the quote from Table 5, in which a regional network participant shared, “Students have choices and a 

voice, are scaffolded, and have teachers who facilitate and challenge them. Constant progress monitoring 

also occurs.” 

 

Table 5. Representative Responses (Code) for the Trends Associated with Defining Student-

Centered Learning 

Trend Representative Responses 

Students Taking an Active Role 

in Their Learning 

Student-centered refers to learning that is introduced to promote student 

curiosity and activities that will support the goals of the learning. Students are 

highly engaged, asking questions, making inferences, and supporting their 

own learning processes. (Active Learning) 

 

Student-centered learning is teaching to the whole child. It’s learning focused 

on ensuring student success by considering their behavior, learning styles, 

emotional needs, physical needs, and socioeconomic status. Students have 

choices and a voice, are scaffolded, and have teachers who facilitate and 

challenge them. Constant progress monitoring also occurs. (Teacher as 

Learning Coach) 

 

5.2 External Barriers Teachers Perceive Limiting Engagement 

Our second guiding research question was, what external barriers do teachers perceive limiting their 

engagement in innovative teaching practices? We analyzed the responses representing the quantitative 

and qualitative response items to the distributed survey. Do note that we reverse-coded the negatively 

phrased items; thus, the level to which they agreed to statements such as “I am not encouraged to take 

risks in my teaching” is due to the coding being reversed for analysis and consistency. 

Our quantitative analysis revealed the mean of the participants’ responses were nearly agree in their 

perceptions associated with barriers, or the lack of barriers, to engage in innovative teaching (see Figure 

4). Interpreted the participants’ responses reflect a feeling of safety for them to make mistakes and learn 

from them, colleagues being supportive of trying new approaches, and encouraged to take risks in their 

instruction (see Figure 4). Similarly, the participants essentially agreed their administrators did not expect 

traditional teaching approaches, and they had the flexibility to engage their students in project-based 

learning. These results indicate that potential external barriers of leadership, colleagues, and school 

culture were not perceived as influences on their propensity to engage in innovative teaching practices.  



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

67 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

 

Figure 4. Mean by Sample Group for External Barriers Teachers Perceive Limiting Engagement 

 

The qualitative analyses consisted of a priori codes and the emergent themes from the open response 

items. To determine the barriers teachers, encounter when using innovative teaching, we also examined 

the frequency of the associated codes and determined the relative trends (see Table 6). We found the 

need for more resources to be a dominant trend. The resources included time (N = 47) and materials (N 

= 28). We also found a trend that indicated barriers associated with the students’ openness to alternative 

forms of learning, as indicated by the recognition of the lack of student knowledge (N = 25) and student 

resistance (N = 24).  

Note that the cohort sample participants provided similar responses to the regional network participants, 

resulting in both samples having approximately 1.98 codes per participant. While comparing the sample 

data, we found the cohort group had notably more frequent codes for unsupportive leadership (cohort = 

15%, regional network = 2.82%).  

 

Table 6. What Are the Barriers You Encounter When Teaching Using Innovative Teaching? 

 Combined Samples Regional Network Cohort 1-6 

Code N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Time 47 31.13% 24 33.80% 23 28.75% 

Lack of a Culture of Innovation 37 24.50% 16 22.54% 21 26.25% 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

68 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Lack of Materials / Resources 28 18.54% 14 19.72% 14 17.50% 

Lack of Student Knowledge 25 16.56% 14 19.72% 11 13.75% 

Student Resistance 24 15.89% 11 15.49% 13 16.25% 

Lack of Student Motivation 19 12.58% 11 15.49% 8 10.00% 

Lack of Comfort 16 10.60% 9 12.68% 7 8.75% 

Limited Autonomy 16 10.60% 5 7.04% 11 13.75% 

Unsupportive Leadership 14 9.27% 2 2.82% 12 15.00% 

No Barriers 12 7.95% 7 9.86% 5 6.25% 

Need to cover content 11 7.28% 6 8.45% 5 6.25% 

Lack of Personal Knowledge or 

Creativity 
11 

7.28% 
4 5.63% 7 8.75% 

Fear of Failure 10 6.62% 6 8.45% 4 5.00% 

High Student Needs 9 5.96% 5 7.04% 4 5.00% 

Classroom Management Challenges 9 5.96% 3 4.23% 6 7.50% 

Class Size 5 3.31% 3 4.23% 2 2.50% 

Highly Individualized Instructional 

Needs 
5 

3.31% 
1 1.41% 4 5.00% 

Student Absentee 2 1.32% 0 0.00% 2 2.50% 

 

