Chapter 1: Fostering Community and Collaboration

Teaching can be an isolating profession. It seems counterintuitive that even though teachers are often surrounded by 25–30 students, we often feel alone (Conley and Cooper, 2013). I (Nicole Schrode) have been teaching high school for 16 years and have often felt this way. After approximately five years, these feelings of isolation led to burnout and almost led to my departure from teaching. All authors of this book have felt similarly at some point throughout their careers. These feelings led all of us to seek out community and find one another. This chapter is split into two sections to help you in your community-finding journey. Section 1.1 explains how we found our professional community and Sec. 1.2 details how you can create your own professional community. Our hope is that you find a group of people with whom you can associate and feel like a true professional.

Feelings of isolation seem to be common among teachers. On average, teachers have shorter careers than other professionals, such as doctors and lawyers (Conley and Cooper, 2013). This may result from the lack of a supportive professional community. The structure of a teacher's day often does not leave time for collaboration with peers. Sometimes, a teacher may be the only one teaching their content area, and in extreme cases, the only one teaching in their department, as can be the case in small rural schools, where one teacher is responsible for teaching all 7th–12th-grade science courses. In fact, one of the authors of this book applied for a job just like that! In her career as a teacher, she was often the only physical science teacher in the district. This led to feelings of isolation and lack of support. My passport out of feelings of isolation came in the form of meaningful, collaborative, professional development (PD) communities. “High-quality PD creates space for teachers to share ideas and collaborate in their learning … By working collaboratively, teachers can create communities that positively change the culture and instruction” (Darling-Hammond et al., 2017).

Lack of opportunity for professional promotion is another factor of teaching with which I have struggled. As a motivated, ambitious professional, in most other professions, after 16 years I would have received promotion(s) and a change in role. But teaching is different in that regard. Natale et al. (2016) describe this phenomenon in their report prepared for the National Network of State Teachers of the Year (NNSTOY):

One hallmark of professionalism is the ability for co-workers to collaborate. This may bring new ideas and opportunities to the community. However, structural conditions such as the size of the school, staffing complexities, teacher scheduling, and leadership structures make it hard for teachers to collaborate in meaningful ways (Louis et al., 1996 and Grossman et al., 2001). More on the conditions necessary for meaningful, collaborative communities can be found later in this chapter in Sec. 1.2.1. As many teachers have experienced, these structures make meaningful, long-term, ongoing professional development hard to come by within the school setting. Due to the temporal constraints on teacher collaboration, time earmarked for professional learning is often taken up by procedural, technical, or immediate issues. Because of this, from my experience, PD for teachers at the school level often feels rushed, surface level, and contrived. As a science teacher, I see this lack of time as mirroring a confirmatory science lab. Confirmatory labs are those in which students perform experiments to confirm what the teachers have already told them through lecture or activities. When the PD is devoid of community and collaboration, when the outcomes are already decided, it can seem to mirror Bell's idea of “the rhetoric of procedures and conclusions” where students end up focusing more on the steps they are completing and the one or two results they yield than the process of science happening during the experiment (Bell, 2004). Therefore, in order to grow professionally, teachers must often voluntarily partake in professional development during the summer and weekends. This is a phenomenon that Grossman et al. (2001) explain:

Although many teachers know this is true, the importance of these opportunities in becoming a leader and growing professionally are needed. In order to overcome these issues, find professional leadership opportunities, and become a part of a learning community, the authors of this book and I sought out a professional social network outside of our districts. I felt that although it was not ideal to cultivate a community outside of those I interact with daily, a community was needed for me to make a change for my students and myself. Hardré et al. (2013) defines a social network as “connections between people in and across organizations and communities, including social structures and relationships that influence learning and change.” The most transformative social networking experience that we have been involved with is the Streamline to Mastery group funded by the National Science Foundation. Streamline to Mastery was a long-term professional development experience that met Hadre et. al's goal of creating “high-quality professional development [that] can change teaching practice and improve student learning. In professional development, teachers take on the identity and experiences of learners, with their relational and interpretational processes, driven by perceptions of self and others.” This opportunity shifted the way we viewed our educational practices and our role within the educational system. Our experiences gave us the confidence we needed to see ourselves as teacher leaders and agents of change within the systems we occupy. Not only did we change in ways that better served our students, but that better served ourselves as well; providing sustainability and resilience within a stressful profession where burnout and turnover are prevalent and costly (Aguilar, 2018). In this chapter, we share how our experiences with collaboration and community led to our feelings of professionalism, leadership, and agency. We also share what you can do to create this type of learning community for yourself and your colleagues.

