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.
Summary of Empirical Research on MSP STEM Professional Learning Communities
Teacher professional learning communities (PLCs) are a strategy that has been utilized by many National Science Foundation Math and Science Partnership (NSF-MSP) projects in their efforts to improve K-12 student learning in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) content areas. Among MSP projects, PLCs (groups of three or more teachers who met regularly over a sustained period of time and focused predominately on STEM content areas) were employed for a variety of purposes: as part of professional development aimed at deepening teacher knowledge, as a support strategy to help teachers transfer what was learned in MSP workshops into their classroom practice, and as a vehicle for MSP teacher leaders to work with other teachers. As part of their commitment to contributing to the body of empirical research in education, some MSP projects have produced studies that examined the operation of PLCs and their effects.
The MSP-Knowledge Management and Dissemination project has collected and reviewed the MSP studies that included findings on STEM PLCs. A total of 9 MSP studies were identified by the MSP-KMD project through direct requests to project leaders, a review of collected papers on an MSP intranet, and a review of project websites The 9 studies went through a rigorous review process developed by the MSP-KMD project that applied standards of evidence to the findings of each study.
The review of MSP studies was preceded by a broader literature review carried out by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future and WestEd of the empirical research on STEM PLCs (Fulton, Doerr, & Britton, 2010); this study is subsequently referenced as the NCTAF review (read the NCTAF review). The NCTAF review provided an overview of the existing body of empirical research on STEM PLCs through an extensive search of the published research and by using a comparable review process that considered the standards of evidence for each study’s findings. The MSP studies included in this summary were not part of the NCTAF review, either because they are not yet published, or they were published subsequent to the NCTAF search of the literature. The findings in the NCTAF review provide a rich context that informs our understanding of the contribution of the MSP research to the body of knowledge on STEM PLCs. Throughout this summary, the findings of the MSP studies are situated by drawing connections to the findings from the broader review by NCTAF.
MSP Context for STEM PLCs
The MSP studies are all examinations of STEM PLCs that have been launched in conjunction with MSP projects. As a result, there are commonalities about the settings of the studies due to the nature of the MSP program. Some of these commonalities should be noted, as the studies examine STEM PLCs conducted under a particular set of conditions.
For instance, a major component of the MSP program is the creation of partnerships between universities and school systems. The aim is that these partnerships give K-12 teachers access to the knowledge and resources of university faculty members in the STEM disciplines, and that university faculty members benefit through access to the pedagogical skills of K-12 teachers. As a result, this summary includes multiple MSP studies that examined effects of the inclusion of university faculty in STEM PLCs of K-12 teachers, a unique aspect of PLC composition addressed only briefly in the NCTAF review.
Another feature of MSPs is that the projects are broad school reform efforts comprising multiple components. MSPs deployed PLCs in combination with extensive professional development programs, not as isolated experiences. In studies in which sufficient details of the role of the PLC in the overall intervention were provided, the typical arrangement was that the PLC was launched in conjunction with a summer teacher institute (Carlson, Bowling, Moore, & Ortiz, 2007; Murray, Henry, & Hogrebe, 2009; Pane, Williams, Olmsted, Yuan, & Spindler, 2009; Sack & Kamau, 2010) or a university course (Clark, Moore, & Carlson, 2008; Oehrtman, Carlson, Martin, & Sutor, 2009) aimed at deepening teachers’ knowledge in mathematics or science. In these instances, in-service teachers typically participated in STEM PLCs throughout the school year, as PLCs served to extend the learning that teachers experienced in MSP professional development programs.
For the most part, the studies reviewed here examined PLCs after their first (or occasionally second) year of existence, and did not investigate the sustained activity of PLCs. Findings from the NCTAF review suggest that the amount of time that a PLC has been in place has implications for its effects and that the effects of a PLC may become more marked over time. As a result, it is important to consider the findings of the MSP studies in light of the brief amount of time that the PLCs had been in existence, as the effects of the first years of a PLC may be deepen or increase in future years.
Summary of Research Findings
The MSP studies examined different aspects of PLCs: the experience of the PLCs, their influence on teacher attitudes and knowledge, their impact on teacher practice, and their impact on student outcomes. In this summary, studies are grouped by the types of variables examined, following a similar organization as the NCTAF review.
Findings on the experience of the PLC
Some MSP studies investigated the nature of tasks and interactions of the PLC and challenges in launching and sustaining PLCs, rather than studying their effects. The NCTAF review identified key elements to consider that were found to influence the interactions among PLC members and the nature of the work undertaken in the PLC, including time and pacing, composition, use of protocols, facilitation, and administrative involvement. Research from the MSPs expanded on the NCTAF review with findings on how the training and preparation of facilitators and the inclusion of STEM university faculty members as part of the composition of K-12 PLCs influenced the functioning of the groups.
