Professional learning communities (PLCs) have become an increasingly popular strategy to strengthen teaching and student learning in K-12 STEM topics, particularly mathematics and science. For designers of professional development, it is important to consider conditions that can help, or challenge, a STEM PLC to be an effective professional development strategy. The use of STEM PLCs will not be equally effective across all settings and for all purposes. Therefore, the designers and supporters of STEM PLCs are encouraged to carefully assess the potential benefits and challenges of implementing STEM PLCs.
When queried about the considerations for using PLCs as a mechanism for professional growth, a group of 12 experienced practitioners offered a number of insights, which included:
- To PLC or Not to PLC?—People responsible for designing professional development for STEM teachers should consider the benefits and drawbacks of using this approach.
- No silver bullet—STEM PLCs should not be expected to address all of the needs for teachers’ continuing education.
- Purpose should be the touchstone—STEM PLCs may be more amenable to some professional development purposes than others.
- Guarantee delivery—Ensure that the necessary resources and expertise are available to support effective STEM PLCs.
Practitioner Insights
Professional learning communities (PLCs) are an increasingly common approach for improving mathematics/science teaching and learning. The idea is that by working together, groups of teachers can improve their instruction and, in turn, increase student success. But, like any other strategy for improving STEM teaching and learning, there are advantages and disadvantages to the use of PLCs. Designers of professional development should consider a number of factors in determining whether PLCs are likely to be a successful strategy in a given context.
When queried about the considerations for using PLCs as a mechanism for professional growth, a group of 12 experienced practitioners offered a number of insights, which are described below. This knowledge review is intended to provide support to those making decisions about whether or not to use PLCs. The other knowledge reviews in this series provide insights on how to design and implement STEM PLCs.
To PLC or Not to PLC?—People responsible for designing professional development for STEM teachers should consider the benefits and drawbacks of using this approach.
PLCs are quickly becoming the “professional development strategy of choice” in many states and districts across the United States. It’s not clear whether these PLCs are resulting in deep professional learning experiences for teachers or if PLCs are just the next fad.
Experienced program leaders stressed that a particular professional development strategy is unlikely to be universally helpful, but “rather may fit a particular configuration of task/learner/goals well or not.” And, in fact, MSP designs incorporated a number of different formats for professional development, including courses on college/university campuses, courses offered via distance-learning, workshops/institutes at a variety of locations, and district, as well as school-based PLCs/study groups.
Like any other professional development strategy, the use of PLCs should be considered in light of the purpose of the professional development, the context, and the capacity and resources available to support them. For example, STEM PLCs can address issues and needs that are relevant to teachers in a specific context if they are composed of teachers in the same school or district. These types of STEM PLCs can foster a culture of continuous improvement and collaboration and can provide a mechanism for capacity-building in a school or district.
If there are large numbers of teachers involved (e.g., in a district-wide professional development initiative), keeping groups small in order to enable active participation of all teachers introduces a number of challenges. Having multiple STEM PLCs examine teaching and learning will increase the need for local facilitation capacity (i.e., the number of PLCs can easily exceed the number of skilled facilitators). The more varied the work becomes across STEM PLCs, the more difficult it is for district leaders to support that work, including locating tools and resources to scaffold the groups’ activities.
No silver bullet—STEM PLCs should not be expected to address all of the needs for teachers’ continuing education.
STEM PLCs can be a powerful and important part of a system to meet teachers’ on-going professional learning needs. While some program leaders noted that STEM PLCs with the right resources and support can function as a “stand-alone” experience, they cautioned that in most cases a PLC should be complemented by other learning experiences for teachers. In the words of one program leader:
As PLCs are typically organized (of limited duration, often require funding to support teachers’ time), they simply cannot support ALL the learning that teachers need to do.
When a PLC is a discrete component of teachers’ professional learning its success is especially dependent on access to high-quality resources and external support. Experienced practitioners noted Lesson Study as an example of a STEM PLC that can be stand-alone. In Lesson Study, teachers in a PLC identify a problem of practice and use resources to design a solution which they apply in practice. As described by one program leader:
Lesson study groups do not need to participate in an outside program as long as they have high-quality resources (or folks they can contact) to study during the first part of the lesson study cycle.
Typically, however, STEM PLCs alone will not be sufficient to address all of the learning needs of a group of teachers. Professional development planners should consider how the STEM PLC fits into a broader professional development program for teachers. For example, experienced practitioners recommended STEM PLCs be used to extend what teachers learned in other professional development experiences, such as a workshop or teacher institute, applying their enhanced knowledge to their particular contexts.