The Streamline to Mastery program we were a part of was started by Dr. Valerie Otero at the University of Colorado Boulder (CU) in 2009. Her goal was to create a collaborative community incorporating educators at many levels [pre-service teachers, novice teachers, veteran teachers (called master teachers), and university faculty]. These parties participated in a collaborative feedback loop where teachers critically examine their own assumptions about education and their classes; research these assumptions; and reflect, share, and then create professional development to alleviate these problems in practice (Otero, 2012). Otero calls this approach periphery teaching (Schrode and Otero, 2020). This “teach to learn” system mirrors the type of guided inquiry approach that teachers in this program strive to use in their STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) classes. It is also the approach used in scientific research labs. In constructing the Streamline to Mastery teams in this way, inquiry, reflection, and generation of knowledge were embedded at every level. The pre-service teachers observed the classrooms of the master teachers. In doing so, they helped formulate the problems of practice studies, helped collect and analyze data, and learned solutions along with the master teachers. Details about the research aspect of these teams are described in Chap. 3, Sec. 3.2. The university faculty used direct observations from the classrooms to revise the curriculum they were developing and also used the information to create PD. During the program the team would participate in learning labs in which one teacher would act as lead learner. The rest of the team would observe from a chosen learning stance to gain knowledge about their own teaching and role. The university faculty also used video observation to help form PD and facilitated learning for new teachers.

The novice teachers took the PD classes, sometimes facilitated by the master teachers and developed in conjunction with the university staff. At every level, participants were collaborating and learning from each other. “This design is much like that of any scientific laboratory; knowledge generation is the goal and at its heart, the experts (senior scientists), novices (junior scientists), and apprentices (graduate students) play a critical, productive role as producers of knowledge as well as expert learners” (Otero, 2012).

Participants were organized into Teacher Research Teams (TRTs):

As the program continued, the first veteran teacher cohort began to lead the professional development for the next cohort. This led to feedback loops within the community as participants became embedded leaders. The Streamline to Mastery teachers also demonstrated evidence of increased agency in educational change and leadership (Ross et al., 2011). “Evaluation of emails and agenda setting, for example, showed that over a 16-month period teachers increasingly took on leadership roles within the group meetings and ultimately of the Streamline to Mastery program” (Otero, 2013).

As a participant, I experienced how inquiry is embedded into the program. As our TRT and Streamline to Mastery groups often discussed, for students to really embody the mindset of a scientist, they must become familiar with the feeling of the unknown. Our group often tried to design lessons where students had to collect data on topics that were new to them. The students collected data and investigated phenomena for which they did not know the outcomes (Goldberg et al., 2010). This is uncomfortable for students. Students are used to teachers prompting them or even telling them the answers through notes, labs, articles, or readings. They then just have to restate the information. The types of lessons we designed wanted the students to uncover the concepts themselves. This state is often called “productive struggle.” Our Streamline to Mastery group considers productive struggle to be an important part of the teaching and learning process. It encourages persistence, grit, and creative problem-solving for students. Students can engage with productive struggle when teachers encourage a growth mindset and incorporate meaningful collaboration into their classes (Townsend et al., 2018). Strategies to incorporate growth mindset and collaboration are discussed in Chap. 5. We made efforts to embody productive struggle within our Streamline to Mastery community as well.

Traditionally, students are used to doing confirmatory labs. Confirmatory labs are those in which students perform experiments to confirm what the teachers have already told them through lecture or activities. Students are not discovering the phenomenon, just watching it happen. Bell (2004) describes the way these types of labs affect a students’ epistemological stance. He argues that when students perform experiments in which the conclusion is known, they are involved in the “rhetoric of procedures” or the “rhetoric of conclusions.” The students already, at least partially, know the results for which they are looking. This ties back to why students are often uncomfortable with new types of learning, as was previously discussed in this chapter. However, scientists often perform experiments without knowing the results they are going to obtain which support their knowledge formation and ownership over their work (Bell, 2004 and Schrode, 2015). This can be seen as another form of productive struggle. Currently, science education standards are written with the goal of changing this paradigm. The goal of the Next Generation Science Standards is to incorporate more chances for students to experience science in this way (National Research Council, 2012). The goal of Streamline to Mastery mirrored this shift in the PD experiences offered to teachers.

I felt this productive struggle as well. I remember meetings in our first year feeling exactly the same as the environment we were trying to create for our students. Many of us had never experienced PD like this before. We were not used to the meetings with a participant-driven agenda, the topics chosen by the participants and not prescribed beforehand, as well as discussions focused on real-world issues experienced in our classrooms. Sometimes we were at a loss as to what to do—we were in the midst of a productive struggle and it felt uncomfortable. Some people in our cohort did not like this experience and found fault with it. They shunned these methods and talked negatively about the program and looked for different paths within the organization. However, some of us felt empowered and found agency within this setting. We began to lead the meetings, solicit feedback from members of the group, and set agendas.

