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. There is no uniform composition of the membership of STEM PLCs, which can include teachers from a single subject or from multiple subject areas; teachers of a single grade span or across grade spans, teachers from a single school or multiple schools, and may or may not include principals and/or members from outside K-12 education, such as university faculty members. The composition of the STEM PLC is closely tied to the purpose of the PLC and influenced by other factors as well.
When queried about the appropriate composition of STEM PLCs, a panel of 12 experienced practitioners offered a number of insights which included:
- The size of the community matters—It’s important to consider what you are trying to accomplish in determining the size of a PLC.
- Separate or together?—Match the group’s composition to the work at hand.
- School-focused or beyond?—Designers of STEM PLCs should carefully consider the goals of the PLC when deciding whether it should include teachers from a single school or different schools.
- Be intentional about who is at the table—Designers of STEM PLCs should carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of including school administrators as members of STEM PLCs.
Practitioner Insights
STEM professional learning communities (STEM PLCs) can be structured in many different ways. PLCs can be composed of teachers in the same school, or teachers from different schools in the same district, or teachers from multiple districts. STEM PLCs can be comprised of science or mathematics teachers, a combination of science and mathematics teachers, or both science/mathematics teachers and teachers of other subjects; any of these groups might include administrators as well.
When queried about the appropriate structure and composition of STEM PLCs, a panel of 12 experienced practitioners offered a number of insights, which are described below.
The size of the community matters—It’s important to consider what you are trying to accomplish in determining the size of a PLC.
Not surprisingly, experienced program leaders noted that the number of teachers to be included in a STEM PLC depends, in large part, on what you are trying to accomplish. Smaller groups help ensure interaction and participation of all members and often lead to more dynamic discussions. Said two practitioners:
We have found that 3-5 people is a good range for small groups. For hands-on science investigations, three is an optimal number. As the group size increases progressively, individual group members are able to withdraw from active participation. There is less time for each person to talk and stay actively involved during the small group work. When working on collaborative lesson process or other pedagogical topics, groups of four or even five people work well. We have not had good experiences with allowing participants to form groups with more than five people. Despite group norms in place, some people do not participate much and as a result, do not learn as much from the experience.
§ §
If the group is too large I worry that it becomes too easy for a participant to “hide” and really never reveal very much about their thinking and practice, and therefore never really examine that thinking and practice with colleagues and, as a consequence, never really work to strengthen what is happening in the classroom.
In contrast, program leaders suggest that larger groups may be needed to establish school, district, or project goals—or when it is important to ensure representation from key groups of teachers, such as PLCs working on cross-grade alignment or articulation.
Having the necessary stakeholders, or stakeholder representatives, at the table [for a given purpose] is important, and is more important than identifying a specific number of PLC participants that is most effective; e.g., aligning curriculum across an elementary school with a teacher representative for each grade participating in the PLC and then receiving/sharing information back to grade level teachers at their grade team meetings.
At the same time, experienced practitioners noted that large STEM PLCs will likely need to break into smaller PLCs to ensure productive, participatory discussions focused on planning and implementing strategies to address the larger goals. Two program leaders provided examples and perspectives from their experience with the “large-small” issues:
Another essential reason for larger groups is to ensure coherence—ideally, by having the whole school participate. For example, if ideas about what constitutes “problem-solving” are all over the map within a school, it creates a disjointed experience for students. Optimally, teachers need to understand the approaches used at other grade levels and to be as invested in other teachers’ success as in their own. So, goal-setting in a large group (e.g., school-wide) and study and planning in smaller groups (where teachers can make known their struggles safely) tend to work well.
§ §
Even if a large group of teachers works together in a room (e.g., 30 teachers K-12 for a collaborative lesson process), a large portion of the work should be done in smaller groups to ensure interaction and participation. In our work with PLCs, we set the stage for the day or activity in the large group, and then have participants work in small groups, usually followed by a large group share out. In the case of a lesson planning process, teachers could work with other teachers in a grade band in groups of 3-5 teachers and then share their work with the large group in one of several ways: a gallery walk of a product, small group presentations to the large group, or forming several K-12 groups that have representatives of each grade band to look at and provide feedback on the work.
Separate or together?—Match the group’s composition to the work at hand.
Program leaders noted that the STEM PLC’s purpose will determine whether membership should be limited to teachers of only one subject (mathematics or science), or include teachers of both subjects. They advised that, in general, when a STEM PLC is focused on issues directly related to a particular subject (e.g., vertical alignment in a particular science or mathematics topic, revising a mathematics or science course, learning to use new mathematics or science instructional materials, strengthening teachers’ content knowledge), limiting membership of the PLC to those who teach that subject makes sense. As one experienced practitioner noted:
If the focus is mainly on content and pedagogical content knowledge, single subject PLCs allow teachers to have a similar knowledge base, as well as common needs and common experiences.
