The Relationship of Professional Learning Communities’ (PLC) Engagement towards Teachers’ Competence

The Relationship of Professional Learning Communities’ (PLC) Engagement towards Teachers’ Competence

Floreda Dumandan, Dr. James L. Paglinawan

Professional Education Department, Central Mindanao University

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51584/IJRIAS.2025.100500046

Received: 27 April 2025; Accepted: 06 May 2025; Published: 07 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explored the relationship between teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and their instructional competence. Using a descriptive-correlational design, data were collected from 175 elementary school teachers in District I of Don Carlos, Bukidnon. Teachers showed a high level of engagement in PLCs. Mean scores were 4.17 for Collaborative Culture, 4.20 for Focus on Learning, and 4.17 for Shared Practice. These results indicate active participation in team-based discussions, reflective practice, and shared responsibility for instructional improvement. Teachers rated themselves as competent in all three instructional areas. Pedagogical Skills had the highest mean (M = 4.22), followed by Assessment Practices (M = 4.16) and Content Knowledge (M = 4.11). These scores reflect confidence in classroom teaching, evaluation methods, and subject expertise. A significant positive correlation (r = 0.330, p < 0.01) was found between PLC engagement and instructional competence. This suggests that increased involvement in collaborative professional practices supports higher teaching effectiveness. While based on self-assessments, the findings suggest that active PLC participation enhances instructional competence. Promoting collaboration and shared learning is key to ongoing teacher development and improved educational outcomes.

Keywords – Professional Learning Community, Teacher Competence

INTRODUCTION

The evolving demands of the 21st century call for educators to continuously advance their skills through high-quality professional development ^[35]. This research investigates the impact of engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) on teachers’ competence. PLCs are defined as collaborative, reflective, and goal-driven groups focused on enhancing instructional practices. By analyzing relevant data, the study explores whether active involvement in PLCs contributes to improved teacher competence and, consequently, better educational outcomes. The findings provide valuable insights into strategies for supporting teachers’ professional growth.

While studies have explored the impact of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) on teachers, a gap remains in understanding the relationship of this factor on teaching competence. Research links PLC participation to job satisfaction, emphasizing trust and emotional intelligence ^[57]. Leadership’s role in shaping teachers’ attitudes toward change has been examined, though not directly linked to teaching competence ^[38]. Despite these findings, limited research investigates how PLC engagement enhances instructional ability, adaptability, and overall professional growth. Addressing this gap could offer valuable insights into strategies for improving teacher competence, particularly in content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and assessment practices.

This study is relevant as it investigates how Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) engagement contributes to teacher competence. PLCs have been shown to enhance instructional practices, promote collaboration, and improve problem-solving skills, all of which are crucial for teacher effectiveness. This study sheds light on how schools may foster teacher competence, ensuring that educators remain highly trained, motivated, and capable of delivering quality instruction in an increasingly demanding educational setting.

The results showed that teacher learning groups had a positive impact on teachers’ teaching competence ^[33]. Based on these findings, they suggested that policy efforts are needed to revitalize teacher learning groups, foster a cooperative teaching culture, and enhance teacher efficacy to improve teaching competency. Although Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) aim to improve teaching practices, research has highlighted various challenges that can limit their effectiveness, including time constraints, trust issues among colleagues, and conflicts with promotion and ranking systems ^[62].

Thus, this study aimed to bridge that gap by examining the relationship of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) to teachers’ competence. The primary focus of the study was to explore how teachers’ engagement in PLCs related to their level of competence. Specifically, the study examined the level of teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities in terms of collaborative culture, focus on learning, and shared practice. It also investigated the level of teachers’ competence in relation to content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and assessment practices. Furthermore, the study sought to determine whether a significant relationship existed between teachers’ engagement in PLCs and their overall competence. The study was conducted during the second semester of the academic year 2024–2025.

METHODS

This chapter outlines the methodology used in the study, detailing the research design, participants, study locale, data gathering procedure, instrumentation, and statistical techniques. The primary goal was to explore the relationship between teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and their competence in the classroom.

The study utilized a descriptive-correlational quantitative research design. Data were gathered using standardized survey questionnaires distributed to elementary school teachers. These data were then analyzed statistically to identify any significant relationships between PLC engagement and various aspects of teacher competence, offering empirical support for professional development strategies in education.

The study was conducted among 175 elementary school teachers from District I of Don Carlos, Bukidnon, under the Department of Education. The respondents came from four schools: Don Carlos Norte Elementary School, Don Carlos Central Elementary School, Kibatang Elementary School, and Sinangguyan Elementary School.

The research study utilized 3 adopted questionnaires from three different studies.  It includes a questionnaire for assessing professional learning communities’ engagement, adapted from the study by Lucenario, J. M., & Lee, J. (2021). which consists of three sub-constructs: Collaborative Culture, Focus on Learning, and Shared Practice, each comprising ten questions. The other questionnaire is for teachers’ competence, which has three (3) sub-constructs, namely, Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Skills, and Assessment Practices, and is adopted from Mendoza, A. (2019).

The data gathering process began with the approval of the research title and instrument by the research adviser, followed by formal permission from the college dean to conduct the study among elementary school teachers during the academic year 2024–2025. Approved survey forms were personally distributed to selected participants, who were assured of confidentiality and given a specific time to complete the questionnaires. Once collected, the data were analyzed using descriptive statistics to assess levels of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) engagement and teacher competence. Additionally, Spearman rho correlation was used to examine the strength of the relationship between these variables, as the data were not normally distributed.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter contains the presentation, analysis, and interpretation of data gathered from the participants. The order of presentation is based on the order of specific objectives of the study.

Table 1 shows the level of teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities in terms of collaborative culture. The level of teachers’ engagement is shown through descriptive statistics, specifically the mean.