In my first year I was part of a TRT that really did not seem to have a direction. The research question we originally posed was not bearing any usable data. Instead of letting this professional development opportunity pass me by, I decided to find data in my classroom that was yielding a cohesive research story. I brought this research to my group and took on a leadership role. We ended up with a research poster and a workshop-style PowerPoint that was presented at conferences locally as well as nationally and was used as a citation for the curriculum we were all using (PEER Physics, 2020). I had never before felt the sense of ownership, agency, and leadership that I experienced in this first year of Streamline to Mastery (Ross et al., 2014). Upon recent reflection of these experiences, I see that this was the purpose and intention of the group. The Streamline to Mastery group was set up in a way to elicit these responses. As Langley (2014) states, “Every system is perfectly designed to produce the results that it produces.” More information on the work of TRTs can be found in Chap. 3, Sec. 3.1.

One of the reasons this PD structure was so impactful for the participants was due to the human and social resources that were available. Louis et al. (1996) list the following as human and social resources that contribute to teacher communities and educational change: supportive leadership, openness to innovation, respect, feedback to instructional performance, and professional development. Although the authors of this book and I did not find an ideal PD program within our schools, they do exist and they can be created. We found these attributes intentionally built into our Streamline to Mastery program. Some of these structures and an interview with one of the Streamline to Mastery originators are discussed in the following “Teacher Spotlight” with Emily Quinty.

In the next section we will present research and best practices for how to create community and collaboration, like what we experienced in Streamline to Mastery, and how to implement these ideas in your own setting.

Streamline to Mastery was a valuable professional learning experience because it created a place for all members of the team to share ideas, discuss problems of practice, reflect, and create a space to learn. Developing a learning community, such as Streamline to Mastery, can be done inside or outside of a particular school or department. This is one of the reasons the program played such a large role in my (Shannon Wachowski) overall job satisfaction as a teacher. Being in a small, rural district, my place of employment could not offer me what I needed in terms of establishing community and collaboration with colleagues. To be able to problem-solve with others who taught my subject and experienced my challenges, I had to look outside the boundaries of my school district. While I did talk with the teachers in my department and participate in a school-wide Professional Learning Community (PLC), I needed something more. I was interested in implementing new changes and pedagogy into my classroom, and in order to do this I needed a supportive group that could help me grow professionally. According to Louis et al. (1996), a learning community is “the primary influence on teacher responsibility for student learning.” Streamline to Mastery offered the professional space I needed to reflect on the successes and challenges in my classroom. I received the support I desired to be confident in making changes to positively impact student learning. In this section, topics discussed will include the characteristics of a learning community that need to be in place to provide a meaningful opportunity for teachers, the outside factors that can support the development of learning communities, and the different phases of growth for a successful learning community.

Learning communities are rather common in most schools. They can exist formally as PLCs or be a more informal gathering of teachers who wish to learn and grow together. These groups form as a way to provide support for teachers dealing with the constant changes in education and the diverse forms of student learning (Owen, 2014). Learning communities can occur within a department, building, district, or outside the four walls of a school, as with Streamline to Mastery. They can also have varying levels of success, based on the presence of and emphasis on common characteristics for learning communities. When considering the development of your own learning community program, there are some common characteristics to keep in mind: (1) shared norms and values, (2) a willingness to experiment with alternative strategies, (3) a collective focus on student learning, (4) collaboration, (5) deprivatized practice, (6) reflective dialogue, and (7) taking an inquiry stance (Louis et al., 1996 and Owen, 2014).

Just as with students in our classes, it is important to set aside time and space to discuss and establish the norms and values of a professional group, such as a learning community. This could involve how participants view teaching and learning, as well as common expectations for and of all members of the team (Louis et al., 1996). One way to increase the overall learning of the group and expand its impact is to include teachers in various phases in their career and who have different perspectives. This creates a space of shared expertise where there is a mutual purpose and responsibility to the group. All members know about and can contribute to solving the problems of practice, otherwise known as common challenges that occur in the classroom. More novice teachers can learn through interaction with veteran teachers and also may present new viewpoints. Everyone contributes to the knowledge development of the community (Cesareni et al., 2011). This “shared discourse is a component of identity development and professional transformation” (Hardré et al., 2013).

Trust must be present in communities of learning, as this encourages sharing and increases social capital. When I join a new professional development opportunity, whether it is a one-time workshop or a multiweek experience, I initially always feel a bit nervous to share my viewpoint. I wonder if it will match the values and norms of the rest of the group. Discussion of these ideas came up frequently in Streamline to Mastery. Because one of the focuses of our meetings was to discuss problems of practice, these were often rooted in our values regarding teaching and learning. Everyone in the group was seen as an “expert” who could contribute their perspective to the overall learning of the group. Creating a trustful space to share and discuss ideas takes effort and constant monitoring. One way to move this work forward is through the use of norming routines and structures. Starting with norms “builds trust, clarifies group expectations of one another, and establishes points of ‘reflection’ to see how the group is doing regarding process” (School Reform Initiative, 2020).