Further support for the trend of lack of materials and resources can be found in representative responses 

(Table 7), where a cohort participant shared, “Some of the barriers I face when using innovative teaching 

strategies is time, money, and energy. Innovative lessons do not happen by accident. They are planned 

and created in advance.” Our additional barrier trend was detected due to the student population. An 

example of this sentiment is reflected by the response from a participant in the cohort sample, “The only 

barrier I face with true project-based learning is that my students do not have anything before making 

connections.” 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

69 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 7. Representative Responses (Code) for the Trends Associated with Barriers of Innovative 

Teaching 

Trend Representative Responses 

Need for More Resources “Some of the barriers I face when using innovative teaching strategies is time, 

money, and energy. Innovative lessons do not happen on accident. They are 

planned and created in advance. There is the option to buy innovative lessons 

(from websites like Teachers-Pay-Teachers), but it can get expensive. Lastly, 

using innovative strategies requires more energy from the teacher. This can be 

discouraging to a teacher who is already tired and overwhelmed.” (Lack of 

Materials/Resources, Time) 

 

“The only barrier I face with true project-based learning is that my students do 

not have anything prior to making connections.” (Sample from cohort 

response) 

Student Resistance 

“There is pushback from students due to them not being comfortable with this 

method because they haven’t experienced it in the past.” (Sample from 

regional network response) 

 

5.3 Internal Barriers Teachers Perceive Limiting Engagement 

The third guiding research question was, what do teacher perceptions or knowledge limit their 

engagement in innovative teaching practices? We analyzed the responses representing the quantitative 

and qualitative items to answer this question. Our qualitative analysis examined our codes from the 

regional network and cohort survey responses. 

The results of the quantitative analysis revealed no significant differences between the cohort and 

regional network participants in the responses to perception or knowledge of limits of teacher 

engagement to innovative instruction (see Figure 5). Both groups responded favorably to and agreed with 

their perceptions that what they teach can be readily applied to solve problems outside the classroom. 

The sample groups also responded in agreement that they continually think of new ways to teach their 

students how to apply content to real-world problems. Both samples were in agreement that other 

innovative practices were not perceived as part of their practice, such as extending learning opportunities 

and project-based learning as a primary approach, and their dissatisfaction with their teaching motivated 

them to become more innovative and indicated more frequent use of projects to engage students in 

learning. The mean to the selected responses of using projects as extended learning opportunities, project-

based learning is the primary approach to teaching, and struggling to find creative ways to teach certain 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

70 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

subjects indicates a possible traditional approach to teaching indicated a neutral agreement to these 

indicators of engagement in innovative teaching practices. Overall, these results do not reflect 

engagement of innovative teaching practices. 

 

 

Figure 5. Teacher Engagement in Innovative Teaching Practices by Sample Group 

 

In analyzing what teacher perceptions or knowledge limit their engagement in innovative teaching 

practices, we studied the frequency of the codes and determined trends (see Table 8). We found two 

prevalent trends in the coded responses. The first trend was teachers’ perception of growth. Specific 

coding of professional growth (N = 69), sense of achievement (N = 33), and more enjoyment in teaching 

(N = 31). The second trend noted from the analysis includes the impact on students. The codes that led 

to this trend were increased student motivation (N = 47) and positive impact on students (N = 42).  

In analyzing the responses to this question, we found the cohort sample participants provided more 

thorough responses than the regional network participants, resulting in the cohort group having 

approximately 3.29 codes per participant compared to 1.95 codes per participant for the regional network 

participants. In comparing the two samples, it is noted that the cohort responses had a higher incidence 

of coding than the regional network, increased student engagement/motivation (cohort = 42.67%, 

regional network = 23.44%), sense of achievement (cohort = 33.33%, regional network = 12.50%), 

empowerment (cohort = 36.00%, regional network = 3.13%) and evidence success (cohort = 26.67%, 

regional network = 6.25%).   



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

71 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 8. What Would You Personally Benefit from in Enhancing Your Engagement in Innovative 

Teaching Practices? 

