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. STEM PLCs can be supported through establishing structures that shape their work. Structures can take a variety of forms, including articulating and using norms to guide the PLC; resources to ground or extend the work of a PLC; and tools or protocols to organize the work of a PLC.
When queried about structuring the work of STEM PLCs, a panel of 12 experienced practitioners offered a number of insights, which included:
- Map out a path—Decide on the purpose and sequence of the work of the STEM PLC.
- Set rules of engagement—Structuring group norms is essential for the success of STEM PLCs.
- Tools add structure—Protocols and tools can increase the likelihood that a STEM PLC will be successful.
- Select resources carefully—Designers of STEM PLCs should be very deliberate in the selection and use of resources.
- No two STEM PLCs are alike—The extent of structure needed for a STEM PLC will depend on the background and experience of its members and the nature of the group’s tasks.
- Group reflection is key—STEM PLCs should periodically revisit the usefulness of norms, resources, and protocols.
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.
Practitioner Insights
Effective STEM professional learning communities (STEM PLCs) don’t emerge out of thin air; they need structure in order to function productively and realize their goals. Structure can take various forms, including articulating and using norms to guide the PLC; resources to ground or extend the work of a PLC; and tools or protocols to organize the work of a PLC. Of course, PLCs are not static; the structures that are needed can be expected to change over the life of a PLC.
When queried about structuring the work of STEM PLCs, a panel of 12 experienced practitioners offered a number of insights, which are described below.
Map out a path—Decide on the purpose and sequence of the work of the STEM PLC.
STEM PLCs can have a number of different purposes including deepening teachers’ understanding of student thinking about particular STEM ideas; developing teachers’ skills in designing effective instruction and monitoring student understanding; and deepening teachers’ disciplinary content knowledge and their understanding of the nature of STEM disciplines. Although the purposes of the STEM PLC may change over time, it is important that purposes be defined so the work of the PLC can be aligned to those purposes and sequenced appropriately.
There is little empirical information available about how to sequence the work of a STEM PLC. When asked to share their “hunches” about the most effective sequence, expert practitioners gave varied advice, depending on the different purposes each person had in mind. A number of the practitioners commented on the importance of deepening teachers’ content knowledge (either as part of the PLC or in another professional development experience) before they are asked to consider student thinking and instruction in those content areas. As was noted by three program leaders:
I think particularly if the emphasis of the PLC is on learning content to support teaching and learning (rather than focusing on helping teachers learn pedagogical strategies), my hunch is that teachers need to experience the STEM concept for themselves first as learners. Doing math or science, I think, can get teachers into the state of mind of inquiry. For most teachers, doing the math or science is also fun and engaging, and if there is an opportunity for teachers to compare their thinking with each other then they learn about multiple solution methods and ways of thinking (which exposes them to content ideas other than their own that many of their students might also use). This is the activity of really thinking in advance about student thinking — solution methods students might use. With lesson study, we call this “anticipating student solutions,” and it is useful because teachers are able to compare their initial anticipated solutions to actual solutions when they later teach in the classroom.
§ §
My hunch about the order and emphasis goes something like this: 1) Participants deepen their understanding of their discipline (this may happen outside of the PLC). This is essential so that within the PLC work, participants can apply both their broad understanding of what learning happens from K-12th grade in their discipline and a deep understanding of content within their own grade spans. 2) The PLC develops a shared understanding of goals for learning for the grade spans of the PLC. 3) The PLC establishes and uses shared procedures for ongoing inquiry into whether students are meeting learning goals by examining student work and curriculum, instruction and assessment practices. 4) The PLC takes action (e.g., studies and applies research-based interventions) based on “findings” from their on-going inquiry to increase student learning. 5) The PLC tracks progress of interventions and continues to examine student work and other classroom artifacts, and observes each other’s classrooms to continue the iterative work in #3. 6) The PLC documents and reports results.
§ §
My hunch (and my experiences) suggest that working on the mathematics (or science or investigations) might be an important first step, followed by examinations of artifacts that shed light on student thinking about that mathematics—with a bit of a back and forth about how we thought about the content, how students seemed to think about the content, and new insights we gain into the mathematics itself by looking at a variety of solutions. I think in general it can be difficult to look deeply at student work unless you do the related mathematics first. Otherwise you may get a focus on neatness and organization rather than on content, or you get a superficial analysis like “this student doesn’t understand place value” or “this student doesn’t know fractions.”
In addition to advising on how to sequence purposes, a number of these expert practitioners suggested ways to accomplish particular purposes. For example, two of the practitioners described how to support teachers in examining student thinking and moving students toward conceptual understanding of a mathematics/science idea.
