Using P-16 Professional Learning Communities to Facilitate Partnerships and Improve Teaching and Learning
Research Question 1: The only respondents selected for these analyses were those who selected "yes" to the question "Are you currently a member of a PRISM learning community?" Further, only respondents who selected "yes" to the question "Do you regularly attend the meetings of your learning community?" were included. The evaluation question addressed is whether or not having an IHE faculty member participating in a PRISM PLC affects K-12 teachers' practices. MANOVA was performed with IHE participation as the independent variable and ITAL subscales as the dependent variables. Statistically significant differences were found in reported emphasis on inquiry-based teaching and learning for both mathematics and science when an IHE faculty member was worked with the PLC, F (1, 9.77) = 17.37, p = .000 and F (1, 6.27) = 10.14, p = .002, respectively. This finding suggests that having an IHE faculty member working with K-12 teachers may lead to increased emphasis on use of inquiry in the K-12 science and mathematics classrooms. Tables with descriptive statistics and effect sizes will be included in the final report. An additional statistically significant effect was found for IHE participation in reported emphasis on standards-based teaching and learning in mathematics only, F (1, 1.72) = 4.97, p = .026.
Additional findings from previous years has shown the K-12 teachers report greatest use of standards-based teaching and learning practices and least use of traditional teaching and learning practices. K-12 teachers who participated in a PRISM PLC, regardless of whether or not there was a IHE faculty member involved reported higher levels of standards-based teaching and learning practices in their classroom than those teachers who did not participate in a PRISM PLC.
Research Question 2: Preliminary analyses were conducted in one region. The evaluator compared pre and post school level pass rates on the CRCT for the schools and grade levels that had PLCs. Student achievement increased in 71% of the grade levels in mathematics and 56% in science. In the other cases, the pass rates either remained unchanged or decreased. It is clear that more increases than decreases in test scores were observed in science and mathematics where there were active PRISM learning communities.
Research Question 3: Extensive qualitative data collected over the first four years of PRISM have shown that the K-12 and IHE partnerships have resulted in increased understanding by each partner group of the culture of other groups; increased mathematics and science content knowledge and skills; increased pedagogical knowledge; and increased use of knowledge and technology with students. Within each region, some partnerships are working toward common goals in a highly collaborative manner. In the one region, use of the "language of partnerships" was striking when individual interviews and focus groups were conducted to discover the nature of partnerships. This language included common use of "we" when talking about work; casual naming of individuals from different institutions or levels, indicating close collaboration and familiarity with individuals from different groups; and frequent use of "our" when explaining partnership goals or outcomes. Another region has been most successful in developing P-16 partnerships, with 50% of all eligible science, mathematics, and College of Education faculty participating in PRISM activities. PLCs have been an important part of building these collaborative partnerships.
One finding, relevant to this research question, that has been common across the regions, is the formal sharing of cultures between higher education and K-12 faculty. The importance of this became apparent both with scheduling problems and collaborative K-16 work on the new Georgia Performance Standards. Representatives from each group and sub-groups within the two educational levels (and across education and arts & sciences departments at the higher education level) have discussed the aspects of their cultures which impact, both positively and negatively, participation in K-16 learning communities. Most participants assert that this was the most important activity in the process of establishing effective and efficient learning communities because each group had unrealistic expectations of the other.