Table 1. Level of the teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities in terms of collaborative culture.

Table 1 presents the level of teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) with respect to collaborative culture, showing an overall mean score of 4.17, which falls under the “Engaged” category. Among the indicators, “Conflicts within our PLC are addressed constructively” and “Teachers in my PLC are committed to working together to achieve common goals” both attained the highest mean score of 4.27, reflecting a strong alignment toward conflict resolution and collective effort. “Communication within our PLC is open and honest” followed with a mean of 4.18, highlighting transparency and openness as key features of these communities. Meanwhile, items such as “Teachers in my PLC willingly share resources and materials with one another” (4.06), “Our PLC provides a safe space for teachers to openly share their challenges” (4.11), and “I feel like a valued member of my PLC” (4.13) received comparatively lower ratings.

The analysis of the data reveals that while all indicators fall under the “Engaged” category, nuances exist in the strength of engagement across different collaborative aspects. The highest-rated items emphasize constructive conflict resolution, shared commitment to goals, and open communication, suggesting that teachers are generally unified and work cohesively. On the other hand, the lower-rated indicators hint at potential gaps in emotional safety, inclusivity, and resource-sharing within the PLC. The relatively lower scores in these areas may be attributed to differences in interpersonal dynamics, workload pressures, or insufficient structures for collaboration, which can subtly hinder a fully integrated and supportive professional learning culture.

The overall mean score of 4.17 signifies that teachers are engaged in their PLCs in terms of collaborative culture. This reflects a generally positive environment where mutual respect, communication, and collaboration are present. However, the slightly lower scores in certain indicators suggest that while foundational engagement is strong, there is room to deepen collaboration by fostering more openness, ensuring all members feel valued, and encouraging more proactive sharing of resources. Strengthening these areas can elevate the PLC from a functionally engaged group to a highly engaged and deeply connected professional learning community.

The results in Table 1 align with several established studies on Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and collaborative culture, reinforcing the significance of teacher engagement in fostering a productive professional environment. Antinluoma et al. (2021) emphasize that teacher participation in successful PLCs enhances instruction and contributes to overall school effectiveness, a finding clearly supported by the high engagement levels demonstrated in the table. Turner et al. (2017) highlight the importance of shared goals and collaborative discussions in PLCs, which aligns with the results indicating strong commitment among teachers toward achieving common objectives. The study further validates the role of trust, respect, and mutual support in PLCs, as reflected in the high ratings for open communication and interpersonal trust among teachers in the table ^[50]. Pappano (2020) underscores that fostering a sense of belonging and collaboration strengthens professional relationships, mirroring the results indicating that teachers feel valued and supported within their PLCs.

Additionally, the importance of valuing diverse perspectives and resource-sharing in PLCs is discussed, directly aligning with the indicators reflecting teachers’ willingness to engage in these practices ^[4]. Collectively, these studies support the conclusion that a strong collaborative culture within PLCs leads to high levels of teacher engagement, ultimately enhancing professional learning and educational outcomes.

Table 2 shows the level of the teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities in terms of focus on learning. The level of teachers’ engagement is shown through descriptive statistics, specifically the mean.

Table 2. Level of the teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities in terms of focus on learning.

Table 2 presents the level of teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) with a specific focus on learning. The highest-rated indicator is “I have opportunities to share my expertise with other teachers in the PLC,” with a mean score of 4.25. This is closely followed by “Improving student outcomes is a primary focus of our PLC activities”, “Our PLC uses evidence-based practices to inform our instructional decisions”, “Professional growth is a priority for our PLC”, and “Our PLC sessions are well-planned and purposeful”, each with a mean of 4.23. These high scores reflect strong alignment between PLC activities and key educational goals. In contrast, the bottom three indicators, while still within the “Engaged” range, are “Our PLC regularly discusses student learning data” (4.17), “Our PLC allocates time for reflection on teaching practices” (4.15), and “Teachers in my PLC are encouraged to experiment with new teaching strategies” (4.13). These findings suggest that there may be room for growth in promoting reflection, data analysis, and innovation within the PLC framework.

The data suggests that teachers are actively engaged in learning-centered activities within their PLCs, particularly in areas that promote professional expertise, purposeful collaboration, and a strong emphasis on student outcomes. The high ratings for evidence-based practices and goal alignment reflect a well-structured PLC framework. However, the slightly lower scores in areas such as reflecting on teaching practices, discussing student learning data, and encouraging innovation may indicate a need for more dynamic and adaptive structures. These components are crucial for continuous improvement and suggest opportunities for PLCs to further evolve into learning laboratories that not only uphold standards but also embrace reflective and innovative practices.

The overall mean of 4.20 confirms that teachers are engaged in PLCs with a solid focus on learning. The results indicate that PLCs are functioning effectively as platforms for collaboration, professional development, and instructional improvement. Teachers perceive these communities as valuable for enhancing expertise and aligning practices with student-centered goals. Nonetheless, the relatively lower scores in promoting reflective practices and experimentation suggest areas where PLCs can be more proactive. Strengthening these aspects would likely contribute to a culture of continuous growth, inquiry, and innovation, ultimately enriching both teaching practices and student learning outcomes.

The results in Table 2 align with several established studies on Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and their focus on learning. Timperley et al. (2020) emphasize that PLCs that prioritize student learning through collaborative inquiry encourage teachers to engage in reflective practices and adapt instructional methods effectively. Harris and Jones (2019) further support this by highlighting that a strong commitment to student outcomes fosters continuous professional development, which is evident in the results showing engagement in evidence-based discussions and pedagogical refinement. Jansen et al. (2021) reinforce the importance of data-driven decision-making, demonstrating how PLCs that regularly discuss student learning data lead to enhanced teaching quality and student performance, as reflected in the table’s engagement levels.