 Combined Samples Regional Network Cohort 1-6 

Code N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Professional Growth 69 49.64% 29 45.31% 40 53.33% 

Increased Student Engagement / Motivation 47 33.81% 15 23.44% 32 42.67% 

Positive Impact on Students 42 30.22% 18 28.13% 24 32.00% 

Sense of Achievement 33 23.74% 8 12.50% 25 33.33% 

More Enjoyment in Teaching 31 22.30% 10 15.63% 21 28.00% 

Examples of Innovative Teaching 30 21.58% 12 18.75% 18 24.00% 

Empowerment 29 20.86% 2 3.13% 27 36.00% 

A Culture of Innovation 25 17.99% 10 15.63% 15 20.00% 

Evidence of Success 24 17.27% 4 6.25% 20 26.67% 

Collaboration with Colleagues 17 12.23% 7 10.94% 10 13.33% 

Peer Support 6 4.32% 0 0.00% 6 8.00% 

Better use of instructional time 5 3.60% 5 7.81% 0 0.00% 

Inclusive Teaching/Differentiation 5 3.60% 0 0.00% 5 6.67% 

Greater Autonomy 4 2.88% 1 1.56% 3 4.00% 

Cross curricular success 2 1.44% 2 3.13% 0 0.00% 

Positive Impact on Future Teachers 2 1.44% 1 1.56% 1 1.33% 

Increased Reflective Practice 1 0.72% 1 1.56% 0 0.00% 

Administrative Support 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 

Parental Support 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 

 

Further evidence for the trend focused on teachers’ professional growth in innovative teaching practices 

can be found in Table 9. A response from the cohort sampling provided this statement regarding 

innovative teaching to self, “When all I do is lecture and assign worksheets, I do not feel fulfilled as a 

teacher. Using innovative teaching strategies gives me more enjoyment and allows me to be more attuned 

to student needs. It challenges me to make engaging lessons and get students excited to learn. It’s hard 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

72 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

work, but it’s rewarding work.” A cohort participant response represents the second trend found in our 

coding of positive student impact, “Students learn differently nowadays as opposed to yesteryears, and 

they would benefit from innovative teaching practices with increased retention and higher performances 

for the world in which they live.” 

 

Table 9. Representative Responses (Code) for the Trends Associated Benefits of Engaging in 

Innovative Teaching 

Code Representative Responses 

Teacher Perception of Growth 

“Any time I try new teaching practices, I learn so much about myself as a 

person, educator, and encourager. I can give examples of my struggles to my 

students when they need to try new learning methods. My struggles remind 

me that although I have been teaching for over two decades, I can continually 

learn new approaches and that it is ok to feel lost at times. These real emotions 

help me connect with my students when they feel the same things during new 

learning.” (Professional Growth) 

“Enhancing engagement in innovative teaching practices can provide 

numerous personal benefits to educators, which could not only improve the 

quality of education but also enrich teaching experiences. Some advantages 

include: professional growth, increased job satisfaction, improved student 

outcomes, increased student engagement, personal growth and fulfillment. 

Overall, embracing innovative teaching practices offers a multifaceted set of 

personal benefits, from professional growth and job satisfaction to the 

fulfillment of a sense of purpose and mission in education. It can be personally 

and professionally enriching, leading to a more rewarding and impactful 

teaching career.” (Enjoyment in Teaching, Sense of Achievement, 

Professional Growth) 

Impact on Students 

“The growth of my teaching approaches would benefit me tremendously. I 

would be able to reach all my learners more effectively.” (Positive Impact on 

Students) 

“Students learn differently nowadays as opposed to yesteryears, and they 

would benefit from innovative teaching practices with increased retention and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

73 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Code Representative Responses 

higher performances for the world in which they live.” (Increased Student 

Engagement/Motivation) 

 

5.4 Professional Learning Communities Influence Innovative Teaching 

Our fourth research question was how engagement in professional learning communities influences 

innovative teaching practices. To answer this question, we examined the responses to the related 

quantitative items and the coded responses to the associated quantitative prompt.  