Practitioners shared some situations from their experience in which it was important to form PLCs of teachers of only one subject, and in one case, all from the same grade.
My example involves a group of AP Calculus teachers from multiple schools located in a geographical region. Their goal was to increase student success on the AP Calculus exams. They have worked together as a group for seven years with some change in membership as teachers retired, moved, or were hired. The teachers shared resources, worked with a mathematics professor to enhance their content knowledge, and designed learning activities for their students. They met every month for two hours with the meeting in May used to work the exam problems given on the May administration of the exam. In July they met to compare student scores. The single-subject focus was necessary in this case because the focus was on improving scores on a particular standardized test. The learning community met an important need because there is usually only one Calculus teacher per school.
§ §
[A PLC of] K-6 teachers focused on improving students’ ability to write conclusions from their scientific investigations. The teachers used a backwards design process, and began by identifying the elements of a good conclusion at the 6th grade level and worked backwards to determine the criteria for good, age-appropriate conclusions at each prior grade, in light of the intended end product in 6th grade. The single-subject composition [of the PLC] helped the teachers develop explicit criteria and templates for good scientific conclusions that would help students build the necessary knowledge and skills over their K-6 schooling. Ultimately, the teachers used the state science assessment as a model and wanted students to perform better on the conclusion-writing component of the 5th grade science assessment.
§ §
I consulted with a group of eight teachers that all taught the same grade level and subject (science – grade 4). The purpose of the PLC was to interpret and clarify the state standards and to design common assessment tasks that were independent of particular instructional resources and materials. Obviously, since the purpose was so specific, having teachers that actually taught the same level of students and toward the same set of standards was critical.
At the same time, program leaders noted that including members from multiple subject areas can provide a broader perspective, interdisciplinary connections, and more consistency in instruction and assessment practices across the school. For instance, PLCs that focused on curriculum integration or developing common instructional practices within a school or district (e.g., differentiation, inquiry-based learning, using rubrics, or writing across the curriculum) would benefit from representation from different subject areas. Two experienced practitioners described situations in which multi-subject PLCs are beneficial:
If the goal of the PLC is to address common practices within a school or district, e.g., in lesson planning or examining student work…it can be beneficial to have teachers from different subject areas participate. A critical mass is created that is more likely to result in systemic change than having it limited to one discipline. If the goal is to work on interdisciplinary connections and authentic real world tasks, it can be beneficial to have teachers from different subject areas work together on creating such projects, e.g., physics and calculus teachers, or algebra and mathematics teachers, or science and language arts teachers, etc.
§ §
To increase horizontal integration across subjects, teachers from certain subjects often gain insights from teachers of other subjects. They are able to better structure their lessons based on the material being taught in other subjects and build in concepts learned from the other subjects. One [project] added teachers from other curricular areas to the math PLCs, forming teams of teachers well-versed in differentiated instruction.
School-focused or beyond?—Designers of STEM PLCs should carefully consider the goals of the PLC when deciding whether it should include teachers from a single school or different schools.
A number of factors should be examined when considering whether the participants in a PLC should be limited to teachers within a school or be drawn from across schools and districts. Program leaders recommended that a PLC stay within a school when the goal is school-specific, such as improving school test performance in mathematics/science, changing instructional approaches in STEM areas school-wide, targeting particular students who need supports or resources, or building a mentoring/coaching climate in the school. Experienced practitioners offered a number of examples of single-school PLCs focused on improving school performance in specific areas:
A high school science department teaching students in grades 9-12 worked together for a week during the summer and monthly throughout the school year to design and implement common assessments in both physical science and biology. [Higher education] faculty in engineering and mathematics participated with the teachers during the summer… During monthly meetings, student data were examined and revisions were made to implement during the next semester. The goal was to improve student performance on state-mandated end-of-course tests. Using the common assessments did improve the student pass rate on both course tests.
§ §
An elementary school I am thinking of decided on a school-wide goal for instructional improvement (differentiated instruction), consistent with the district’s reform agenda. All teachers in the school were formed into lesson study groups by grade level. Each [group] was asked to do research at their particular grade level to study ways in which differentiated instruction could be used to help the school close the racial student achievement gap. Prior to the work of the individual PLCs, the entire staff read articles on differentiated instruction and closing the achievement gap so that they could have some basic shared ideas. Then the groups did their individual research. Afterwards, the staff came back together as a whole group to discuss what each of the groups learned from their research, the commonalities and differences of the findings across grade levels, and some of the strategies that they as a school might adopt going forward. The single-school [PLC structure] mattered because all teachers developed a shared understanding of differentiated instruction based on practice, began to see how students and instruction aligned (or did not) across grade levels, and developed some joint problem-solving approaches.