Additionally, the varying perspectives of members with different backgrounds can lead to more innovation as the sharing of different experiences can often push teachers outside of their comfort zones (Hardré et al., 2013). Along with different perspectives, support in the form of structural conditions as well as human and social resources are important. These supports will be discussed later in the chapter in Sec. 1.2.2. Teachers can be innovative and strive to implement change, but without the support of leadership in the school, these changes may not be shared with the wider educational community (Cesareni et al., 2011). As a result of my work with Streamline to Mastery, I became involved in PEER Physics, an experiment-driven, student-centered curriculum being developed through CU. While I felt supported by the Streamline to Mastery and PEER Physics teams, this was not always the case back in my own school building. I had the freedom to do what I thought was best for my students, but the unique and alternate strategies I wanted to implement, such as the PEER Physics curriculum, were not always readily accepted by my colleagues. The hard work and effort I was putting in to transform my classroom was often referred to in passing as my “inquiry stuff.” Although I had a supportive learning community, it would probably have been more beneficial to my professional development if that community was present in my building. For more discussion regarding implementing changes in the classroom and beyond, including the support needed in this work, see Chap. 6.

The desire to implement innovative practices in the classroom usually stems from a desire to improve student learning. The responsibility that teachers take for student learning is influenced by the culture of the school and the culture of the learning community. Participation in a learning community can help support teachers to move beyond solving the problem of getting the students’ attention to encouraging their “intellectual growth and development” (Louis et al., 1996). A study using the National Educational Longitudinal Study database showed a link between a communal responsibility for student learning and student achievement (Louis et al., 1996).  Appendix 1A.1 contains a survey that can be used to assess a learning community's collective focus on student learning. Having common areas of interest with subject knowledge and a shared understanding of student needs can help sustain teachers’ creativity and passion for education (Burke, 2017). Part of the reason I involved myself in programs such as Streamline to Mastery was due to a sense of responsibility for my students’ learning. In my initial years as a new teacher, I thought I was doing everything “right” until my students would take a test. Then I would realize that they were not able to demonstrate as much mastery on the subject as I had hoped. At this point in my career, I was a pretty traditional teacher, utilizing direct instruction, confirmatory labs, and multiple choice tests. Because I felt a responsibility for my students’ learning, or in that case, a demonstrated lack of learning, I was compelled to seek out other organizations and resources to support my knowledge of educational best practice. This is what motivated me to give up some of my own personal time to engage with other teachers through learning communities such as Streamline to Mastery as well as PEER Physics and The POGIL Project. POGIL is an acronym for Process Oriented Guided Inquiry Learning. The POGIL Project is a nonprofit organization that supports teachers in student-centered active learning pedagogy (POGIL, 2019b). For more about these organizations and their impact on student and teacher learning, see Chap. 5 and Chap. 6.

Another main element of learning communities, collaboration, can create a “sense of mutual support and responsibility for effective instruction” (Louis et al., 1996). Collaboration can act as a tool for social interaction that allows participants to build knowledge and develop a shared understanding. One way to increase this social interaction and provide alternate methods for communication—maintaining opportunities for collaboration—is through technology. Social platforms and video conferencing tools provide ways to expand what it means to communicate and reach a wider variety of participants (Cesareni et al., 2011). One of the main components of Streamline to Mastery was that all members of the learning community would meet in person twice a month. At times, someone would have a conflict and need to meet remotely, or a member of the group would move to a different location in the state, as experienced by one of the authors of this book. Video conferencing tools became key to ensuring that all voices were heard and that collaboration could continue despite the change in venue. In fact, having some participate remotely and some in person, while a bit tricky to navigate at first, improved everyone's skills with regard to communication and honoring group norms.

Another way to increase collaboration is through the inclusion of education research into the learning community. Developing partnerships with university researchers can help bridge the gap between education and research. Additionally, teachers are more likely to see a connection with research if they can be active participants in the process. A study by Martinovic et al., (2012) showed that when teachers were invited to participate in education research, there was an interest to establish further partnerships with university researchers. The discussion with colleagues through the process of education research was cited as the teachers’ most valuable resource (Martinovic et al., 2012). Streamline to Mastery demonstrated this same principle. When I first joined the cohort, I was nervous about working with university faculty. I felt like I did not have much to offer in the way of research knowledge and it was not something I used in my classroom decisions. However, I soon learned that my perspective was valued and a strong relationship was formed; I provided the classroom perspective and the researchers provided the expertise I needed to conduct education research to improve the learning environment for my students. One of my first research projects involved collecting survey data from students. The graduate student working with our group was very excited to be part of the team and shared his expertise around how to code survey responses. As one of the teachers in the group, I was then able to contribute around the various codes that should be created from the survey responses based on my background with the students. This technique of coding surveys is a skill I continue to use today in a variety of contexts. Barriers to teachers engaging in research includes them feeling like it sounds too complicated and not seeing any practical applications to the classroom (Martinovic et al., 2012). Through the Streamline to Mastery program, I was able to collaborate with university partners to see the connection between research and improving the learning opportunities for my students. For more information about research in the classroom, see Chap. 3.