A good beginning step is to reach consensus on interpretation of the standards to be taught in terms of both acceptable evidence of student achievement and appropriate and aligned learning tools/resources. Focus next on deepening HOW to design opportunities for students to demonstrate their learning (e.g., assessment OF and assessment FOR learning). Analyze for strong and weak examples or models. Then, plan/practice instructional strategies that are designed to move students toward conceptual/skill development.
§ §
We have also had good success with teachers planning lessons together and then visiting each other’s classrooms as the lesson unfolds. We have also found it useful to examine video clips of classroom practice. While all this fits inside the category of “discussing instruction” we feel that actually observing and reflecting on instruction can be very helpful.
Although the expert practitioners queried typically did not comment on who was responsible for deciding the purposes and sequence of work for a STEM PLC, two noted the importance of teacher input on this process:
I do not think that the order should be prescribed. One of the key elements of a successful learning community is the development of a common goal through shared leadership. Each learning community must be allowed to organize the work to best accomplish the goal(s) they have set for themselves.
§ §
Tasks need to be closely related to the work of the teachers. The goals of the PLCs need to be determined by the participants as much as possible. I believe that the success of the PLC is dependent upon the buy-in of the participants and the strength of the facilitator and that some types of tasks need facilitators with skills which may be different than that of the teacher participants.
Set rules of engagement—Structuring group norms is essential for the success of STEM PLCs.
Productive interactions of the members of the group are essential for STEM PLCs, and it is important to establish guidelines for the interactions among PLC members. As one experienced practitioner noted, it is important to establish norms for group interactions from the beginning:
First, teachers need to learn best PLC practices; ways of working, collaborating, and discussing (how to appropriately share information and ask questions to seek information or understand teachers’ thinking). We don’t expect kids to be able to collaborate effectively without being taught how, and we shouldn’t expect teachers to instinctively know how to work effectively within PLCs.
A number of program leaders suggested the use of norms of collaboration by Garmston and Wellman (1999)†, such as pursuing a spirit of inquiry and presuming positive intentions. Some of these program leaders recommended articulating norms that can be measured, for example through the development of a rubric about quantity, quality, and timeliness of contributions to the PLC discussions. PLC norms might be operational, relating to how a group functions, such as “begin and end on time,” “cell phones on mute,” “come to each session prepared with any materials needed and any homework completed,” and “honor the clock.” Other norms might be about how to set agendas, assess group needs, and reflect upon the group’s progress.
Insight in Action
In a group of STEM PLCs, the facilitators first shared some norms that they felt were essential—e.g., be respectful of differing points of view, complete assignments, come prepared for each meeting, silence phones—then an ice breaker activity was conducted that allowed participants to meet one another and then share some “pet peeves” regarding professional development, charting suggestions that would avoid those. Finally, a carousel activity with post-it notes was conducted that surfaced the high priority norms. Additional norms that teachers suggested included: offer solutions, not just concerns or problems; everyone contributes; seek first to understand, then to be understood; honor the time (start, end, breaks). The facilitators then created posters that were brought to each meeting, reminding everyone of the norms. Feedback forms completed after each meeting allowed participants to reflect on the norms and comment on any that were problematic.
Articulating norms—particularly norms that are developed collaboratively—helps a STEM PLC develop a productive process for their efforts as a community, with expectations for the work made clear and shared by all. Experienced practitioners recommended that the norms be attended to explicitly in each meeting. As one noted, “Using effective norms takes considerable time, reminders, and practice,” but the pay-off can be substantial in terms of “communicating that each participant has a responsibility to the group, and their behavior and work makes a difference in terms of what all of us can learn.”
Another experienced practitioner recommended a process where at each PLC meeting, the group “selects one of their norms that they wanted to focus on during that meeting. At the end, they reflect on whether they met the norm and, if not, [are] very explicit about what they might need to do next time to be successful.”
Tools add structure—Protocols and tools can increase the likelihood that a STEM PLC will be successful.
Consistent use of a tool or protocol, e.g., rubrics for analyzing student work samples, and protocols for collecting and analyzing classroom observation data, provides structure to the work of a STEM PLC, whether that work is done during a meeting or carried out by PLC members between meetings. By using such a tool, a STEM PLC can establish common language for its members and articulate productive ways of working together. As one expert practitioner noted:
An observation and discussion protocol for lessons is a key tool for lesson study, and is used to help make classroom observation respectful (e.g., by telling observers to avoid side conversations), useful (e.g., to keep a running narrative that allows the learning of a single child to be reconstructed), and safe (e.g., focuses attention on student thinking rather than global evaluation of the teacher). It is chosen to help transform school culture to focus on student learning and warranted conversation. There is small-scale evidence it works–e.g., lesson study groups focus more on student thinking in the third year of lesson study than in the first.