§ §
[A same-school PLC] had representative teachers from all grade levels that teach science. Their PLC spent time analyzing student-specific data on local assessments and tracked progress for those individual students over time. Their “group knowledge” of the specific students allowed them to revise local common assessments across all grade levels when necessary, as well as reaching consensus on particular instructional or ‘intervention’ strategies for individual students. They actually maintain a ‘board’ with a card for every student in the school along with common assessment data that is coded red/yellow/green so that they can make informed decisions at the child level. This group meets once per month. Additionally, they informed me that each member on that PLC also meets within their grade level teams on a weekly basis for common planning of instructional and assessment tasks.
Single-school PLCs also offer logistical advantages because common planning time can be arranged and teachers have easier access to each other’s classrooms. In addition, participants are better able to relate to the common issues that the PLC addresses and are well-positioned to support one another in making instructional change, as noted in the following examples:
The PLC was comprised of biology teachers from a large high school. Since the teachers taught the same content using the same instructional materials, they were able to develop and administer common assessments and then collaboratively examine students’ responses to the assessment items. The single-school configuration helped the teachers easily administer common assessments, obtain assessment data from a larger sample size (3 biology classrooms), and use the information from their collaborative study of the assessments results to modify instruction in a timely manner.
§ §
I observed a mini-PLC comprising three teachers who agreed to work together to revise their shared curriculum. They met together on a regular basis, and with their district curriculum coordinator periodically. They worked with university faculty members and graduate students to gain content experience and employ new teaching methods. This effort was successful because of the ease with which the teachers could meet, and the “bite-sized” nature of their project, i.e., they did not find it too overwhelming to begin!
Experienced practitioners cautioned, however, that for a single-school STEM PLC to be effective, there must be a positive energy in the school around instructional improvement; a critical mass of teachers who are receptive to collaborative inquiry; and time available for the PLC to meet. They also noted that care needs to be taken to make sure a within-school PLCs does not devolve into meetings focused only on logistics or management concerns. For example:
With any new innovation there occurs some degree of mutation in the application of that innovation into new settings. My hesitation in providing examples of single-school PLCs is because in my experience they become more of a hybrid team or department meeting. I don’t mean this as a criticism because I am not usually a purist, but I have observed more examples than not of single-school PLCs which appeared to be more of a department or team meeting with some collaborative work added to the end of the meeting. As a practicing teacher, I also admit that it is very difficult to find time for informational meetings and for collaborative work meetings. The time constraint is huge.
Even though experienced practitioners identified situations in which single-school PLCs were warranted, program leaders also noted a number of benefits of multiple-school STEM PLCs such as exposing teachers to new ideas, practices, and attitudes. In particular, they noted that multiple-school PLCs create the opportunity to broaden the thinking of educators who may have become “professionally depressed” by negative attitudes or low expectations within their own schools. Two experienced practitioners explained:
An additional advantage of mixed-school and mixed-district PLCs is that it can expose professionals in “tough” situations that may be professionally depressed or feeling hopeless to professionals who are more “positive.” For example, I think it’s a good thing to expose [teachers] who have kind of given up to enthusiastic, less-stressed professionals. I have seen many instances of professional rebirth under these circumstances. Also, it sure helps if the PLC doesn’t have a critical mass of naysayers. This can necessitate recruiting members from outside the school or district.
§ §
If teachers are all from a single struggling school, they can bring a strong set of beliefs about what their students have the capacity to achieve, and these beliefs can be difficult to shift if they are so strongly shared across the group. This is when it can be so useful to have teachers from another building serving a similar population of students, who can share the successes of their students. Similarly, in a struggling school, there may be few structures in place to support teacher collaboration, and this can be where it would be useful to have teachers from another building talk about how they find ways to work together to support teacher learning. This is all in addition to the suggestion that having PLCs with teachers from multiple schools can help create a broader community in which to discuss issues and share best practices.
Expert practitioners also noted that a STEM PLC with teachers from multiple schools is a useful strategy when it is not possible to get more than a very few teachers from a single school (e.g., a PLC focused on the work of high school physics or a PLC for mathematics or science teachers in small schools in a rural area). Multiple-school PLCs can also be suitable when the goal of the PLC warrants the participation of a broader group of teachers, such as ensuring consistent practices district-wide relative to aligning curriculum with standards, establishing learning goals, and facilitating implementation of desired assessment and instructional practices.