Additionally, a relentless focus on student learning within PLCs is asserted to drive instructional improvements and ensure alignment with school-wide priorities, a conclusion supported by the emphasis on aligning PLC activities with educational goals in the results ^[17]. These studies collectively validate the findings of Table 2, confirming that a strong focus on learning within PLCs leads to high teacher engagement, improved instructional practices, and overall educational effectiveness.

Table 3 shows the level of the teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities in terms of shared practice. The level of teachers’ engagement is shown through descriptive statistics, specifically the mean.

Table 3. Level of the teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities in terms of shared practice.

Table 3 presents the level of teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in terms of shared practice. The top-rated indicator is “Teachers in my PLC regularly observe each other’s classrooms” with a mean of 4.23, followed closely by “Our PLC provides opportunities for teachers to co-plan lessons” and “We collectively analyze student work to identify areas for improvement”, both scoring 4.22. These results reflect strong collaboration and a shared commitment to instructional improvement. Meanwhile, the bottom three indicators are “Participating in our PLC has positively impacted my instructional practices” with a mean of 4.04, “Our PLC creates a shared understanding of effective teaching” at 4.11, and “I feel comfortable seeking feedback from other PLC members about my teaching” with a score of 4.14. Although these remain within the “Engaged” category, they highlight aspects of shared practice that could benefit from further reinforcement.

The data in Table 3 reveal that teachers are actively engaged in shared professional practices within their PLCs, particularly in areas that involve direct collaboration, such as classroom observations, co-planning, and joint analysis of student work. These high scores suggest that teachers value and participate in mutual support and collective improvement. However, the lower scores in perceived impact on instructional practices, feedback-seeking comfort, and building a shared understanding of effective teaching may point to gaps in reflective integration and deeper alignment of teaching philosophies. These results imply that while structural collaboration is present, there may be a need to strengthen the depth of dialogue and shared meaning-making among PLC members.

The overall mean of 4.17 in Table 3 indicates that teachers are generally engaged in shared practice within their PLCs. The findings suggest that collaborative routines such as observing peers and co-planning are well-established, reflecting a positive culture of teamwork and mutual learning. However, the relatively lower ratings on indicators related to feedback, shared understanding, and perceived personal impact may indicate that some teachers have yet to fully experience the transformative potential of shared practice. Encouraging more open dialogue, reflective feedback, and alignment on what constitutes effective teaching could further enhance the collaborative culture and lead to deeper instructional growth across the PLC.

The overall result of Table 3, which reflects a high level of teacher engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) through shared practice, aligns with several established studies. Campbell and Malkus (2019) emphasize that structured opportunities for teachers to observe and discuss each other’s practices lead to enhanced pedagogical skills and deeper engagement in professional learning, supporting the indicator on classroom observations. Fuchs et al. (2021) further validate the importance of iterative sharing practices, demonstrating that professional development tailored to educators’ specific needs results in meaningful instructional improvements. Coburn and Turner (2019) highlight the benefits of co-planning lessons and collaborative analysis of student work, reinforcing the engagement levels seen in shared instructional planning and student work evaluation.

Additionally, reflective collaborative practices within PLCs are argued to foster innovation and the effective implementation of teaching strategies, aligning with the indicators on problem-solving and adapting best practices ^[63]. Wang et al. (2021) emphasize that shared practices contribute to building a coherent professional environment where educators work together to improve teaching quality and address diverse student needs, further supporting the overall findings of the table. Collectively, these studies affirm that strong engagement in shared practices within PLCs enhances professional growth, instructional effectiveness, and overall educational outcomes.

Table 4 presents the summary of teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) using descriptive statistics. The data highlights the level of engagement across three sub-variables: collaborative culture, focus on learning, and shared practice.

Table 4. Summary of the Level of the teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities.

Table 4 summarizes the level of teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) across three key sub-variables: collaborative culture, focus on learning, and shared practice. Among these, Focus on Learning received the highest mean score of 4.20, followed by Collaborative Culture and Shared Practice, both with mean scores of 4.17. All three sub-variables fall under the “Engaged” category, indicating a consistently positive level of teacher engagement across all aspects of PLC participation. The overall mean score is 4.18, reaffirming that teachers are actively engaged in the various dimensions of their professional learning communities.

The data in Table 4 highlights a balanced engagement of teachers in all three core areas of PLCs, with a slightly stronger emphasis on the learning aspect. The higher score for Focus on Learning suggests that PLCs are particularly effective in centering activities around student outcomes, professional growth, and the use of evidence-based practices. Meanwhile, the slightly lower but equal scores for Collaborative Culture and Shared Practice imply that while teachers are working well together and sharing responsibilities, there may still be opportunities to deepen collegial relationships and enhance reflective collaboration. This balanced yet nuanced result offers insight into the strengths and possible areas for further development.

The overall engagement level of 4.18, as shown in Table 4, indicates that teachers are clearly engaged in their professional learning communities. This suggests a healthy and active PLC environment where collaboration, focus on student learning, and shared professional practices are being sustained. However, the close range of scores across all sub-variables points to the importance of continuous support and enrichment in each domain. Strengthening reflective practices, fostering more open dialogue, and ensuring that collaborative efforts translate into instructional improvement could help elevate the engagement level from simply engaged to highly engaged across all areas. In PLC implementation.

The summary of the level of teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), as presented in Table 4, aligns with multiple established studies emphasizing the significance of collaboration, learning focus, and shared practice in fostering professional growth. Antinluoma et al. (2021) highlight that successful PLCs improve instruction and contribute to school effectiveness, supporting the overall engaged mean of 4.18. Turner et al. (2017) reinforce that PLCs facilitate meaningful collaboration, enhancing teachers’ ability to reflect and innovate in their teaching practices, which aligns with the strong engagement in collaborative culture (4.17).