A PLC experience can also provide teachers with access to a network of support as they collaborate with other teachers in applying the professional development to their instruction. Program leaders noted that it is through the process of application and reflection that teachers create a richer understanding of what was learned in a formal professional development program as they examine the content of that program in relation to their own needs and practice.
STEM PLCs can also serve as a mechanism for teachers to share what was learned in a professional development experience with other teachers who did not attend that professional development. In this way, the PLC can be a source of dissemination of teacher knowledge. Experienced practitioners noted that, in such cases, it is important that the PLC has a critical mass of teachers who did attend a workshop or other professional development activity, who can then serve as a resource for the others. In addition, in order for this strategy to be successful, it is important that all members of the PLC share a commitment to the goals of the PLC. Said one program leader, “The important factor is that the PLC members have agreed upon the norm that all PLC members are learners and expected to contribute.”
Another program leader noted the importance of buy-in the PLC experience aimed at broader sharing:
In one PLC, experienced teachers who did not attend the broader PD were not engaged, had no buy-in and rarely had follow-through with the plans made in the PLC. They just did not get the need to change, do inquiry, require students to think and do, and this did not change throughout the year.
Insight in Action
In one MSP, the members of the STEM PLC had different experiences with broader professional development. About one-third of the PLC members had experienced some or all of the MSP-sponsored professional development (10 days during the course of the school year). Two thirds of the teachers were new to the program. This mix of teachers proved to be effective, as the teachers experienced with some of the strategies took the lead in some of the discussions/small group work, while the teachers not familiar with the tools and strategies, furthered the group’s work by asking questions and sometimes challenging statements, which helped everyone to think more deeply by explaining and justifying the use of the strategies.
Purpose should be the touchstone—STEM PLCs may be more amenable to some professional development purposes than others.
PLCs can have a number of different purposes within the context of improving mathematics and science teaching and learning, for example, deepening teachers’ understanding of student thinking about particular STEM ideas; developing teachers’ skills in designing effective instruction; developing teachers’ skills in monitoring student understanding; deepening teachers’ disciplinary content knowledge; and deepening teachers’ understanding of the nature of the STEM disciplines.
A STEM PLC should be designed and launched consistent with a specific set of purposes, and an understanding of how the experiences of the PLC is intended to help teachers improve mathematics and science teaching and learning. Being explicit about the purpose(s) of a PLC will drive decisions about its design.
Program leaders recommended the use of PLCs for the purposes of deepening teachers’ understanding of student thinking about specific STEM ideas, and developing teachers’ skills in designing effective instruction and monitoring student understanding. These purposes closely resemble teachers’ day-to-day work and allow teachers to use the STEM PLC as a source of support in planning, leading, reflecting upon, and revising instruction. Said one program leader,
While STEM PLCs can address [a variety of] purposes, they are particularly well-suited to helping translate theory (e.g., about pedagogical practices) into practice and using classroom experiences as fodder for group reflection and new learning. Thus, the classroom-based purposes of understanding student thinking about specific STEM ideas, designing better instruction through reflecting/group discussion about current lessons, and sharing effective strategies for monitoring student understanding are particularly amenable to teacher collaboration within PLCs.
STEM PLCs can be used for deepening teachers’ content knowledge, since the format can allow for extended, in-depth experiences with disciplinary content. However, program leaders cautioned that STEM PLCs with this purpose need to provide teachers a high level of support in order to be successful. Sufficient support is especially important for PLCs that include elementary teachers, who typically have limited mathematics/science content backgrounds. Said one program leader:
With good design, teacher content knowledge can be developed using a PLC; it must be supported with high-quality knowledge resources and processes that allow teachers to explore and unpack the resources.
In practice, most PLCs are designed with multiple purposes in mind and the purpose of a PLC may shift over time. Program leaders recommended that STEM PLCs be designed to work across multiple purposes when the purposes are connected and collectively speak to high-quality instructional practices, as “ideally participants engage in addressing these [multiple] purposes in an integrated way.”
One program leader suggested that the most successful PLCs were those that addressed both deepening teachers’ content knowledge and reflections on pedagogy:
Content knowledge and the nature of STEM subjects can be developed in a PLC setting, with the caveat of having the appropriate resources and knowledgeable facilitators available. In fact, in our experience, these are the most successful PLCs because all participants are actively engaged in deepening their own content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge and are able to share its impact on their practice with others who are engaged in the same experiences. We have found that when participants are involved in this type of PLC, their understanding of science concepts and growth in their practice is greatly enhanced.
However, practitioners cautioned that when a STEM PLC addresses teachers’ content knowledge, planners should anticipate a decreased focus on other purposes, as it takes considerable time for teachers to engage with and learn STEM concepts.