A number of program leaders commented that single-school and multiple-school PLCs can collaborate, e.g., a cross-district PLC can include representatives from each of a number of schools who can share materials and insights with their school-based PLCs or other group meetings:
We would recommend single-school PLCs as an extension of a cross-district PLC, so that the processes and strategies learned at the regional PLC can be implemented by all teachers from that school, built into their daily schedule, and without needing to travel.
What we find works well is to have teams of teachers from particular schools participating together, often with the expectation that these teams go back to their schools to lead discussions with colleagues in their grade level team planning meetings about what they are learning.
Be intentional about who is at the table—Designers of STEM PLCs should carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of including school administrators as members of STEM PLCs.
Insight in Action
One principal participating in a STEM PLC had always heard about the importance of examining student work collaboratively; he had never done so himself. As the PLC analyzed and discussed 4th grade student work related to the position of the sun in the sky, he was energized and excited by the process. As the PLC finished looking at work and discussed instructional next steps for the presenting teacher, as well as teachers at different grade levels, the principal expressed his new insight into the importance of putting student work on the table, and enthusiastically announced his intention to have PLCs in other content areas adopt this model.
Experienced practitioners advised designers of STEM PLCs to carefully consider the benefits and drawbacks of including school administrators in the group. On the plus side, administrators can bring “inside” information to the PLC, helping to bridge the gap between state/district expectations and classroom realities, and expediting decision-making. In addition, participation in the STEM PLC demonstrates that administrators believe in and support the changes teachers are being asked to make, and that everyone is “in this together.” As members of STEM PLCs, administrators experience the same learning as teachers, and are able to reinforce the changes teachers are trying to make in the classroom. And, if they find the STEM PLC valuable, they can arrange to have PLCs in other disciplines as well, helping to ensure that the PLC approach becomes institutionalized in the school/district.
Practitioners advised that when administrators participate as PLC members, it is important to establish up front a safe space for teachers in which to work on improving their practice. This can be particularly important for teachers who might have reservations about being candid about their instructional practices in front of an administrator charged with evaluating their performance. For example, one practitioner recommended that PLCs, including administrators, adopt the norm that, “all members are learners.” Another program leader noted that the PLC needs to be transparent about the administrator’s involvement and the implications:
Yes, [the administrator should participate in the PLC] if the group norms are set up from the beginning about how the administrator would be involved. I think the positives outweigh the negatives, but there has to be a willingness of the whole group to discuss the role differential/status issues.
Some program leaders were not convinced that administrators should be actual members of STEM PLCs. They expressed concern that teachers may defer to administrators, expecting the administrator to take responsibility for leading the PLC, or that administrators may have a negative impact on the dynamics of a group, such as reducing teachers’ willingness to take risks. Another concern was that, depending on the purpose of the PLC, the presence of administrators with minimal background in mathematics/science could hinder the progress of the group. One program leader cautioned that if administrators were not fully committed members, spotty attendance sends a message to other PLC members that the work is not important:
If the STEM PLC focuses on disciplinary content and pedagogical content knowledge, administrators should probably not be included in STEM PLCs unless they are willing and able to adhere to the norms of the PLC, including regular attendance. In our experience, that has not happened. Over the years we had only a few principals attend our STEM PLCs, and none of them attended consistently.
Regardless of their view of administrators’ participation, program leaders agreed that the support of administrators is integral to the success of STEM PLCs. As one noted:
What is essential to me is not that administrators be on the PLC, but rather that administrators have routine ways for making sure all PLCs are focused on the right work and having training and support to be effective, and that there is ample communication of information from the administration to support the PLC’s work.
A number of expert practitioners described strategies for increasing administrators’ understanding of the PLC’s goals and processes without administrators having to fully participate as members of the PLCs. For example, in some projects, administrators are expected to attend only a small number of strategically-selected sessions:
One way we try to balance the importance of having administrators involved while at the same time acknowledging their presence can constrain teacher risk-taking is to schedule particular sessions with administrators. What this may look like is an initial meeting with administrators to discuss the goals and norms of the PLC and expectations in terms of how what participants are learning might be enacted in classrooms. But we also try to communicate, either through shared anonymous reflections or other artifacts from the PLC, how difficult and sometimes scary this work can be for participants and the kinds of supports [that] might be needed. Then we invite administrators to join a session of the PLC, with participants knowing ahead of time that administrators will be present, and also selecting the session that we thought might be the most conducive to administrator learning. For instance, having administrators join a session that involves doing some math with participants or looking at some student work with participants, but then also listen to a facilitated discussion of how this work is informing their practice along with challenges and successes.
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.