Upload
june-booth
View
215
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Professional Learning Communities in STEM Teaching
2009 DRK-12 PI ConferenceNovember 9, 20091:45pm – 3:00pm
Kathleen Fulton, NCTAF • Ted Britton, West Ed
What is your interest in this session?
Past or current projects with designing/conducting PLCs?
Research on PLCs? What did you name your PLCs?
Session Overview
Introduction (a new kind of knowledge synthesis)
Preliminary synthesis of policies and organizational recommendations
Preliminary synthesis of published expert knowledge and model descriptions
Preliminary synthesis of findings from empirical research
Upcoming synthesis of real time expert views
Introduction
Project backgroundDRK12 “Synthesis” grant (2 years)Methods adapted and extended from recent
knowledge syntheses by Horizon Research and EDC (Weiss, Miller)
Complementary roles in NCTAF/WestEd partnership
Introduction
New kind of knowledge synthesis (cont’d)Begins with a different kind of literature review
Traditional synthesis of findings from empirical, peer-reviewed studies
Addition – intensive appraisal of research methods Extension – inclusion of other kinds of research
(not empirical studies, conference papers, published research not peer reviewed)
Introduction
Given limited research, synthesis also includes knowledge other than empirical researchRelevant education policies and organization
recommendationsPublished expert advice or lessons learnedPublished model descriptionsReal time expert views/advice
Introduction
Recap: Knowledge sources for today’s presentation13 organizational policy recommendations25 peer-reviewed, empirical research studies17 other research studies68 published expert views or advice, and
model descriptions – especially with ‘lessons learned’
Introduction
Synthesis topic – Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) in science and mathematics education (STEM)Both pre-service and inservice contextsFace-to-face and online Will ground discussion in context of research
on PLCs across all school subjects
Introduction
Expansive definition of STEM PLC Involving 3 or more participants (excludes 1-1
mentoring) Involving mathematics and/or science teachers Teachers only, or teachers plus other participants Joint learning or work Foci are wide range of aspects of teaching Using dozens of terms for PLCs
Setting the Context: “Expert” Advice/Policies Organization Advocacy: policy and support
statements, implementation models, and PLCS they created
Ed Week, Phi Delta Kappan and other relevant publications: reviews, descriptions, or advocacy articles about PLCs
Findings: Published Expert Advice and Policy Statements 81 articles or statements were reviewed Article Types
Policy/Position Statements: 16% (13)Support Statements: 43% (35) Implementation Model: 22% (18)Org Created PLC: 9% (7)News Article: 10% (8)
Findings: Published Expert Advice and Policy Statements Content Focus
Math: 24% (20)Science: 33% (27)Technology/Engineering: 12% (10)General: 51% (42)Online Component: 18% (15)
Findings: Published Expert Advice and Policy Statements Statements about PLCs were all positive,
though some organizations searched made no statements regarding PLCs
Little attention paid to why PLC’s are particularly relevant to STEM educators.
“Support statements” : PLCs as tool for improved teacher quality and/or improved student achievement.
Findings: Published Expert Advice and Policy Statements Policy or position statements generally
emphasized that PLCs push educators to use skills their students will need in the workforce, e.g.:Scientific inquiryProblem solvingTeam work and collaborationCritical thinking
Findings: Models and Recommended Components Little guidance on details (participants,
amount of time, size or type of groups) Few articles about PLCs overseas but
descriptions are similar Online PLCs add additional design
recommendations
Findings: Models and Recommended Components Design for reflection on practice Sharing and trust within the community Action—try new ideas/actions based on
reflection Feedback—from peers, students (!), facilitator Time—collegiality time replaces “telling” time
Findings: Models and Recommended Components Essential supports (Kennedy, Slavit, Nelson 2009)
Facilitation (knowledge, process, focus) Inquiry stance (nurturing reflection)Teacher choice (in areas of focus—teacher
concerns=buy-in)Help teachers use data effectively (student work vs.
test data)Align resources to bring coherence (vs. competing
demands, agendas)
Findings: Models and Recommended Components Online PLCs have same key components
but add attention to:Culture ManagementOnline facilitation challengesTools for interaction
Blend external network with internal plc
Audience Discussion
2 arguments have been offered as why STEM PLCs especially important:Way to move teachers closer to “scientific
workbench” model of learning from practitioner research
Way for teachers to raise fundamental questions about nature of science in supportive environment
Reactions?
Findings: Empirical Research
Synthesis background Very intensive search and screen
STEM teachers Dozens of terms for PLCs
About 50 STEM articles (versus 55 all subjects in prior search) Math/science ratio is 2/1 All school levels Only 15% in pre-service (85% PD)
Findings: Empirical Research
Major research findings:No studies reported negative findings. Only three studies examined student
outcomes; they suggest a positive relationship between student outcomes and teacher PLCs.
Findings: Empirical Research
Major research findings (cont’d):Most studies limited to documenting examples
of single PLC models effecting teacher Interactions in PLC Knowledge/beliefs, or Instruction
Examples are directly from PLC activities, but are transformative differences from pre-PLC condition.
Findings: Empirical Research
Examples of transformative differences: PLC experience:
from isolation to valued collaboration role of facilitator
Teacher knowledge, beliefs: value scientific inquiry and intend to implement increased science content knowledge
Teacher instruction: direct instruction to mathematical inquiry
Findings: Empirical Research
Future research: Further (but different) studies of single programs:
Independent researchers General condition as well as idealized General participants a well as select volunteers Changes beyond PLC-introduced examples Include outcomes further toward student outcomes Impacts measured with more objective
methods/instruments More detailed reporting of the PLC (e.g., level of effort)
Findings: Empirical Research
Future research (cont’d):Comparative studies
different programs or variants of programs in same contexts (premature to have RCT studies)
Large-scale, national survey on PLC activity (medium level of detail)
level of effort, conditions, frequency, type of PLC
Findings: Empirical Research
Future research (cont’d):Enhanced methodological rigorCurrent 32 Standards of Evidence (SoE)
inspection (0.5-1.0 day, by PhD-level analyst) Satisfactory : none Limited, very limited: half Poor : half
Audience Discussion
Take away messages from this research synthesis for policy makers and PLC designers/leaders?
Topics/questions for project's upcoming expert panel discussion?
THANK YOU!
Kathleen [email protected]
Ted BrittonWest [email protected]
Follow-Up Discussion on STEM PLC’s4:30-5:30pm Today
California Room