Another expert practitioner commented on the protocols for looking at student work that were used by a number of STEM PLCs across a large district:
Because these templates and protocols are a shared tool across a school and across the district, they create a context for teacher collaboration and help create a shared vision of what it means to plan for instruction or analyze student thinking. We have found that, over time and with support, teachers get better at using these templates and protocols. For instance, with our Looking at Student Work protocol, we see that over time teachers get better at solving the mathematics problem that is the focus of the [Looking at Student Work] session, they become better able to identify the important mathematical ideas, they are better able to discuss their expectations for students, and they are better prepared to analyze the student work itself.
Program leaders cautioned, however, that even high-quality tools can be implemented poorly and end up interfering with, rather than supporting, the work of the PLC. For example, a protocol can “be an escape route for individuals who want to follow rules without deep thought.” Similarly, a rubric “might reduce to simple quantitative outcomes very important distinctions that might be most useful for the PLC to consider,” overlooking the ideas behind the numbers. Therefore, in addition to careful selection of appropriate tools consistent with the PLC goals, it is important to monitor their use to make sure the tools provide a productive, and not overly constraining, structure to the group and its work.
Insight in Action
One MSP project used the protocol, Collaborative Inquiry into Examining Student Thinking
[in Leader’s Guide to Science Curriculum Topic Study,
(
http://www.curriculumtopicstudy.org/products/science-cts-leaders-guide)]
to examine student work. The protocol was selected because the project considered it a comprehensive and collaborative tool that could guide participants to deeply examine student thinking based on student responses to an assessment probe. By successively analyzing students’ selected responses and then explanations of those responses (describe the rule you used), teachers in the STEM PLC developed an understanding of how many students “got the correct answer” and could explain it; how many students “got the correct answer” but did not understand the science concept; and how many students did not get the answer correct, but showed in their explanation that they understood the concept. After creating representations of the different ways students were thinking about the science concepts, teachers discussed the various complete, partial, and incorrect explanations students had about the science concept, and the implications for instruction.
Select resources carefully—Designers of STEM PLCs should be very deliberate in the selection and use of resources.
Resources of various kinds can be helpful in designing the work that teachers do together in STEM PLCs. Appropriate resources may be available in print, online, or other electronic formats. For example, a STEM PLC might consider written, videotaped, or oral examples of how other PLCs have functioned to meet their goals. Video clips of lessons, including some that depict effective classroom practice, may be useful resources. Similarly, a PLC designer might select samples of student work or tap a bank of mathematics problems or science investigations for use in the PLC.
Experienced practitioners cited a wide range of resources that have proven to be useful to the work of STEM PLCs. (Note that the examples offered here are meant to be illustrative, not comprehensive.) For example, facilitators used resources for discussion prompts from “Annenberg Media, all manner of journals, YouTube, Teacher Tube, Education Leadership, Wired Science, goENC, INFOhio, etc.” Resources for a PLC with a focus on better preparation of students for AP Chemistry included a released AP exam, and a webinar on changes to the AP Chemistry exam. For a STEM PLC working to develop assessment literacy, resources included “a couple of ‘touchstone’ texts, such as Classroom assessment for student learning” (Stiggins, Arter, Chappuis, & Chappuis, 2004).†
Other resources that can be essential to STEM PLCs are individuals with particular content knowledge/pedagogical content knowledge, including STEM faculty and district staff. These individuals can be called upon to provide relevant information for STEM PLCs and answer questions that are generated as part of the work of the PLC.
Insight in Action
A Math Response to Intervention (RTI) study group specifically wanted to explore several resources that many districts were using for RTI: the newly published Differentiation and Intervention Guides (http://investigations.terc.edu/components/DIG/) created by TERC for each grade level as well as the Kathy Richardson assessment and intervention materials (http://mathperspectives.com/index.html) and the Marilyn Burns Do the Math! materials (http://teacher.scholastic.com/products/dothemath/about.htm). The study group chose these materials after an extensive review and after conversations with other districts because the materials were consistent with members’ beliefs about how children learn mathematics. The study group specifically did NOT choose materials that claimed to be appropriate for math RTI where the focus was on procedures that were broken down into a series of small steps that lead the students to an answer. In these PLC sessions, the group talked explicitly with teachers about why they had selected these materials to explore together.
A PLC might use resources one at a time, on an “as needed” basis, to support its work. Or, as one expert practitioner noted, resources for a STEM PLC might be intentionally assembled as “resource kits” that are prepared ahead of time or passed from one STEM PLC to another. For example, to support lesson study: “video, lesson plans, teacher’s manual excerpts, tasks for teachers to solve and discuss, student work, and perhaps most importantly, a suggested process for investigating and discussing the resources.” And as another example, “pre-vetted inquiry-based activities [that are] chosen to help teachers incorporate guided inquiry into the classroom in targeted and meaningful areas.”