The results of the quantitative analysis revealed that one selected response found the sample groups to 

be significantly different in their responses, indicating that the PLC process encourages innovative 

teaching (p > .035) (see Figure 3.6). Specifically, the cohort group (M = 3.56, SD = 1.21) scored 

significantly higher than the network group (M = 3.11, SD = .95) in the selected response. There was no 

significant difference between the samples in the responses to items indicating teachers are engaged more 

in project-based learning, alternative assessment, or enhancing their teaching of an integrated curriculum. 

The sample groups indicated a near-neutral agreement in their perceptions of innovative teaching 

endeavors being influenced by the PLC process. Overall, these results do not indicate an influence of 

engagement in professional learning communities on innovative teaching. 

 

 

Figure 6. Engagement in Professional Learning Communities by Sample Group 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

74 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

In determining what influence professional learning communities have on innovative teaching practices, 

we analyzed the frequency of the codes and determined trends (see Table 10). A common trend emerged 

from the combined coded responses; educators indicated that the PLC process has made them more 

innovative through collaborative growth. Specific coding of collaborative growth was determined by 

specific codes of collaboration (N = 71), professional growth (N = 58), peer learning (N = 56), peer 

support (N = 52), and new strategies/instruction (N = 49). Contrary to the prominent trend, an additional 

trend was found in the responses, where the PLC had no impact (N = 43) on the teachers’ innovative 

instructional practices. The coded responses from participants indicating that the PLC had no impact on 

their innovative teaching practices were indicated by 31% of participants.  

It’s important to note that the cohort sample participants provided more in-depth and lengthy responses 

than the regional network participants, resulting in the cohort group having approximately 4.13 codes per 

participant compared to 3.44 codes per participant for the regional network participants. Through the 

analysis of the two sample populations surveyed, it is noted that the cohort responses had a higher 

incidence of coding than the regional network, student-focused (cohort 34.67%, regional network 

12.70%), reflective practice (cohort 29.33%, regional network 14.29%), student growth (cohort 25.33%, 

6.35%), facilitated communication (cohort 16.00%, regional network 4.76%). 

 

Table 10. How Has the PLC Made You a More Innovative Teacher?  

 Combine Samples Regional Network Cohort 1-6 

Code N Percent N Percent N Percent 

Collaboration 71 51.45% 31 49.21% 40 53.33% 

Professional Growth 58 42.03% 20 31.75% 38 50.67% 

Peer Learning 56 40.58% 25 39.68% 31 41.33% 

Peer Support 52 37.68% 23 36.51% 29 38.67% 

New Strategies/ Instruction 49 35.51% 25 39.68% 24 32.00% 

No Impact 43 31.16% 19 30.16% 24 32.00% 

Student Focused 34 24.64% 8 12.70% 26 34.67% 

Risk Taking 32 23.19% 17 26.98% 15 20.00% 

Reflective Practice 31 22.46% 9 14.29% 22 29.33% 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

75 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Action Research 28 20.29% 13 20.63% 15 20.00% 

Student Growth 23 16.67% 4 6.35% 19 25.33% 

Comfort with Change 18 13.04% 9 14.29% 9 12.00% 

Facilitated Communication 15 10.87% 3 4.76% 12 16.00% 

Data Sharing 10 7.25% 6 9.52% 4 5.33% 

Cross Curricular Integration 3 2.17% 2 3.17% 1 1.33% 

Administrative Support 2 1.45% 2 3.17% 0 0.00% 

Increased Autonomy 2 1.45% 1 1.59% 1 1.33% 

 

Continued evidence of the trend that the PLC process (see Table 11) has made them more innovative 

through collaborative growth is observed in the representative responses. A response from the cohort 

sampling provided this statement regarding innovation and professional growth. The codes of 

professional growth include collaboration, professional growth, peer learning, peer support, and new 

strategies. A representative response from cohort samples includes, “By collaborating with my 

colleagues, I have been able to develop new and creative ways to teach my students.” An example 

response of professional growth from the cohort population’s involvement in the PLC process is, 