Other collaborative partnerships include those with families and the community. As educators, we need to view these partnerships from a strength-based perspective, seeing families and communities as a rich resource to support students. Teachers and parents can value each other and share the same goal of student success (Quezada et al., 2013). Long-term partnerships such as those with universities, families, and communities, can be beneficial to student achievement. For example, in a study conducted by Bestelmeyer et al. (2018), ecologists created long-term partnerships with the local schools. Through these collaborations, students were able to examine changes to their environment over time and feel like a part of the system. Students who may not have initially seen themselves as scientists could be involved in the research process and make valuable contributions to their community. A similar transition occurred with myself and the other members of the Streamline to Mastery learning community. While we did not initially see ourselves as researchers, through the support of Streamline to Mastery, we were able to design a research question to address a challenge in our classroom, collect and analyze data, and present our findings to the national education community at conferences and other events. All with the end goal of increasing our confidence to make research-based classroom decisions that supported our students’ learning and growth.

Collaboration in all forms, but especially in learning communities, can be challenging to achieve. However, the work to create a culture of collaboration is worth it as “professional development is enhanced by including peer collaboration toward meaningful knowledge and skill-sharing that produces knowledge development in communities of learning and practice” (Hardré et al., 2013). To develop true collaboration, it is important to create a culture that incorporates challenge and debate. All members of the learning community must feel free and safe to share their ideas but to also question and challenge others. This can be a scary prospect as, most times, with our colleagues, we may be hesitant to offer conflicting viewpoints or provide constructive criticism. To have real collaboration and move the group's thinking forward, it is important to embrace a growth mindset and step outside of our own perspective to value the ideas and culture of others (Owen, 2014). Streamline to Mastery is one of the few groups where I have experienced this type of collaboration. It did not happen immediately and took developing trust with the other members of the team. And the process was not easy, as often my initial response was to be upset that someone was questioning or criticizing my idea. Developing trust was rooted in our shared responsibility for students and each other's learning. Through purposeful discussion about norms and values, discussed in more detail in Sec. 1.2.1.1, we were able to develop an authentic collaborative culture. For more on collaboration to impact change, see Chap. 6.

Because we had worked so hard to develop a culture of collaboration in Streamline to Mastery, this increased my confidence in discussing my teaching decisions with others. This confidence appeared in my interactions with PEER Physics, another learning community of which I am a part, when I engaged in learning lab activities. As described in the “Teacher Spotlight” of this chapter, these events involved traveling to other teachers’ schools to observe them and participate in discussions around their instructional choices. In this case, the host teacher became the lead learner and we all used the experience as a way to reflect on our own teaching practices. Eventually, I had enough confidence and courage to host my own learning lab visit. Several of the colleagues in my building commented on my bravery with inviting other teachers into my classroom. Their perception was that it would be an environment of judgment and criticism. However, because the PEER Physics group and I had established trust and a shared value of learning, deprivatizing my practice, or observing to share expertise, was an exciting adventure, not a dreaded experience. According to Louis et al. (1996), deprivatization of the teaching practice can show up as peer coaching, team teaching, or classroom observations. These structures can improve what happens in the classroom as well as the relationships between teachers. Participants in the learning community get to know each other's strengths within the group which makes finding support and help for a particular issue easier. Additionally, inviting others into the classroom with the focus of group learning takes away the evaluative component that is so often present in classroom observations. Instead, members of the learning community reflect together around the teaching practice.

Another positive aspect of participation in a learning community such as Streamline to Mastery or the PEER Physics learning lab visits has to do with reflective dialogue and being able to be metacognitive about one's own teaching practice. Engaging in this level of discussion allows learning community members to gain a better understanding of their instructional practice and the products of teaching and learning (Louis et al., 1996). One of the key components of Streamline to Mastery that benefited me most were our problems of practice discussions. Before every meeting, the agenda would be set, based on the needs of the group, to include a problem of practice. This could revolve around the issue of formative assessment, a particular science lesson, or a classroom management issue. Before the meeting, members would gather resources to share around the problem of practice and then engage in reflective dialogue during the meeting about the issue. This sharing of challenges with others can also lead to changes in teacher identity. In a study conducted by Hardré et al. (2013), it was found that teachers engaging in a research experience with engineering faculty transitioned from feeling like engineering was beyond them to feeling capable of incorporating engineering into their classroom. The teachers then went back to their classrooms to share this process of transformation with their students, demonstrating the power of peer and administrative support in transferring professional learning to the classroom. Toward the end of my experience with Streamline to Mastery, the research project my partner and I decided to focus on had to do with standing desks and student engagement. After writing a grant to secure funds, the new standing desks became part of my classroom furniture and were very visible to my students. This created the opportunity to share with them about my journey and experience with education research. In this way, the students played a part in the research rather than just having data collected about them. Through the sharing of my experiences, they could see that I was still learning and growing in my profession, just as I was asking them to do in class.