Similarly, the importance of prioritizing student learning in PLC discussions is stressed, supporting the focus on learning (4.20), the highest-rated sub-variable ^[24]. Jansen et al. (2021) also validate the role of shared practice in refining instructional methods, echoing the engaged rating (4.17) for this sub-variable. These studies collectively affirm that teachers’ engagement in PLCs, as shown in Table 4, is a crucial factor in professional development, instructional improvement, and overall educational success.

Level of the Teachers’ Competence

Table 5 shows the level of teachers’ competence in terms of content knowledge. The level of teachers’ competence is shown through descriptive statistics, specifically the mean.

Table 5. Level of teachers’ competence in terms of content knowledge.

Table 9 presents the level of teachers’ competence in terms of content knowledge. The highest-rated indicator is “I am aware of current research and best practices in my subject area,” with a mean of 4.35, suggesting a strong awareness of evolving trends and instructional strategies. This is followed by “I can effectively explain complex concepts to my students” (4.19) and “I can differentiate instruction to meet the diverse learning needs of my students regarding content” (4.18). On the lower end, the indicators with the lowest mean scores include “I can identify and address students’ misconceptions about the subject matter” (4.01), “I can design assessments that accurately measure students’ understanding of the subject matter” (4.02), and “I am confident in my ability to answer student questions about the subject matter” (4.02). Despite being on the lower end, all items still fall within the “Competent” range, with an overall mean of 4.11.

The data in Table 9 indicate that teachers perceive themselves as generally competent in their content knowledge. High scores on staying updated with best practices and effectively explaining complex concepts reflect confidence in both theoretical understanding and instructional clarity. Meanwhile, the slightly lower ratings on assessment design, addressing misconceptions, and responding to student questions suggest that while content mastery is present, some teachers may benefit from strengthening specific instructional strategies that enhance student understanding. These findings suggest a well-grounded foundation of content knowledge that could be further supported by refining formative assessment skills and responsive teaching techniques.

The overall mean score of 4.11 in Table 9 reveals that teachers are Competent in their content knowledge. This suggests a positive self-assessment of their ability to teach subject matter effectively and keep up with educational advancements in their fields. The data shows that while teachers feel confident in their general content mastery and instructional delivery, there is still potential to elevate their competence by deepening skills related to assessment literacy, identifying student misconceptions, and building confidence in interactive content discussions. Focused professional development in these specific areas could help transition teachers from being competent to highly competent in their content expertise.

The overall result in Table 9, which shows an overall mean of 4.11, indicating that teachers are competent in content knowledge, is directly supported by several studies. Antinluoma et al. (2021) emphasize that teachers who are well-versed in current research and best practices form the backbone of effective instruction, a notion reflected in the high score of 4.35 for awareness of current research.

Similarly, a deep understanding of subject matter enables teachers to explain complex concepts clearly and address student misconceptions, which aligns with the scores of 4.19 and 4.01, respectively ^[18]. Shulman (2015) highlights the critical role of pedagogical content knowledge—integrating subject mastery with instructional strategies—in enhancing teaching effectiveness, as evidenced by the positive ratings for differentiating instruction (4.18), updating knowledge through professional development (4.10), and integrating technology (4.03).

Moreover, connecting subject matter to real-world applications significantly boosts student engagement and comprehension, a link underscored by the observed score of 4.12 ^[3]. Collectively, these studies validate that teachers in this study exhibit a competent level of content knowledge, which is essential for fostering effective teaching practices and improved student outcomes.

Table 6 shows the level of teachers’ competence in terms of pedagogical skills. The level of teachers’ competence is shown through descriptive statistics, specifically the mean.

Table 6. Level of teachers’ competence in terms of pedagogical skills.

Table 6 illustrates the level of teachers’ competence in terms of pedagogical skills. The highest-rated indicator is “I effectively use questioning techniques to promote critical thinking” with a mean of 4.30, followed by “I provide clear and concise instructions to my students” and “I reflect on my teaching practices and make adjustments as needed”, both with a mean of 4.26. Other highly rated indicators include the use of varied teaching methods (4.25) and the provision of timely feedback (4.24). On the other hand, the lowest-rated indicator is “I use formative assessment strategies to monitor student learning and adjust my instruction accordingly”, with a mean of 4.06. Despite these differences, all indicators are within the “Competent” range, leading to an overall mean of 4.22.

The data in Table 10 reveal that teachers demonstrate strong pedagogical competence, particularly in fostering critical thinking, providing clear instructions, and engaging in reflective teaching practices. The consistently high ratings in core instructional areas suggest that teachers are well-equipped to deliver effective classroom instruction and adapt to students’ needs. However, the relatively lower rating in the use of formative assessment strategies suggests an area for improvement. While teachers appear confident in their delivery and classroom management, there may be a need to enhance skills in real-time assessment and instructional adjustment based on student performance.

With an overall mean of 4.22, Table 10 indicates that teachers are Competent in their pedagogical skills. This suggests that educators are effectively applying instructional strategies, managing classrooms, and engaging students in meaningful learning experiences. The high scores reflect a strong foundation in essential teaching practices, while the slightly lower score in formative assessment use points to an opportunity for further development. Strengthening skills in ongoing assessment and feedback loops could empower teachers to make more informed, responsive instructional decisions, thereby enhancing both teaching effectiveness and student outcomes.

The overall result in Table 10, which shows an overall mean of 4.22, indicating that teachers are competent in their pedagogical skills, is directly supported by several studies. Research indicates that the effective use of questioning techniques to promote critical thinking (M = 4.30) enhances students’ cognitive engagement and facilitates deeper learning ^[8]. In addition, the ability to provide clear and concise instructions (M = 4.26) is critical for ensuring that students comprehend complex concepts ^[65]. Reflective teaching practices, with a mean score of 4.26, are essential for continual instructional improvement and align with findings that emphasize the importance of self-assessment and adaptive adjustments in teaching ^[18].