STEM PLC facilitation
Findings from the MSP research, similar to the findings in the NCTAF review, emphasized the benefits of appropriate training and support for facilitators of STEM PLCs. MSP studies found that facilitation of PLCs was often strengthened by explicit preparation to lead STEM PLCs, although participation in training did not always appear to influence the actions of facilitators.
Findings from Clark et al. (2008) and Carlson et al. (2007), suggest that facilitators apply the strategies they learn through training in leading the discussions of the PLC. Clark and colleagues (2008), in a case study of a single PLC of teachers of mathematics, reported that the facilitator received training from the MSP on how to guide discussions of mathematics content. The researchers observed that, over the course of a school year, the facilitator was able to establish the shared expectation that group members would use clearly articulated mathematical arguments and descriptions of mathematic concepts in their PLC discussions of subject area content. Over time, the strategy was adopted by all members of the PLC as the expected manner of discourse. Carlson et al. (2007) found mixed results in case studies of four PLCs of teachers of mathematics in which facilitators received MSP training in a questioning strategy intended to reveal the underlying mathematics thinking of PLC participants. After one year of implementation, two of the facilitators were found to have successfully integrated the questioning strategy into PLC discussions, while the other two facilitators had not adopted the strategy.
The findings of Clark et al. (2008) and Carlson et al. (2007), suggest that explicit training of STEM PLC facilitators on leading content-rich discussions can impact the nature of facilitation. However, the mixed results from Carlson et al. (2007) underscore that additional research is warranted to examine the factors that may support or limit the ability of facilitators to put their training into practice.
PLC composition
MSPs are distinct in partnering institutions of higher education with K-12 school systems, in some instances resulting in PLCs that have university STEM faculty working alongside K-12 teachers. MSP studies found that the participation of university faculty members contributed to a greater focus in the interactions of PLC members on understanding disciplinary content and student thinking. Kettlewell (2008), through interviews with facilitators of PLCs that included K-12 teachers and university faculty members, found that PLCs with STEM university faculty members were viewed as having a greater and more consistent focus on content than traditional K-12 PLCs. Oehrtman et al. (2009), in a case study of a single PLC, found that the STEM faculty helped the PLC shift from discussions of engaging classroom activities and the content teachers needed to teach to more substantive discussions of mathematics and student thinking. These studies suggest that access to the content expertise of STEM faculty members can influence the discussions of the PLC towards a greater focus on the disciplinary concepts. Further examination of the roles of STEM faculty members in K-12 PLCs and their interactions with teachers are fruitful areas for future research to better understand how participation of STEM disciplinary faculty impacts interactions among PLC members.
Additional key factors that influence the PLC experience were reported in the NCTAF review. Among the factors identified in the NCTAF review were the inclusion of teachers of a single content area versus teachers from multiple content areas, the contribution to group functioning of the use of protocols, and the importance of facilitation, administrator support, and trust-building.
Effects on teachers’ beliefs, knowledge, attitudes, behaviors and/or intentions
Only one of the identified MSP studies examined the effect of PLC participation on teachers’ knowledge, beliefs, and/or attitudes. Sack and Kamau (2009), in a study of PLCs of teacher leaders in high school mathematics, reported that PLC participants indicated an increase in feelings of self-confidence and overall communication skills with their teacher and administrator colleagues.
These findings echo similar results from the NCTAF review, which cited multiple studies that found an increase in teachers’ confidence and willingness to engage in discussions around content and pedagogy. The findings in the NCTAF review were specific to teachers’ attitudes and beliefs around STEM content, whereas the findings in Sack and Kamau (2009) speak to teachers’ general feelings of self-confidence. Taken together, findings from the MSP study and the NCTAF review suggest that PLC participation can have a positive impact on teachers’ attitudes towards their profession and their ability to teach STEM content.
Effects on teacher knowledge and practice
One MSP study examined the relationship between participation in STEM PLCs and changes in teachers’ knowledge and practice. Monsaas (2006) identified factors that had a positive influence on PLC participants’ teaching practice: the involvement of STEM university faculty and the presence of supportive administrators and a focus on conceptually oriented, inquiry-based instructional practices.
Using a quasi-experimental design to compare PLCs that included a STEM university faculty advisor to those without, Monsaas (2006) found that teachers in PLCs that included a STEM university faculty member reported an increased emphasis on inquiry-based teaching practices in K-12 mathematics and science classrooms, compared to teachers in PLCs without access to such advisors. Monsaas (2006) also stated that teachers from both types of PLCs reported an increased emphasis on standards-based teaching and learning compared to traditional teaching practices in mathematics and science, indicating a benefit of participation in PLCs, with or without a STEM faculty advisor.