“Because we are striving for achievement for ALL students, it has caused me to try new ways of teaching 

for ALL students. Many students don’t learn the way we’ve always taught the content, or they can’t 

express their mastery the way we’ve always assessed them. It’s important to meet them where they are 

and ensure everyone is successful.” The cohort samples also provide an example of peer learning 

response, “The PLC experience has pushed me to focus on all my students more than ever with new 

teaching techniques and what I have learned from other professionals.” A continuation of the theme of 

peer support in responses provided by the regional network included, “In the past, I was able to work for 

a full day each semester with the electives PLC group in my school. During that time, we were able to 

discuss new ideas we were trying in our classrooms, and I was able to talk out ways to be innovative in 

my teaching. We could often adapt new ideas to fit each elective and work out lessons that worked for 

each teacher’s subject area and teaching style.” New strategies also emerged as a theme of the influence 

on innovative teaching from the PLC process. A respondent example from the regional network, “Pushed 

me outside my comfort zone and created an entirely new mindset shift for myself and the way my students 

view learning, mistakes, and successes.” 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

76 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Table 11. Representative Responses (Code) for the Trends Associated with the Impact of 

Professional Learning Communities on Innovative Teaching 

Trend Representative Responses 

Collaborative Growth 

“By collaborating with my colleagues, I have been able to come up with new 

and creative ways to teach my students.” (Collaboration) 

“In the past, I was able to work for a full day each semester with the electives 

PLC group in my school. During that time, we were able to discuss new ideas 

we were trying in our classrooms and I was able to talk out ways to be 

innovative in my own teaching. We could often adapt new ideas to fit each 

elective and work out lessons that worked for each teacher’s subject area and 

teaching style.” (Professional Growth, Peer Learning, Peer Support, New 

Strategies/Instruction) 

No Impact  

“I can’t claim that my PLC experience has made me more innovative. My 

cohort is made up of more seasoned teachers that tend to be stuck in their 

ways and I am typically the one bringing new ideas to the table.” (No impact) 

“PLCs are a once-a-week meeting of my department to talk about upcoming 

events then break up into subject groups and compare test results. We do not 

share professional experiences.” (No impact) 

 

6. Discussion, Implications, and Limitations  

6.1 Definitions of Innovative Teaching Practices  

In our analysis of the participants’ definition of innovative teaching, we found the participants tended to 

focus on student-centered active learning, the use of technology, problem-solving, and risk-taking. A 

notable outcome of our research is the lack of connection between innovative teaching and the content 

of the PLCs. Another notable outcome is the participating teachers tended to convey rather conservative 

instructional practices but viewed innovative teaching from a more progressive perspective. An important 

implication of our findings and outcomes is that there is little or no association between PLC engagement 

and innovative teaching. In other words, the participants’ PLC engagement did not foster motivation to 

adopt and implement innovative teaching practices. An important direction for future research is the 

exploration of other PLC configurations to determine what content and approaches may enhance teacher 

propensity to engage in innovative teaching practice. 

 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

77 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

6.2 External Barriers to Innovation 

Our analysis of external barriers revealed the PLC did not foster innovation. The levels of support for 

innovation varied by sample group. A critical implication for our findings is the potential that engagement 

in professional learning communities does not lower barriers to teachers engaging in innovative teaching 

practices. We speculate that the PLC focus on remediation and support for underperforming learners 

creates conditions in which traditional teaching practices are embraced; and novel teaching practices are 

not encouraged. It is also possible that the general school culture is based on a foundation of traditional 

teaching practices that tend to be didactic and teacher-centered rather than innovative and student-

centered. As noted in the trends of the external barriers, student resistance was found to be a barrier. This 

potentially indicates additional evidence for the lack of culture within the school to implement or engage 

in innovative instruction. Changing such cultures may be unrelated to the work of the PLCs. The change 

may also require a catalyst such as a visionary, innovative, forward-thinking principal who is actively 

engaged in motivating change (Clark, 2020; Edmondson, 2019). A possible direction for future research 

is the study of the role of the leader in establishing a culture of innovation as a critical element of the 

professional learning community objectives. 

6.3 Internal Barriers to Innovation 

In our analysis of internal barriers, we found teachers have a desire to grow professionally and their 

impact on students. Ironically, we also found that the teachers desired to teach in ways that allowed their 

students to solve problems. The teachers continually thought of new ways to teach their students to apply 

content to real-world situations. The implication for our finding is that the desire of the teachers to teach 

in ways that are innovative and engage their students was not reflected in their practice, which means 

they hold thoughts of innovation but lack the action to engage in innovation. We speculate the internal 

barrier bridging thought to action is likely reflective of low teacher efficacy, limiting their propensity to 

take control of their instruction and engage in innovative teaching practices. Thus, a critical direction for 

future research is a deep examination of innovative teaching practices and teacher efficacy in relationship 

to engagement in professional learning communities. 