Moreover, the use of varied teaching methods (M = 4.25) to actively engage students is supported by research, which asserts that instructional diversity enhances student participation and learning outcomes ^[55]. Timely and constructive feedback (M = 4.24) coupled with effective classroom management (M = 4.23) creates a conducive learning environment ^[3]. The incorporation of active learning strategies (M = 4.23) and differentiated instruction (M = 4.21) further supports the need to address diverse student needs ^[17].

Finally, the use of formative assessment strategies (M = 4.06) plays a critical role in monitoring student progress and adjusting instructional methods, thereby consolidating overall pedagogical competence ^[28]. Collectively, these studies confirm that the high levels of pedagogical skills demonstrated by teachers contribute significantly to improved student learning outcomes.

Table 7 shows the level of teachers’ competence in terms of content knowledge. The level of teachers’ competence is shown through descriptive statistics, specifically the mean.

Table 7. Level of teachers’ competence in terms of content knowledge

Table 7 shows the level of teachers’ competence in terms of assessment literacy. The highest-rated indicator is “I provide students with clear criteria for assessment,” with a mean of 4.30, indicating strong clarity in communicating expectations. This is followed by “I give students feedback that helps them understand their strengths and weaknesses” (4.23), and both “I use a variety of assessment methods to evaluate student learning” and “I align my assessments with learning objectives” are tied at 4.19. Meanwhile, the three lowest indicators, though still within the “Competent” range, are “I use assessment results to identify students who need additional support” (4.10), “I ensure that my assessments are fair and unbiased” (4.11), and “I regularly analyze assessment data to improve my teaching practices and the validity of my assessments” (4.04). The overall mean score is 4.16, suggesting a consistent level of competence in assessment-related practices.

The data in Table 7 highlights that teachers demonstrate a competent level of assessment literacy, particularly in setting clear assessment criteria and providing meaningful feedback. These practices are essential in guiding student learning and ensuring transparency in evaluation. The lower scores in areas such as using assessment data to refine teaching and identifying students who need extra support suggest that while the basics of assessment are well-handled, the more analytical and diagnostic uses of assessment data could be further developed. This pattern reflects a strength in communication and variety in assessment tools, with some need for growth in data-driven instructional decisions.

The overall mean of 4.16 in Table 7 indicates that teachers are Competent in their assessment of literacy skills. This suggests that teachers are confident in designing, implementing, and communicating assessments in a way that supports student learning. However, the slightly lower ratings on the use of assessment data for instructional improvement and student support point to opportunities for enhancing data interpretation and application. Providing targeted professional development on formative assessment strategies, data analysis, and using assessments for differentiation could elevate teachers’ competence from competent to highly competent, ultimately leading to more personalized and effective instruction.

The overall result in Table 7, which shows an overall mean of 4.16, indicating that teachers are competent in their assessment practices as a component of content knowledge, is directly supported by several studies. The high score for providing clear assessment criteria (M = 4.30) aligns with research that underscores the importance of transparent evaluation frameworks in guiding student learning and clarifying learning objectives ^[55]. Similarly, the ability to offer constructive feedback (M = 4.23) and employ a variety of assessment methods (M = 4.19) reflects the emphasis placed on diverse and comprehensive evaluative strategies to enhance student understanding and academic achievement ^[3]. Furthermore, aligning assessments with learning objectives (M = 4.19) and the regular analysis of assessment data (M = 4.04) reinforce the critical role of data-driven instructional decisions in fostering effective teaching practices ^[1]. Additionally, effective communication of assessment results to parents (M = 4.13) and the provision of opportunities for student self-assessment (M = 4.18) are pivotal for sustaining a supportive and inclusive learning environment ^[17]. Collectively, these findings confirm that teachers demonstrate competent assessment practices, which are essential for leveraging content knowledge to drive improved student outcomes.

Table 8 summarizes the level of teachers’ competence across three sub-variables using descriptive statistics. This technique was employed to present a clear overview of teachers’ performance in content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and assessment practices.

Table 8. Summary of the level of teachers’ competence.

Table 8 provides a summary of the level of teachers’ competence based on three key sub-variables: Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Skills, and Assessment Practices. Among these, Pedagogical Skills recorded the highest mean score of 4.22, followed by Assessment Practices with a mean of 4.16, and Content Knowledge with a mean of 4.11. The overall mean is 4.16, indicating that teachers are generally competent across all areas evaluated. According to the scale used, this falls under the qualitative interpretation of “Competent.”

The results indicate that teachers demonstrate a solid level of competence across all three domains, with Pedagogical Skills emerging as their strongest area. This suggests that teachers are particularly effective in managing instructional delivery, using varied teaching strategies, and adapting their methods to students’ needs. While Content Knowledge had the lowest mean among the three, it still reflects a high level of competence, implying that teachers possess adequate mastery of subject matter but may benefit from continued opportunities for content-related professional development. Assessment Practices also scored well, highlighting that teachers are capable of designing, implementing, and analyzing assessments effectively.

The overall competence of teachers, as shown in the table, is notably strong, particularly in pedagogical application and assessment usage, which are both critical to effective teaching. The slightly lower score in Content Knowledge suggests a potential area for ongoing enrichment through subject-specific training and updates on recent educational trends. These findings emphasize the importance of supporting teachers with continuous professional learning opportunities across all competence areas to maintain and enhance instructional quality.

