Teams consolidated as PLCs regardless of the type of prior connections that formed them, with no significant differences across connection types¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · design r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? There were no significant differences between Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3 PLCs (formed without prior acquaintance, without prior teamwork, or as established teams) on any PLC dimension. → Layton-Jaramillo 2025 q2 i? The article attributes this consolidation to differentiated monitoring: Type 1 PLCs required greater support from I3P professionals than Type 2 and Type 3 PLCs. → Layton-Jaramillo 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Layton-Jaramillo 2025¶

Layton-Jaramillo, S.E., Duarte-Velasco, O.G., Aguaded-Ramírez, E.M., & Carrillo-Rosúa, F.J. (2025). Innovation in university science teaching through professional learning communities. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 15(1), 142-161. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.3115

q2 · i? · design · r2

Mann-Whitney U tests and Cohen's d compared PLC dimension ratings across connection types (Table 8). "There are no significant differences between the three types of PLCs according to the connections"; effect sizes null in some cases, low in most.

"There are no significant differences between the three types of PLCs according to the connections. Additionally, the effect sizes are null in some cases and low in most."

Layton-Jaramillo 2025 (2)¶

Layton-Jaramillo, S.E., Duarte-Velasco, O.G., Aguaded-Ramírez, E.M., & Carrillo-Rosúa, F.J. (2025). Innovation in university science teaching through professional learning communities. Journal of Technology and Science Education, 15(1), 142-161. https://doi.org/10.3926/jotse.3115

q2 · i? · design · r2

The authors interpret the null connection-type differences as an effect of I3P team monitoring, stating "Type 1 PLCs required greater support from I3P professionals throughout the project than Type 2 and Type 3 PLCs".

"This result is directly related to the monitoring carried out for the teams since Type 1 PLCs required greater support from I3P professionals throughout the project than Type 2 and Type 3 PLCs."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Teams from all three I3P calls functioned as PLCs at the implementation stage, with no statistically significant differences between calls across the five PLC dimensions — related
• The 15 pedagogical innovation projects benefited approximately 1,800 students and produced improvements in problematic aspects of science teaching and learning at UNAL — related
• PLC development by promoting role: administrative-staff-led PLCs rated shared leadership lower but shared values higher than teacher- and student-led PLCs, with no statistically significant differences — related
• Content analysis of project reports identified five factors contributing to PLC formation (common interests, communication systems, mutual learning, collaborative work, UNAL values) and three hindering factors (administrative management, project scheduling, personal non-compliance) — related