Existing STEM PLC research is methodologically weak by Standards of Evidence review, with no studies rated adequate, but collectively builds a supportive case for valued PLC effects¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · review r2–r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2010 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In Standards of Evidence reviews of the 25 Type 1 studies, 0% were rated adequate, 15% limited, 31% very limited, and 54% poor. → Fulton 2010 q2 i? Individual research studies were found to be weak, but collectively the research is building a supportive case that STEM PLCs have effects valued by STEM educators and policymakers. → Fulton 2010 (2)

Evidence¶

Fulton 2010¶

Fulton, K., Doerr, H., & Britton, T. (2010). STEM Teachers in Professional Learning Communities: A Knowledge Synthesis. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future / WestEd. https://www.nctaf.org/resources/events/STEMWingspreadConference.htm

q2 · i? · review · r2

The synthesis's own Standards of Evidence analysis: an intensive 4-8-hour PhD-level analyst inspection of each of the 30 Type 1 articles against 31 standards, summarized in the overall-rating table showing "adequate 0%" through "poor 54%".

"Overall rating, SoE Percentage of Studies adequate 0% limited 15% very limited 31% poor 54%"

Fulton 2010 (2)¶

Fulton, K., Doerr, H., & Britton, T. (2010). STEM Teachers in Professional Learning Communities: A Knowledge Synthesis. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future / WestEd. https://www.nctaf.org/resources/events/STEMWingspreadConference.htm

q2 · i? · review · r3

The synthesis's judgment in the How Well Do We Know It section, based on its methodological inspections. It found individual studies weak while concluding that collectively the research builds "a supportive case that STEM PLCs have effects valued by STEM educators and policymakers".

"Individual research studies were found to be weak during our analysis, but, collectively, research is building a supportive case that STEM PLCs have effects valued by STEM educators and policymakers."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Participation in mathematics PLC changed teachers' collaboration norms, understanding of mathematics and its teaching, and ability to design and carry out teaching — the general claim this finding bears on, with the studies behind it
• Online tools are extending STEM PLCs, with skilled facilitators, collaborative tools, and stable platforms identified as key components — related
• Students of teachers in STEM learning communities learn mathematics better, but published evidence covers only mathematics and remains emerging — reports the opposite
• A small set of mathematics-only studies gives existence proof that teacher participation in a mathematics PLC can enhance student learning, but evidence is insufficient to link formal assessment results to PLC participation — related
• Published policy statements and expert advice universally recommend STEM PLCs, with cautions against superficial definition and implementation — related
• Research on professional community faces conceptual and methodological difficulties: no universal definition exists and operationalization varies across studies — related
• Participation in STEM PLCs positively impacts teachers' understanding of or preparedness to teach content and attitudes toward teaching methods — related
• STEM PLC participation increases teachers' deliberation about students' mathematics or science thinking and shifts instruction toward attention to student reasoning and diverse problem-solving modes — related