Based on the data presented in Table 8, the teachers demonstrated a high level of competence across all sub-variables, with an overall mean of 4.16, which is interpreted as “Competent.” This finding aligns with previous research that emphasizes the crucial role of teacher competence in ensuring effective teaching and learning processes. Highly competent teachers significantly affect student achievement ^[61]. The teachers’ competence in content knowledge (mean = 4.11), pedagogical skills (mean = 4.22), and assessment practices (mean = 4.16) reflects their ability to plan lessons effectively, utilize diverse instructional strategies, and employ varied assessment methods. The importance of content knowledge, pedagogical skills, and assessment practices as fundamental components of teacher competence is highlighted ^[13]. The findings also resonate with the study on Filipino teachers, which underscored the significance of continuous professional development and reflective practice in enhancing teacher competence and highlighted the importance of emotional and cultural competence ^[2].

Relationship of Teachers’ Engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and Teachers’ Instructional Competence

Table 9 shows the correlation between teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and their instructional competence. A normality test using the Shapiro-Wilk statistic was conducted prior to the correlation analysis. The results showed p-values less than .001 for both variables, indicating non-normal distribution. As a result, a non-parametric correlation method was used to determine the significance of the relationship between PLC engagement and instructional competence.

Table 9. Relationship of Professional Learning Communities’ (PLC) Engagement and Teachers’ Instructional Competence.

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 9 presents the relationship between teachers’ engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and their instructional competence. The results reveal a correlation coefficient (r-value) of 0.330 with a p-value less than 0.01, indicating a significant positive correlation between the two variables.

The data in Table 9 suggest that as teachers’ engagement in PLCs increases, so does their level of instructional competence. The correlation value of 0.330, while moderate, is statistically significant at the 0.01 level, supporting the idea that collaborative professional practices contribute meaningfully to instructional development. This relationship reinforces the impact of a strong PLC environment where teachers engage in reflective dialogue, lesson planning, shared practices, and peer feedback.

The significant positive relationship between PLC engagement and instructional competence underscores the value of fostering collaborative cultures in schools. When teachers actively participate in Professional Learning Communities, they gain access to shared expertise, resources, and continuous professional growth opportunities that enhance their teaching practices. This finding emphasizes the importance of institutional support for PLCs as a pathway to improving instructional quality and teacher effectiveness in the classroom.

The significant positive correlation between Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) engagement and teachers’ instructional competence (r = 0.330, p < 0.01), as shown in Table 14, reflects the growing body of research underscoring the transformative impact of collaborative professional environments. Teachers who actively engage in PLCs benefit from continuous professional development, peer learning, and collective reflection, all of which contribute to enhanced pedagogical skills and teaching efficacy ^[70]. Through regular collaboration and shared problem-solving, PLCs offer a platform for educators to refine their instructional strategies and adapt to changing educational demands ^[41]. Furthermore, the reflective nature of PLCs encourages teachers to critically assess their teaching practices and implement improvements, ultimately fostering deeper professional competence ^[42]. The sense of community and support cultivated within PLCs also boosts teacher motivation, job satisfaction, and resilience—factors that are essential in sustaining high-quality instruction ^[22]. This alignment between empirical evidence and statistical results highlights the vital role of PLC engagement in advancing teacher competence and improving educational outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study indicate that teachers exhibited a high level of engagement in Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) across all three dimensions: Collaborative Culture (M = 4.17), Focus on Learning (M = 4.20), and Shared Practice (M = 4.17). These scores reflect strong professional collaboration, openness in communication, and a collective drive toward instructional improvement. The results confirm that teachers value shared planning, evidence-based practices, and continuous reflection, which are essential characteristics of effective PLCs.

In terms of competence, teachers rated themselves as competent in all assessed domains: Pedagogical Skills (M = 4.22), Assessment Practices (M = 4.16), and Content Knowledge (M = 4.11). This indicates that they possess strong instructional capabilities, effective classroom management strategies, and a sound understanding of subject matter. While pedagogical strength emerged as their most developed area, the data also suggests that there are opportunities to further enhance content expertise and assessment literacy through targeted professional development.

A significant positive correlation was found between teachers’ PLC engagement and instructional competence (r = 0.330, p < 0.01). This supports the conclusion that collaborative professional environments contribute meaningfully to the development of teaching effectiveness. Teachers who engage deeply in PLCs benefit from shared experiences, feedback, and reflective learning, which translate into improved instructional practices. These findings reinforce the value of sustained institutional support for PLCs as a strategic approach to elevating teacher performance and student learning outcomes.

These results align with ongoing national and global efforts to promote teacher professional development and quality education, such as the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST) and Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG 4). School leaders are encouraged to institutionalize structured PLCs as a strategic approach to fostering continuous instructional improvement, advancing teacher performance, and ultimately enhancing student achievement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher extends heartfelt gratitude to Dr. James L. Paglinawan for his invaluable guidance, insightful feedback, and unwavering support throughout the course of this research. His dedication and encouragement served as a constant source of motivation in the pursuit of the study’s objectives. Sincere appreciation is also expressed to the instructors and staff who participated in the study. Their cooperation and willingness to share information were instrumental to the success of the research. The researcher is deeply thankful to friends and family for their steadfast support and understanding during the more challenging phases of the study. Their encouragement helped maintain focus and determination. Lastly, gratitude is extended to the institution and to all individuals who contributed resources and assistance, making it possible to complete the research successfully. Each of these contributions played a vital role in the completion of this work. Their support is