Inquiry in education, especially in the STEM fields, is not a new concept. However, as teachers, we sometimes do not apply this principle to our own learning and growth in the field of education. Often we feel there is not enough time or energy to analyze what we do and why we do it. This is the power of a learning community. According to Owen (2014), taking an inquiry stance involves a desire to learn more about the profession, “taking risks and openness to improvement.” Through Streamline to Mastery, I was able to engage in inquiry about my practice, mainly through the lens of education research. Within this learning community, members would surface problems of practice, share resources, and discuss possible solutions, but also plan for and conduct research. This process of gathering data, taking action, observing, and reporting back to the group enabled teachers to not only wonder about how to improve their own teaching practice but also take specific steps toward that goal (Owen, 2014). Participation in this activity has also changed my overall mindset when it comes to other issues I see within my own teaching or the field of education in general. I'm often asking “why” questions and looking to collect data around an issue. This idea has transferred to my current position as a science consultant with a department of education. As a new person to this position, one of my first big goals is to conduct a needs analysis around the topic of science education support in the state. I want to take an inquiry stance around the current state of science to collect data on the specific needs of teachers that will better inform the resources and professional learning that are developed. For more information on education research to improve your teaching practice, see Chap. 3.

Taking an inquiry stance, along with embracing some of the other factors of a successful learning community, is a vulnerable position for teachers. It involves letting others into their classroom, discussing instructional decisions, and sharing problems of practice. The role of support by administrators and other factors in determining the success of learning communities should not be underscored. Teachers need to feel safe in order to embrace the growth mindset of a learning community. According to Louis et al. (1996), the two main categories of factors to support learning communities are structural conditions and human/social resources. Structural conditions revolve around staffing complexity, scheduled planning time, and teacher empowerment. Human and social resources include having supportive leadership, a culture that supports openness to innovation, respect, receiving feedback on teaching from colleagues, and active participation in professional development. The presence and development of these factors can work toward the creation of a meaningful learning community.

The value of a diversity of perspectives and experiences in a learning community has previously been discussed. However, this inclusive environment can also lead to challenges with staffing complexity in that when lots of specialists exist, it may be more difficult to find shared values (Louis et al., 1996). Streamline to Mastery was originally composed of high school science teachers but gradually branched out to include middle school math as well as elementary STEM educators. This variety of teaching backgrounds added to the richness of the discussions. I often found that the math and elementary teachers had perspectives to offer that I would not have considered on my own, leading to an openness and welcoming of new ideas. The presence of these different viewpoints also aided in the mentoring of the pre-service teachers, who as part of our TRTs, were working toward becoming elementary, middle, or high school teachers.

Another structural support involves providing specific times for learning communities to meet. Teachers will often collaborate on their own time, without a set structure, but to support the development of a professional community, meetings need to be formally scheduled (Louis et al., 1996). I know I have encountered several instances in my own professional learning where I have conversations with colleagues about getting together to discuss a certain issue or problem of practice. Unless time for these talks is specifically set aside, they often do not occur. With the Streamline to Mastery program, times were scheduled every other week. The role of determining the agenda and sending out reminder emails was rotated within the group in order to share responsibility. However, these meetings still took place outside of the normal school day, which did create a burden despite the meetings being enriching. When establishing a learning community within your school or district, consider finding a time within the normal schedule when teachers can meet. Due to all the responsibilities placed on teachers, this may pose a large challenge and is why the support of administration is so crucial to the success of these professional development groups. Additionally, participation in Streamline to Mastery was a stipend paid position. While it may not be possible to have this component in every learning community structure, if time is scheduled outside of the normal workday for groups to meet, it can be valuable to offer some sort of compensation for time spent.

School leadership can also play a role in the support of the third structural condition, teacher empowerment. Teachers must have the opportunity to contribute to and help make decisions in the school. It is best to have site-based or school-based rather than centralized decision-making (Louis et al., 1996). For more on how administrators can support and teachers can become involved in school and district level decision-making, see Chap. 6. Research conducted by Molina (2013) encourages administrators to support leadership initiatives from different stakeholders to help everyone, including teachers, students, families, and communities, “understand and influence school decisions.” Three categories of teacher leadership can surface, including the “senior teacher leaders.” These teachers are highly experienced individuals who often coach others for 50% of their day. The other two categories include “model/demonstration” teachers who open up their classrooms to others to provide the opportunity for observation and discussion about connections to the observers’ own teaching practices, and “instructional content leaders” who have specialized knowledge, such as in technology or English as a second language, that they can use to coach others (Walther-Thomas, 2016). Within and beyond these teacher leadership roles, teachers must feel empowered to make instructional decisions in their classrooms. “When teachers have the latitude to respond to student diversity and instructional issues, they will interact, exchange professional expertise, and collaborate” (Louis et al., 1996). As the lone physical science teacher in my small, rural district, I was empowered to make all instructional decisions in my classroom. However, this also meant that I often felt alone in my decision-making as I had no one in my district with whom I could collaborate. Joining a learning community like Streamline to Mastery provided me with a group of teachers to learn from and share with as well as the help to develop the confidence to make informed instructional decisions, through education research, to benefit student success.