6.4 Professional Learning Communities Influence Innovative Teaching 

Our analysis of how engagement in professional learning communities influenced innovative teaching 

practices revealed that the PLC process may support innovative thinking through teacher collaborative 

growth. The differences in responses likely indicate the duration and configuration of the PLCs influence 

teachers’ thoughts about innovative teaching. However, approximately a third of the participants 

indicated that the PLCs had no impact on their teaching practices, suggesting that learning communities 

are not structured to foster innovative teachers. An implication of this finding is the potential loss of an 

opportunity to enhance innovative teaching and, thereby, student engagement and achievement. 

Ironically, student engagement and achievement are goals of the PLCs, perpetuating a more traditional 

approach to education rather than more progressive approaches (DuFour et al., 2016). An important 

direction for future research is to examine multiple models of PLCs to determine what structures and 



www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

78 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

content are most effective at fostering change in teacher practices toward more innovative, integrated, 

and student-centered instruction.  

6.5 Limitations 

The primary limitation of our study was the limited number of teachers who participated in our research 

and completed our survey. The level of participation is consistent with survey research. However, the 

limited participation could have led to gathering data that was not necessarily representative of the 

population of teachers engaged in the two PLC configurations. Additional research or replication of our 

research is needed to determine if our results are consistent with the larger population. 

Our research delimitations include the inability to follow up with participants to clarify their responses, 

the inability to ensure the representation of all groups in the data set, and the inability to offer clarification 

of our items if the participants were unsure of our language or expectations. Again, we hope others will 

build on our research and explore opportunities to address these delimitations further to ensure the data 

are accurate and representative of the study populations. 

 

7. Conclusion  

For our research, we sought to document the influence of PLCs on the external and internal barriers to 

teachers’ engagement in innovative teaching. We found that teachers desire to implement innovative 

teaching practices to impact student achievement positively; however, barriers still need to be addressed 

despite engagement in PLCs. Our research provides a rare foundation for documenting teachers’ ideas 

of innovative teaching and barriers that remain, indicating that PLCs do not eliminate internal or external 

barriers to engagement in innovative instruction. The foundation is critical as we continue to explore the 

impact of PLC on these barriers and to explore PLC models that would reduce barriers to innovative 

instruction. 

 

References 

Andrews, D., & Lewis, M. (2007). Transforming practice from within: The power of the professional 

learning community. Professional learning communities: Divergence, depth and dilemmas, 132-

147. 

Barron, B., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Teaching for Meaningful Learning: A Review of Research 

on Inquiry-Based and Cooperative Learning. Book Excerpt. George Lucas Educational Foundation. 

Beghetto, R. A. (2018). Taking Beautiful Risks in Education. Educational Leadership, 76(4), 18-24. 

Bell, S. (2010). Project-Based Learning for the 21st Century: Skills for the future. The Clearing House: 

A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 83(2), 39-43. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415 

Bradbeer, C. (2021). The Enactment of Teacher Collaboration in Innovative Learning Environments: A 

Case Study of Spatial and Pedagogical Structuration. Teacher Transition into Innovative Learning 

Environments, 47-60. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_5 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00098650903505415
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_5


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

79 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Cai, Y., & Tang, R. (2021). School support for teacher innovation: Mediating effects of teacher self-

efficacy and moderating effects of trust. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 41, 100854. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100854 

Cai, Y., & Tang, R. (2022). School support for teacher innovation: The role of basic psychological need 

satisfaction. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 45, 101096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101096 

Cantrell, S. C., & Callaway, P. (2008). High and low implementers of content literacy instruction: 

Portraits of teacher efficacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(7), 1739-1750. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.02 

Carmeli, A., & Schaubroeck, J. (2007). The influence of leaders’ and other referents’ normative 

expectations on individual involvement in creative work. The Leadership Quarterly, 18(1), 35-48. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.001 

Chatterji, A. K. (2018). Innovation and American K-12 Education. Innovation Policy and the Economy, 

18, 27-51. https://doi.org/10.1086/694406 

Clark, T. R. (2020). The 4 stages of psychological safety: Defining the path to Inclusion and Innovation. 

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.  