REFERENCES

1. Antinluoma, M., Ilomäki, L., & Toom, A. (2021). Practices of Professional Learning Communities. Frontiers in Education, 6, 617613. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.617613
2. Bernardo, A. B. I. (2019). Teaching in multicultural settings: The role of teachers’ cultural competence. Asia-Pacific Education Review, 20(3), 379–389.
3. Berry, A., Depaepe, F., & van Driel, J. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in teacher education. International Handbook of Teacher Education, 347-386. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0366-0_9
4. Borko, H., Hwang, S., & E. M. (2018). Professional Development: A Focus on Meaningful Collaboration. Teachers College Record, 120(3), 1-34.
5. Borko, H. (2016). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational researcher, 45(1), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16639636
6. Briner, R., & Dewberry, C. (2007). Staff well-being is key to school success. National Foundation for Educational Research.
7. Burroughs, N., Gardner, J., Lee, Y., Guo, S., Touitou, I., Jansen, K., & Schmidt, W. (2019). A review of the literature on teacher effectiveness and student outcomes. Springer.
8. Campbell, C., & Malkus, N. (2019). Creating professional learning opportunities through collaborative practices: Findings from the National Teacher and Principal Survey. Educational Researcher, 48(1), 26-35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X18769161
9. Capili-Balbalin, W. (2017). The Development of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in the Philippines: Roles and views of secondary school principals. http://papers.iafor.org/wp-content/uploads/papers/ace2019/ACE2019_53312.pdf
10. Carpenter, D. (2015). School culture and leadership of professional learning communities. International Journal of Educational Management, 29(5), 682–694. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-04-2014-0046
11. Chen, Y., & McClure, J. (2020). The Role of Emotion-Focused Coping in Teacher Burnout: A Study of Chinese Educators. Educational Psychology, 40(3), 234-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1782621
12. Coburn, C. E., & Turner, E. (2019). Research–Practice Partnerships in Education. Educational Policy, 34(3), 505-528.
13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Assessing teacher education. The usefulness of multiple measures forassessing program outcomes. Journal of Teacher Education, 57, 120–138.
14. Desimone, L. M., & Porter, A. C. (2015). Do the design and structure of professional development make a difference?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(2), 125-144. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737027002125
15. Dienstbier, R. A. (1989). Arousal and physiological toughness: Implications for mental and physical health. Psychological Review, 96(1), 84-100.
16. Dogan, S., Pringle, R., & Mesa, J. (2015). The impacts of professional learning communities on science teachers’ knowledge, practice, and student learning: a review. Professional Development in Education, 42(4), 569–588. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1065899
17. DuFour, R., DuFour, R. B., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2020). Learning by Doing: A Handbook for Professional Learning Communities at Work. Solution Tree Press.
18. Filgona, J., Sakiyo, J., & Gwany, D. M. (2020). Teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and students’ academic achievement: A theoretical overview. Journal of Global Research in Education and Social Science, 14(2), 14-44.
19. Fives, H., & Buehl, M. M. (2018). Teachers’ beliefs and practices: A review of the literature. In H. Fives & M. M. Buehl (Eds.), International Handbook of Research on Teachers’ Beliefs (pp. 1-24). New York, NY: Routledge.
20. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2021). Improving teacher quality through collaborative observation and feedback in professional learning communities. School Psychology Review, 50(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/2372966X.2021.1866338
21. Gulamhussein, A. (2013). Teaching the Teachers: Effective Professional Development in an Era of High Stakes Accountability. Washington, DC: Center for Public Education. Retrieved from https://www.centerforpubliceducation.org
22. Hammond, L. D., Hite, R. A., & Ziegler, A. (2019). Supporting teachers in managing stress through professional learning communities: A systemic approach. Journal of Educational Leadership, 50(2), 123-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X18773182
23. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2010). Professional learning communities and system improvement. Improving Schools, 13(2), 172-181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480210376487
24. Harris, A., & Jones, M. (2019). Leading futures: Systemic change in education. A Routledge Book. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429347035
25. Hord, S. M. (1997). Professional learning communities: Communities of continuous inquiry and improvement. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
26. Ingersoll, R. M., & Collins, G. (2018). The status of teaching and learning in the United States: The condition of education report. National Center for Education Statistics.
27. Isac, M. M., da Costa, P. D., Araújo, L., Calvo, E. S., and Albergaria-Almeida, P. (2015). Teaching Practices in Primary and Secondary Schools in Europe: Insights from Large-Scale Assessments in Education. JRC Scientific and Technical Reports. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, doi: 10.13140/RG.2.1.3224.2400
28. Jansen, E., Gunter, R., & Sweeney, C. (2021). The Power of Data in Professional Learning Communities: Insights from Teachers’ Practices. Professional Development in Education, 47(1), 25-38.
29. Jennings, P. A., Frank, J. L., Snowberg, K. E., Coccia, M. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2013). Improving classroom learning environments by cultivating awareness and resilience in education (CARE): Results of a randomized controlled trial. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(4), 374–390.
30. Jentsch, A., & König, J. (2022). Teacher competence and professional development. In Springer international handbooks of education (pp. 1167–1183). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88178-8_38
31. Jimoyiannis, A. (2018). 48 PUBLICATIONS 523 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE.
32. Kiken, L. G., Gustafson, K. E., & Roffman, R. A. (2021). The role of coping strategies in teachers’ job satisfaction and well-being. School Psychology Quarterly, 36(4), 423-434. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000412
33. Kim, J., & Cha, S. (2023). Examining the Structural Relationship among Teacher Learning Community, Teacher Collaboration, Teacher Efficacy, and Teacher Instructional Competence. Korean Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 299–319. https://doi.org/10.14333/kjte.2023.39.6.13
34. Klusmann, U., Kunter, M., & Lüdecke, F. (2020). The Impact of Maladaptive Coping Strategies on Teacher Well-Being. Teaching and Teacher Education, 88, 102952. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.102952
35. Kools, M., & Stoll, L. (2016). What makes a school a learning organisation? Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
36. Llego, M. A., et al. (2018). An analysis of the implementation of the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers. Southeast Asian Journal of Education, 8(1), 25–40.