Considering human and social resources (supportive leadership, openness to innovation, respect, feedback to instructional performance, and professional development) when building a learning community is valuable due to their influence in implementing features that increase social capital and developing relationships that contribute to a more efficient, productive, and positive work environment (Louis et al., 1996). Supportive leadership can be instrumental in developing social capital by focusing on factors that lead to improved school culture, keeping the vision and mission at the forefront of all that they do, and supporting innovation and change that are in line with those goals (Louis et al., 1996). While Streamline to Mastery was not a within-district cohort (teachers from the Denver and Boulder areas were involved), it still held the characteristic of supportive leadership. Otero supported the learning community by offering guidance and support in terms of the vision for Streamline to Mastery, but we as members of the cohort were empowered to make our own decisions regarding the direction of the group and agenda for specific meetings.

This type of leadership also supports additional human and social resources including openness to innovation and respect. A focus of the Streamline to Mastery learning community was on trusting teachers to make the important decisions in the classroom and in the coordination of the learning community. This culture helped generate respect between leadership and the cohort members as well as within the cohort itself. The expertise of others was honored to build community (Louis et al., 1996). Because we were trusted to make valuable decisions in our classroom, we were also supported and encouraged to embrace risk-taking. The education research portion of Streamline to Mastery helped support the making of data-driven decisions and provided members with evidence of positive classroom change that could be used with administration and during evaluations. For more on how to use data to drive goal-setting conversations with administrators, see Chap. 2 as well as Chap. 4. Additionally, we were supported financially and academically to attend conferences and provide workshops as an avenue to share our educational research. When I first considered presenting my small classroom study to a group of faculty members at an AAPT conference, I was nervous and lacked confidence. However, with the support of my cohort members and the leadership team, I felt prepared to share my findings with the greater education community. This initial experience of presenting at a conference led to my involvement in other professional development opportunities, and I now lead workshops for various groups including PEER Physics and The POGIL Project.

Feedback, another aspect of human and social resources, was essential to helping me feel confident to share my work at conferences. The spring would often be filled with several meetings involving Otero and other cohort members to practice our talks, revise, and practice again! While this process was arduous, it can be challenging for the ego to receive feedback regarding something you have worked hard on; it also helped me to see the value in making oneself vulnerable enough to put your work out there, utilizing the efforts and perspectives of the whole group to develop a quality product. Feedback was also provided in the form of lesson sharing. In this activity, a member of the learning community would choose a lesson they had questions about or were struggling with and present it to the group. The cohort would then provide feedback, suggestions, and resources to help improve the lesson. Additionally, as previously mentioned, the PEER Physics learning lab visits created an environment of shared learning and growth through the observation and subsequent discussion of a lesson observation. According to Louis et al. (1996), “In schools where observation occurs often, is reciprocal, and provides teachers with specific and useful information on their performance, instructional improvement characterizes the organization as ‘shared work.’” Through all the forms of feedback within Streamline to Mastery and PEER Physics, a community of shared responsibility for learning was present.

The last component of human and social resources, active participation in professional development, is woven throughout the forming and maintaining of a learning community. “Professional community must therefore be based on effective teaching, which is, in turn, supported by the emerging practical and research-based knowledge underlying the field” (Louis et al., 1996). Through participation in Streamline to Mastery, I was able to collaborate not only with teachers in my surrounding area to share and discuss problems of practice but I was also able to conduct and present education research. These opportunities led to connections with other education professionals, which increased my knowledge and skills in the field while also creating a space for me to contribute to the national dialogue about education and its challenges. Besides the opportunities to network and share ideas, another fundamental component of Streamline to Mastery was the financial support. While it is possible to find ways to volunteer and participate in low- or no-cost professional development, this resource was invaluable to me considering my small district did not have the funds to support me in attending various conferences and workshops. Because I had financial backing and time in the summer that I was willing to donate, active involvement in professional development opportunities led to an increase in my own skills as well as growth in my teacher network. For example, I was able to become a trained facilitator for The POGIL Project as well as present at a National Science Teaching Association conference, both events I would not have been able to attend for financial reasons were I not receiving funding from Streamline to Mastery. Attendance at events like these helped me grow my confidence and education knowledge. Getting to this point in my own practice, and within Streamline to Mastery, of sharing and critiquing ideas freely, making research-based decisions, and having the confidence to take risks and consider classroom innovations did not occur overnight. In order to develop an effective learning community, it is important to understand the different phases of development that the cohort will experience.

A learning community does not become an effective working group during the first meeting. I am sure we can all recall some sort of professional group we were a part of that did not function effectively or productively. Some of my department-level PLCs were like this because we did not take the time to establish a common vision or goal. The purposes of our meetings revolved around putting out fires, lesson planning for that week, or making copies.