Given the myriad of available resources, it is important that STEM PLCs be both highly intentional and very selective in their use of resources. As noted by one program leader, the availability of resources “24/7/365” makes it essential that someone screen resources for quality, utility, and relevance on behalf of the PLC.
Such screening activities could include: using a protocol to determine if a resource is aligned to concepts being addressed, consulting with experienced and trusted facilitators to find out what they have previously used for various purposes to good effect, and checking that the resources are standards-based. One experienced practitioner provided an example of the importance of selecting the appropriate resources for a STEM PLC:
I think the selection of the artifacts chosen for PLCs to work with is very important. Artifacts taken BY THEMSELVES may not display the full picture of a mathematics or science concept, and thus create misunderstandings rather than elucidate an idea.
These suggestions for screening resources underscore the importance of identifying resources that help advance the work of the STEM PLC rather than distract the members from their goals. As an experienced practitioner noted:
Focus is critically important. Resources must be carefully selected and scrutinized for their relevance to the PLC’s objectives because off-tracking can kill a PLC.
No two STEM PLCs are alike—The extent of structure needed for a STEM PLC will depend on the background and experience of its members and the nature of the group’s tasks.
PLC designers should consider the complexity of the tasks STEM PLCs will engage with, as well as the background and experience of the PLC members, in deciding on the level of structure an individual PLC will need in order to be successful. STEM PLCs whose members are mostly “beginners” to the PLC process will likely need structured protocols to guide the experiences, as well as support from the facilitator, especially if the tasks of the PLC are complex.
STEM PLCs where most members are experienced in the PLC process will likely need less support for relatively straightforward tasks, especially if they have reasonably strong content backgrounds. But even experienced groups will need support in the form of structured protocols/resources for new or complex tasks. Facilitators can also provide structure to the STEM PLC, keeping the group on task and reinforcing norms of collaboration.
Group reflection is key—STEM PLCs should periodically revisit the usefulness of norms, resources, and protocols.
The use of particular norms, resources, and protocols will likely change over time, as some may be appropriate at one point and not appropriate at another point in the PLC experience. For example, a protocol that is used to examine student work might need to be tweaked to make explicit that teachers need to focus both on what the student does and does not understand. Or a norm of being critical of an idea, but not the person who stated it, may need to be added if teachers seem reluctant to take risks. Because of this evolution in the use of (and need for) these structures, it is important for the PLC to systematically consider how well particular approaches are working toward the goals the PLC is trying to achieve, and to revise, reinforce, or replace norms, resources and/or protocols in light of the results.
Over the course of a STEM PLC, there will be various opportunities for a re-evaluation of the use of norms, resources, and/or protocols, including when:
- new members join the group and need to understand how the PLC operates;
- norms are ignored;
- problems occur in the work of the PLC (e.g., when discussions become unfocused or some members are not fully engaged);
- a protocol is not used as intended (e.g., when an adaptation to a protocol has significantly changed its focus and utility to the PLC);
- the PLC commits to taking stock of its work at the end of each or every few PLC meetings; and,
- the PLC gets to a natural point of reflection on its work (e.g., at the end of the semester or year).
Experienced practitioners recommended that PLCs reflect on their work as a community from the onset and regularly thereafter as part of the development of “good PLC habits.”
Insight in Action
At an annual end-of-year meeting, teachers in one STEM PLC elaborated on their lesson study experiences during the year and considered whether group norms needed to be adjusted. Two group norms adopted midway in the PLC were to: a) rotate the role of facilitator (and other specific jobs), so that each person would be engaged in and supportive of the process; and, b) select a specific group norm to focus on at each meeting, reflecting at the end of the meeting on how well the group implemented that norm. This latter process encouraged groups to maintain on-going reflection about their group effectiveness. The group experienced a similar evolution with respect to resources. When the district effort began, there were few resources to work from, but later the district added resources to support the work of PLCs. As district personnel saw examples of resources that seemed to facilitate the work of PLCs, they incorporated those ideas more broadly. Protocols also changed over time. The protocols of lesson study work changed to include: doing the student task during the lesson planning process so that the task and possible solutions were extremely clear prior to planning the lesson; anticipating student responses to the task over and above teachers’ own responses; encouraging teachers to focus their classroom observations on the lesson/students rather than the teachers; and also encouraging teachers to use this observation tool to draw broader implications for their instruction.
If you are interested in how these practitioner insights were collected and analyzed, a summary of the methodology can be found here.
† Garmston, R. J, & Wellman, B. M. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.
† Stiggins, J., Arter, J., Chappuis, J., & Chappuis, S. (2004). Classroom Assessment for Student Learning: Doing it right, using it well. Portland, OR: Assessment Training Institute, Inc.