Professional Learning Communities in STEM Teaching 2009 DRK-12 PI Conference November 9, :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 background  DRK12 “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methods Extension – inclusion of other kinds of research (not empirical studies, conference papers, published research not peer reviewed)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 research  Relevant education policies and organization recommendations  Published expert advice or lessons learned  Published model descriptions  Real time expert views/advice

Introduction Recap: Knowledge sources for today’s presentation  13 organizational policy recommendations  25 peer-reviewed, empirical research studies  17 other research studies  68 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 contexts  Face-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 inquiry  Problem solving  Team work and collaboration  Critical 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  Management  Online facilitation challenges  Tools 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 rigor  Current 32 Standards of Evidence (SoE) inspection ( 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 Fulton NCTAF Ted Britton West Ed Follow-Up Discussion on STEM PLC’s 4:30-5:30pm Today California Room