De Jong, J. P., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2008). Innovative work behavior: Measurement and validation. 

EIM Business and Policy Research, 8(1), 1-27. 

Dole, S., Bloom, L., & Kowalske, K. (2015). Transforming Pedagogy: Changing Perspectives from 

Teacher-Centered to Learner-Centered. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-Based Learning, 

10(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1538 

Dovey, K., & Fisher, K. (2014). Designing for adaptation: the school as a socio-spatial assemblage. The 

Journal of Architecture, 19(1), 43-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2014.882376 

DuFour, R., DuFour, R. B., Eaker, R. E., Many, T. W., & Mattos, M. (2016). Learning by doing: A 

handbook for professional learning communities at work. Solution Tree Press.  

Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The fearless organization: Creating psychological safety in the workplace for 

learning, innovation, and growth. John Wiley & Sons. 

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an 

Interpersonal Construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational 

Behavior, 1(1), 23-43. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305 

Eells, R. J. (2011). Meta-analysis of the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and student 

achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Loyola University Chicago. 

Feldner, L. M. C. (2003). The role of the school administrators in supporting teachers in the integration 

of educational technology into K–12 classrooms. (Doctoral Dissertation Scholarly Commons). The 

University of North Dakota. 

Fisher, K. (2021). Co-creating Innovative Learning Environments: LEaRN’s Decade of Discovery. 

Teacher Transition into Innovative Learning Environments, 9-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-

15-7497-9_2 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100854
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101096
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.02.02
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2006.11.001
https://doi.org/10.1086/694406
https://doi.org/10.7771/1541-5015.1538
https://doi.org/10.1080/13602365.2014.882376
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-031413-091305
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_2
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-7497-9_2


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

80 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Fuad, D. R. S. M., Musa, K., & Hashim, Z. (2022). Innovation culture in education: A systematic review 

of the literature. Management in Education, 36(3), 135-149. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020620959760 

Fullan, M. (2015). The new meaning of educational change. Teachers college press. 

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2013). Towards a new end: New pedagogies for deep learning. 

Fullan, M., & Langworthy, M. (2014). A rich seam: How new pedagogies find deep learning. Canadian 

Electronic Library.  

George, A. A., Hall, G. E., & Uchiyama, K. (2000). Extent of implementation of standards-based 

approach to teaching mathematics and student outcomes. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 35(1), 

8–25.  

Gkontelos, A., Vaiopoulou, J., & Stamovlasis, D. (2023). Teachers’ innovative work behavior as a 

function of self-efficacy, Burnout, and irrational beliefs: A structural equation model. European 

Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education, 13(2), 403-418. 

https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13020030 

Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K., & Hoy, A. W. (2004). Collective efficacy beliefs: Theoretical developments, 

empirical evidence, and future directions. Educational researcher, 33(3), 3-13. 

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003 

Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A Theoretical and Empirical 

Investigation of Teacher Collaboration for School Improvement and Student Achievement in Public 

Elementary Schools. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 109(4), 877-

896. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810710900401 

Gruenewald, D. A., & Smith, G. A. (Eds.). (2014). Place-based education in the global age: Local 

diversity. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769844 

Hasanefendic, S., Birkholz, J. M., Horta, H., & van der Sijde, P. (2017). Individuals in action: Bringing 

about innovation in Higher Education. European Journal of Higher Education, 7(2), 101-119. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1296367 

Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers. London & New York: Routledge. 

https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181522 

Hattie, J. (2023). Visible learning, the sequel: A synthesis of over 2,100 meta-analyses relating to 

achievement. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003380542 

Hsiao, H.-C., Chang, J.-C., Tu, Y.-L., & Chen, S.-C. (2011). The Impact of Self-efficacy on Innovative 

Work Behavior for Teachers. International Journal of Social Science and Humanity, 31-36. 

https://doi.org/10.7763/ijssh.2011.v1.6 

Huntington, L. J. (2021). Authentic assessments in the middle school science classroom. (Masters Thesis). 

University of Montana.  

