Professional Learning Communities in STEM Teaching

2009 DRK-12 PI ConferenceNovember 9, 20091:45pm – 3:00pm

Kathleen Fulton, NCTAF • Ted Britton, West Ed

What is your interest in this session?

Past or current projects with designing/conducting PLCs?

Research on PLCs? What did you name your PLCs?

Session Overview

Introduction (a new kind of knowledge synthesis)

Preliminary synthesis of policies and organizational recommendations

Preliminary synthesis of published expert knowledge and model descriptions

Preliminary synthesis of findings from empirical research

Upcoming synthesis of real time expert views

Introduction

Project backgroundDRK12 “Synthesis” grant (2 years)Methods adapted and extended from recent

knowledge syntheses by Horizon Research and EDC (Weiss, Miller)

Complementary roles in NCTAF/WestEd partnership

Introduction

New kind of knowledge synthesis (cont’d)Begins with a different kind of literature review

Traditional synthesis of findings from empirical, peer-reviewed studies

Addition – intensive appraisal of research methods Extension – inclusion of other kinds of research

(not empirical studies, conference papers, published research not peer reviewed)

Introduction

Given limited research, synthesis also includes knowledge other than empirical researchRelevant education policies and organization

recommendationsPublished expert advice or lessons learnedPublished model descriptionsReal time expert views/advice

Introduction

Recap: Knowledge sources for today’s presentation13 organizational policy recommendations25 peer-reviewed, empirical research studies17 other research studies68 published expert views or advice, and

model descriptions – especially with ‘lessons learned’

Introduction

Synthesis topic – Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in science and mathematics education (STEM)Both pre-service and inservice contextsFace-to-face and online Will ground discussion in context of research

on PLCs across all school subjects

Introduction

Expansive definition of STEM PLC Involving 3 or more participants (excludes 1-1

mentoring) Involving mathematics and/or science teachers Teachers only, or teachers plus other participants Joint learning or work Foci are wide range of aspects of teaching Using dozens of terms for PLCs

Setting the Context: “Expert” Advice/Policies Organization Advocacy: policy and support

statements, implementation models, and PLCS they created

Ed Week, Phi Delta Kappan and other relevant publications: reviews, descriptions, or advocacy articles about PLCs

Findings: Published Expert Advice and Policy Statements 81 articles or statements were reviewed Article Types

Policy/Position Statements: 16% (13)Support Statements: 43% (35) Implementation Model: 22% (18)Org Created PLC: 9% (7)News Article: 10% (8)

Findings: Published Expert Advice and Policy Statements Content Focus

Math: 24% (20)Science: 33% (27)Technology/Engineering: 12% (10)General: 51% (42)Online Component: 18% (15)

Findings: Published Expert Advice and Policy Statements Statements about PLCs were all positive,

though some organizations searched made no statements regarding PLCs

Little attention paid to why PLC’s are particularly relevant to STEM educators.

“Support statements” : PLCs as tool for improved teacher quality and/or improved student achievement.

Findings: Published Expert Advice and Policy Statements Policy or position statements generally

emphasized that PLCs push educators to use skills their students will need in the workforce, e.g.:Scientific inquiryProblem solvingTeam work and collaborationCritical thinking

Findings: Models and Recommended Components Little guidance on details (participants,

amount of time, size or type of groups) Few articles about PLCs overseas but

descriptions are similar Online PLCs add additional design

recommendations

Findings: Models and Recommended Components Design for reflection on practice Sharing and trust within the community Action—try new ideas/actions based on

reflection Feedback—from peers, students (!), facilitator Time—collegiality time replaces “telling” time

Findings: Models and Recommended Components Essential supports (Kennedy, Slavit, Nelson 2009)

Facilitation (knowledge, process, focus) Inquiry stance (nurturing reflection)Teacher choice (in areas of focus—teacher

concerns=buy-in)Help teachers use data effectively (student work vs.

test data)Align resources to bring coherence (vs. competing

demands, agendas)

Findings: Models and Recommended Components Online PLCs have same key components

but add attention to:Culture ManagementOnline facilitation challengesTools for interaction

Blend external network with internal plc

Audience Discussion

2 arguments have been offered as why STEM PLCs especially important:Way to move teachers closer to “scientific

workbench” model of learning from practitioner research

Way for teachers to raise fundamental questions about nature of science in supportive environment

Reactions?

Findings: Empirical Research

Synthesis background Very intensive search and screen

STEM teachers Dozens of terms for PLCs

About 50 STEM articles (versus 55 all subjects in prior search) Math/science ratio is 2/1 All school levels Only 15% in pre-service (85% PD)

Findings: Empirical Research

Major research findings:No studies reported negative findings. Only three studies examined student

outcomes; they suggest a positive relationship between student outcomes and teacher PLCs.

Findings: Empirical Research

Major research findings (cont’d):Most studies limited to documenting examples

of single PLC models effecting teacher Interactions in PLC Knowledge/beliefs, or Instruction

Examples are directly from PLC activities, but are transformative differences from pre-PLC condition.

Findings: Empirical Research

Examples of transformative differences: PLC experience:

from isolation to valued collaboration role of facilitator

Teacher knowledge, beliefs: value scientific inquiry and intend to implement increased science content knowledge

Teacher instruction: direct instruction to mathematical inquiry

Findings: Empirical Research

Future research: Further (but different) studies of single programs:

Independent researchers General condition as well as idealized General participants a well as select volunteers Changes beyond PLC-introduced examples Include outcomes further toward student outcomes Impacts measured with more objective

methods/instruments More detailed reporting of the PLC (e.g., level of effort)

Findings: Empirical Research

Future research (cont’d):Comparative studies

different programs or variants of programs in same contexts (premature to have RCT studies)

Large-scale, national survey on PLC activity (medium level of detail)

level of effort, conditions, frequency, type of PLC

Findings: Empirical Research

Future research (cont’d):Enhanced methodological rigorCurrent 32 Standards of Evidence (SoE)

inspection (0.5-1.0 day, by PhD-level analyst) Satisfactory : none Limited, very limited: half Poor : half

Audience Discussion

Take away messages from this research synthesis for policy makers and PLC designers/leaders?

Topics/questions for project's upcoming expert panel discussion?

THANK YOU!

Kathleen FultonNCTAFkfulton@nctaf.org

Ted BrittonWest Edtbritto@nctaf.org

Follow-Up Discussion on STEM PLC’s4:30-5:30pm Today

California Room