Guarantee delivery—Ensure that the necessary resources and expertise are available to support effective STEM PLCs.
In considering the use of STEM PLCs as a professional development strategy, program designers should determine whether they have access to sufficient resources and expertise to support teachers’ professional learning experiences. For example, if the purpose of the STEM PLC is to examine student thinking of specific mathematics and science concepts, the PLC will need protocols for examining student artifacts and, in many cases, access to content experts. STEM PLCs whose members are “beginners” to the PLC process will likely need structured protocols to guide the experiences, as well as support from the facilitator. Even STEM PLC members who are experienced in the PLC process will need support in the form of structured protocols/resources for new or complex tasks. If such support is not available, professional development designers might want to examine alternative strategies to meeting the continuing education needs of teachers until the resources and expertise for PLC work can be made available.
If you are interested in how these practitioner insights were collected and analyzed, a summary of the methodology can be found here.
Empirical Research on STEM PLCs
As STEM PLCs have grown as a popular feature in K-12 schools and districts, it is timely to examine the findings of empirical studies on the topic. The extensive network of National Science Foundation funded MSP projects have produced a number of studies on STEM PLCs that add to this growing body of research. The MSP-KMD project reviewed the empirical research conducted by MSP projects on STEM PLCs to complement an earlier review of the research on STEM PLCs from the broader literature by researchers from the National Commission for Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) and WestEd. Summaries of each review are available through links in this knowledge review.
The MSP-KMD project identified and reviewed 13 studies of STEM PLCs by MSP projects. These studies echo several of the findings found in the NCTAF report, including evidence of the positive effects of STEM PLCs on deepening teacher knowledge of disciplinary content and pedagogy, influencing teacher classroom practice, and inconclusive evidence on the impact of STEM PLCs on student achievement. The MSP studies add to the knowledge base on STEM PLCs through studies of the effects of the involvement of STEM university faculty members on K-12 STEM PLCs and studies of the effects of facilitation strategies on interactions among members of STEM PLCs.
Research on STEM Professional Learning Communities
The use of PLCs as a strategy to support teaching and learning in STEM topics has spurred a growing body of empirical research on STEM PLCs. As PLCs appear to be a fixture in the landscape of education reform in STEM topics for the coming years, the time is appropriate for a review of the existing research to identify what has been learned.
The MSP-KMD project reviewed research studies on STEM PLCs produced by the NSF-funded network of Math and Science Partnership projects; this review complements a prior summary of the published empirical literature on STEM PLCs conducted by researchers from National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF) and WestEd. The two reviews examined different sets of studies using the same set of standards of evidence for each study’s findings. They share a similar organization, categorizing findings by the relationships that they speak to: the nature and experience of participating STEM PLCs, the effect of STEM PLCs on teacher knowledge and attitudes/beliefs, teacher practice, and student outcomes. Together, the reviews by MSP-KMD and NCTAF provide a description of what is known from the empirical research on STEM PLCs, and how well we know it.
MSP-KMD review of MSP research on STEM PLCs
Nine MSP empirical studies on STEM PLCs were identified and reviewed. Findings from these studies supported a number of general findings from the NCTAF review: the importance of access to content area expertise and skilled facilitators for PLC functioning, links between PLCs and positive impacts on teacher attitudes and classroom practice, but inconclusive evidence on the effects of PLCs on student learning outcomes. The MSP studies also yielded information on additional aspects of STEM PLCs, namely the positive effects of the participation of STEM university faculty members on K-12 PLCs; the influence of facilitator training in specific methods for leading content area discussions; and comparisons of the effects of STEM PLCs of different designs.
In addition to a summary of the findings, the MSP-KMD review includes information about the 9 studies; links to a bibliography; and a detailed account of the methodology used to collect, analyze, and review the studies.
Read the review of the MSP research on STEM PLCs
NCTAF review of STEM PLC research
NCTAF and WestEd identified 30 studies from extensive searches of the published literature. Their review summarizes aspects of PLC design that influence the functioning of the PLC (such as the involvement of a facilitator and administrator support), and reports on the effects of PLCs on teacher knowledge, attitudes and beliefs, classroom practice, and student outcomes. In addition, the NCTAF review synthesizes the findings from the empirical research with other data sources: policy statements and advocacy papers from the websites of a variety of national education associations and technical assistance providers, and the insights of a panel of experienced practitioners.
The NCTAF review is structured to include an overview of the key findings; a description of the methodology applied in the review; and summaries of findings from empirical research, published statements from professional education organizations, and advice from an expert panel.