James, M., & McCormick, R. (2009). Teachers learning how to learn. Teaching and teacher education, 

25(7), 973-982. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.023 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020620959760
https://doi.org/10.3390/ejihpe13020030
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033003003
https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810710900401
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315769844
https://doi.org/10.1080/21568235.2017.1296367
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203181522
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003380542
https://doi.org/10.7763/ijssh.2011.v1.6
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.023


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

81 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Lambriex-Schmitz, P., Van der Klink, M. R., Beausaert, S., Bijker, M., & Segers, M. (2020). Towards 

successful innovations in education: Development and validation of a multi-dimensional Innovative 

Work Behaviour Instrument. Vocations and Learning, 13(2), 313-340. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09242-4 

Lee, E., & Hannafin, M. J. (2016). A design framework for enhancing engagement in student-centered 

learning: Own it, learn it, and share it. Educational Technology Research and Development, 64(4), 

707-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-015-9422-5  

Lord, T. R. (1999). A comparison between traditional and constructivist teaching in environmental 

science. The Journal of Environmental Education, 30(3), 22-27. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601874  

McManus, J. (2006). Leadership and team development. In Leadership: Project and human capital 

management (pp. 24-59). Butterworth-Heinemann.  

Nadelson, L. S. (2009). How can true inquiry happen in K-16 science education? Science Educator, 18(1). 

Nadelson, L. S., & Seifert, A. L. (2017). Integrated STEM defined: Contexts, challenges, and the future. 

The Journal of Educational Research, 110(3), 221-223. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775 

Nadelson, L. S., Seifert, A. L., & Sias, C. (2015). To change or not to change: indicators of K-12 teacher 

engagement in innovative educational practices. International Journal of Innovation in Education, 

3(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijiie.2015.074704 

Nadelson, L. S., Sias, C., & Seifert, A. (2016). Challenges for Integrating Engineering into the K-12 

Curriculum: Indicators of K-12 Teachers’ Propensity to Adopt Innovation. 2016 ASEE Annual 

Conference & Exposition Proceedings. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.26471  

Secker, C. V. (2002). Effects of inquiry-based teacher practices on science excellence and equity. The 

Journal of Educational Research, 95(3), 151-160. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596585 

Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning 

communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), 221-258. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8 

Surmilasari, N., & Usman, H. (2022). Creative thinking with STEM-based project-based learning model 

in elementary mathematics learning. Journal Pendidikan Dasar Nusantara, 7(2), 434-444. 

https://doi.org/10.29407/jpdn.v7i2.17002 

Thomas, J. W. (2000). A Review of the Research on Project-Based Learning, 1-45. San Rafael, CA: The 

Autodesk.  

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Barr, M. (2004). Fostering Student Learning: The Relationship of Collective 

Teacher Efficacy and Student Achievement. Leadership & Policy in Schools, 3(3), 189-209. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503706 

Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, A. W. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching 

and Teacher Education, 17(7), 783-805. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0742-051x(01)00036-1  

https://doi.org/10.1007/s12186-020-09242-4
https://doi.org/10.1080/00958969909601874
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2017.1289775
https://doi.org/10.1504/ijiie.2015.074704
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220670209596585
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-006-0001-8
https://doi.org/10.29407/jpdn.v7i2.17002
https://doi.org/10.1080/15700760490503706


www.scholink.org/ojs/index.php/elsr              Education, Language and Sociology Research              Vol. 6, No. 1, 2025 

82 
Published by SCHOLINK INC. 

Verloop, N., Van Driel, J., & Meijer, P. (2001). Teacher knowledge and the knowledge base of teaching. 

International Journal of Educational Research, 35(5), 441-461. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-

0355(02)00003-4  

Voelkel, R. H., Jr., & Chrispeels, J. H. (2017). Understanding the link between professional learning 

communities and teacher collective efficacy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 28(4), 

505-526. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2017.1299015  

Walley, M. (2023). The Journey of a Professional Learning Community Success Across Arkansas. Little 

Rock; Office of Special Projects, Division of Elementary & Secondary Education, Arkansas 

Department of Education.  

West, M. A., & Farr, J. L. (1989). Innovation at work: Psychological perspectives. Social behaviour. 

Williams, M. K., Foulger, T. S., & Wetzel, K. (2009). Preparing preservice teachers for 21st century 

classrooms: Transforming attitudes and behaviors about innovative technology. Journal of 

Technology and Teacher Education, 17(3), 393-418. 

 

 

https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(02)00003-4
https://doi.org/10.1016/s0883-0355(02)00003-4