37. Lomos, C. (2017). To what extent do teachers in European countries differ in their professional community practices? School Effect. School Improv. 28, 276–291. doi: 10.1080/09243453.2017.1279186
38. Manglallan, N. B., & Tagadiad, C. L. (2024). Transformational Leadership of School Heads, Team Building Effectiveness, and Stress Management Competency: A Structural Equation Model on Attitude to Organizational Change of Teachers. International Journal of Research and Innovation in Social Science, VIII(IX), 1393–1410. https://doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8090114
39. Mulholland, M., & O’Connor, U. (2016). Collaborative classroom practice for inclusion: Perspectives of classroom teachers and learning support/resource teachers. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 20(10), 1070-1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2016.1145266
40. Naval, R. P. (2017). Teacher competencies and their relationship to student academic performance in selected public schools in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 95(2), 45–60.
41. Nguyen, D., Boeren, E., Maitra, S., & Cabus, S. (2023). A review of the empirical research literature on PLCs for teachers in the Global South: evidence, implications, and directions. Professional Development in Education, 50(1), 91–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2023.2238728
42. O’Leary, M., Barlow, D., & O’Leary, J. (2021). The impact of professional learning communities on teacher development: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 34, 100405. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100405
43. (2019). TALIS 2018 Results: Teachers and School Leaders as Lifelong Learners. OECD Publishing.
44. Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311413609
45. Pappano, L. (2020). The Importance of Trust and Collaboration: Building Strong Professional Learning Communities. Harvard Education Letter, 36(1), 12-15.
46. Prenger, R., Poortman, C. L., & Handelzalts, A. (2019). The Effects of Networked Professional Learning Communities. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(5), 441–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117753574
47. Qiao, X., Yu, S., & Zhang, L. (2017). A review of research on professional learning communities in mainland China (2006–2015). Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 46(5), 713–728. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143217707523
48. Rabanal, S. F., & García, C. P. (2021). Collaborative Professional Development: The Role of School Culture and Teacher Agency. International Journal of Educational Research, 107, 101740.
49. Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (2019). An ecological model of school burnout: The role of personal and contextual factors. Educational Psychologist, 54(1), 10-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2018.1522404
50. Ruck, K., & Latham, K. (2019). Teacher collaboration: A prerequisite for a collaborative culture? International Journal of Educational Management, 33(5), 987-1000. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJEM-09-2018-0341
51. Sargent, T., Boughan, K., & Henry, J. (2020). Collaborative Learning: The Role of Professional Learning Communities on Teacher Development in Diverse Contexts. Journal of Teacher Education, 71(2), 187-200.
52. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2017). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73(4), 392-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290707300401
53. Seery, M. D. (2016). Resilience: A silver lining to experiencing adverse life events? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(6), 390-394.
54. Shors, T. J. (2016). The adult brain makes new neurons, and effortful learning keeps them alive. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 25(1), 1-8.
55. Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Research, 57, 1-22.
56. Sims, S., et al., 2021. What are the characteristics of teacher professional development that increase pupil achievement? A systematic review and meta-analysis. London: Education Endowment Foundation.
57. Singh, N., & Loh, S. C. (2024). Role of professional learning communities in improving teachers’ job satisfaction: why does trust in colleagues and emotional intelligence matter? International Journal of Leadership in Education, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2024.2342293
58. Skaalvik, E. M., & Skaalvik, S. (2017). Teacher self-efficacy and engagement: Relations with teacher burnout and job satisfaction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(5), 568-579. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000136
59. Sleegers, P., den Brok, P., Verbiest, E., Moolenaar, N. M., & Daly, A. J. (2013). Toward conceptual clarity: A multidimensional, multilevel model of professional learning communities in Dutch elementary schools. The Elementary School Journal, 114(1), 118-137. https://doi.org/10.1086/671063
60. Smith, M. M., Saklofske, D. H., Keefer, K. V., & Tremblay, P. F. (2016). Coping Strategies and Psychological Outcomes: The Moderating Effects of Personal Resiliency. The Journal of Psychology, 150(3), 318–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2015.1036828
61. Stronge, J. H. (2018). Qualities of Effective Teachers (3rd ed.). ASCD.
62. Tayag, J. R. (2020). Professional Learning Communities in Schools: Challenges and Opportunities. Universal Journal of Educational Research, 8(4), 1529–1534. https://doi.org/10.13189/ujer.2020.080446
63. Timperley, H., Shield, P., & Wylie, C. (2022). Breaking Down the Barriers: Engaging Teachers with Evidence in Professional Learning Communities. Teaching and Teacher Education, 115, 103833.
64. Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2020). Teacher professional learning and development: Best evidence synthesis iteration [BES]. Ministry of Education, New Zealand.
65. Turner, J. C., Christensen, A., Kackar-Cam, H. Z., Fulmer, S. M., & Trucano, M. (2017b). The Development of Professional Learning Communities and their Teacher Leaders: An Activity Systems Analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 27(1), 49–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2017.1381962
66. Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., P. A. C., & Kyndt, E. (2017). The role of professional learning communities in teacher professional development: A systematic review. Educational Research Review, 22, 53-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.02.001
67. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on professional learning communities: What do we know? Educational Researcher, 37(3), 80-84.
68. Yerkes, R. M., & Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology, 18(5), 459-482.
69. Wang, M. T., & Degol, J. L. (2016). School climate: A review of the construct, measurement, and impact on student outcomes. Educational Psychology Review, 28(2), 315-352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9319
70. Wang, W. C., Wang, Y. J., & Lin, Y. L. (2020). The impact of professional learning communities on teachers’ professional competence: A case study in Taiwan. Educational Studies, 46(2), 136-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1688587
71. Wang, Y., Kennard, M., & Wei, R. (2021). Shared Professional Practice in Teacher Learning Communities. Educational Studies, 47(4), 431-450.