The MSP study that examined the influence of STEM PLCs on teachers’ classroom practice reinforced and expanded on findings of the NCTAF literature review. The NCTAF review reported that involvement in PLCs was linked to positive changes in teachers’ instructional practice, measured through outcomes such as increased use of reform methods of teaching, increased focus on student thinking, increased frequency of higher-level questioning, and the use of more varied representations of mathematics and science concepts. The MSP study by Monsaas (2006) extended these findings by linking specific contextual factors (i.e., the involvement of STEM faculty members, support of administrators, a focus on conceptually oriented, inquiry-based instruction) to teacher reports of positive impact on instructional practice.
Effects on principals
Pane and colleagues (2009) found that broad STEM education interventions that included a PLC component yielded a positive effect on principals’ comfort in serving as a mathematics instructional leader. The inclusion of administrators in PLCs is fairly typical, often with the intent for teachers to feel supported in efforts to improve their practice. The Pane et al. (2009) study suggests a need for further investigation into impacts on administrators and their practice as well.
Impact on student outcomes
Findings from the MSP studies suggest that PLCs as part of a broader school reform intervention contribute to improved student learning in mathematics and science. Weaver and Dick (2009) studied an MSP project in which teams of teacher leaders and a school administrator participated in institutes to develop their mathematics content knowledge and leadership abilities. These teams then launched and led various forms of professional development in their schools, including PLCs. A comparison of student achievement in the MSP schools to control schools found that the implementation of the MSP model was a significant, positive predictor of student performance, greater than what could be attributed to student socioeconomic status. The study was conducted in both elementary and secondary schools, and suggested that the implementation of the MSP model may have had more pronounced impacts on student achievement at the secondary level. However, the study also notes that additional, unexamined factors may have been at play in elementary schools, so further investigation into differences between elementary and secondary schools would be needed to support this claim.
In another study of a three-year MSP intervention that included a two-week summer institute, technical assistance, and an ongoing virtual PLC, Murray and colleagues (2009) found that students of MSP teachers scored significantly higher on measures of knowledge of chemistry, compared to students of a control group of teachers.
Although there is support for the claim that PLCs, as part of a broader school reform intervention, contribute to positive changes in student learning outcomes, the connection between teacher participation in PLCs and student outcomes is certainly an area that warrants additional research. Studies by Murray et al. (2009) and Weaver and Dick (2009) did not separate the effects of PLCs from those of other components of the MSP interventions, so the unique contribution of PLCs on student outcomes is not assessed. This lack of a demonstrated connection between PLCs and student outcomes was also a factor named in the NCTAF review; their search identified only a small number of studies that examined PLC impacts on student learning, and these studies had substantial methodological limitations. Future research should include designs that isolate the effects of PLC participation on student outcomes. It should be noted that Murray et al. (2009) is the only study among those examined here and in the NCTAF literature review that examined student outcomes in science (high school chemistry), pointing to a particular need for targeted research on the impact of STEM PLCs on students’ science learning.
Methodological rigor of this set of studies
Overall, the MSP studies reviewed for this summary shared some methodological strengths and limitations that should be taken into consideration. Among the MSP studies, seven used multiple measures to allow for triangulation of data collection to strengthen the validity of the findings (Murray et al., 2009; Oehrtman et al., 2009; Pane et al., 2009; Sack & Kamau, 2009). However, the studies frequently lacked other details that made it difficult to assess the strength of validity of the findings. For example, in two studies, the nature of the involvement of the researchers was not adequately described, so that investigator bias was an unacknowledged threat to validity (Carlson et al., 2007; Monsaas, 2006).
The most prominent limitation was the paucity of descriptive information about the nature of the PLCs examined in the studies. This lack is a particular concern given that the term “PLC” does not have a uniform definition; it appears to be used as a label for a broad range of activities with a variety of purposes and involving different assemblies of school personnel. [See Conclusion
The NSF-MSP program has contributed a number of studies to the growing body of research on STEM PLCs in K-12 schools. In several instances, the MSP studies support and extend the findings of the NCTAF review of the broader empirical literature, linking PLCs to a number of positive outcomes related to teacher instructional practice, teacher knowledge and beliefs, administrator beliefs, and student learning. MSP projects, with their focus on partnerships of mathematics and science teachers in K-12 schools with university STEM faculty, offer unique contributions to the knowledge base on STEM PLCs through their examination of specific strategies to deepen teachers’ knowledge of content, student thinking, and inquiry-based instruction. For example, the MSP studies of content-specific discourse strategies modeled by facilitators of STEM PLCs illuminate how PLC discussions can develop participants’ conceptual understanding of subject area content in ways that hold promise for supporting mathematics and science teaching and learning. The detailed analysis of the interactions among PLC members–including facilitators, teachers, and STEM faculty members–helps illustrate how attention to the composition and focus of STEM PLCs might contribute to improved teaching and learning in the STEM areas. NSF’s MSP program holds promise for offering future contributions to the knowledge base on STEM PLCs, as several of the MSP studies reviewed here are based on the first years of multi-year projects. Research on these projects is ongoing, offering continued opportunities to explore more fully some of the research areas highlighted above.