There are two main models for the development phases of an organization. One comes from Mulford (1998; as cited in Owen, 2014) with the stages of “‘forming’ (polite), ‘storming’ (conflict over power), ‘norming’ (social cohesion and willingness to share), ‘performing’ (increase in task orientation and feedback), ‘transforming’ (group learns from feedback and may change tasks or ways of doing them), ‘dorming’ (resting to prevent burnout) and ‘mourning’ (group dissolution).” The role of the administrator is important in moving a group from the first three stages to the more productive phases, including performing and transforming. Because the school leader is important to establishing the culture in the school, their role in learning community development is key. For more information on the role of leadership in school culture, see Chap. 2 and Chap. 6.

Another model of development phases comes from DuFour (2004; as cited in Owen, 2014) and includes “‘preinitiation’, ‘initiation’, ‘developing’ and ‘sustaining’ stages.” This model also emphasizes the role of leadership but from the administration and teacher viewpoint combined with the value of conducting education research to make informed and collaborative instructional decisions. Similar models also exist from Grossman et al. as well as Caine and Caine, which are discussed in Spencer-Johnson (2018). In all of these models, a group will go through “bonding and addressing conflict before evolving into a mature state that functions as a community” (Spencer-Johnson, 2018). Getting to the mature state involves learning how to engage in challenging and questioning. The group cannot just accept ideas but must discuss and debate them. Learning how to do this is a challenging process in itself. A study done by Wells identified different actions a group can take to develop into a mature community of learners:

Another aspect to keep in mind when considering the developmental phases of a learning community is the purpose of the group. Teachers tend to place more emphasis on informal learning situations such as Streamline to Mastery, which was completely volunteer, rather than formal ones like mandated district professional development. Teachers value the time to get together and share ideas, and it is this behavior that leads to real learning, not necessarily based on the content of the planned professional development (Spencer-Johnson, 2018). However, too casual a structure may not help the group reach more productive development phases where “improved teaching practices” are the focus (Spencer-Johnson, 2018). It is important to the development of a learning community to keep the opportunity to share and reflect but also make sure that reflection is focused on “pedagogy and content knowledge” (Spencer-Johnson, 2018). Additionally, learning communities cannot exist in a bubble. There needs to be a “strong sense of collective responsibility” (Spencer-Johnson, 2018) for school improvement outside of the individual classrooms. This was why the Streamline to Mastery program was so successful in improving teaching practices for all participants. While the group was informal in nature, the structure and vision existed to allow all members to reflect on and improve their practice. This became a central focus through our lesson shares and work on education research. And, in order to engage in this work, the group had to experience conflict and reevaluate norms in order to become a functioning team. Because this group was formed by teachers for teachers, we felt a greater responsibility and desire to express our ideas. All members of the group were there specifically to develop community, learn from one another, and improve their teaching practice. While sometimes this sharing created conflict, it was only through these experiences that we were able to develop into a productive learning community. Additionally, by presenting our research in a more formal environment, on a regional and national scale, we were also expressing our collective responsibility for education and sharing it with a larger audience.

Every learning community will follow its own path based on design and development. Being aware of these developmental phases can help ensure the creation of a valuable learning community that supports the teachers involved to further develop their knowledge of teaching and learning in order to benefit their students.

1. What possible partners and stakeholders could you collaborate with around the formation of a learning community? Think outside of the four walls of the school building and invite those who have a vested interest in growing and learning in education.

2. How might your newly formed learning community use norms to aid in group formation and develop shared values? Choose a protocol from the School Reform Initiative [School Reform Initiative (2020)] to get you started. The Forming Ground Rules (Creating Norms) Protocol is a great first step.

3. How will you evaluate your learning community to discover areas of success and areas for growth?  Appendix 1A.1 contains survey questions that can be used to highlight several of the factors deemed important to the success of a learning community, accessible here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MDWaA7DsrT953CydwQ02tnRfkqf9j6YglCd9oRXoYf0/copy. Have all members of the learning community take the survey and discuss the meaning of the results at the next meeting. Develop an action plan based on the results. Consider the developmental phases and factors of support when designing your plan.

4. What strategies might your team use to deprivatize practice? Form partners and set up times to observe each other's classrooms. Find a rubric/tool to use to keep the form of feedback given consistent and valuable. One possible resource is the OPTIC classroom observation tool (POGIL, 2019a) from The POGIL Project. This tool provides a rubric and implementation guide around observations of the teacher and their interactions with an active learning classroom.

The following link contains an electronic version of a survey, discussed in Sec. 1.2.1.3, that can be used to highlight several of the factors deemed important to the success of a learning community: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MDWaA7DsrT953CydwQ02tnRfkqf9j6YglCd9oRXoYf0/copy.

• My success or failure in teaching students is due primarily to factors beyond my control rather than to my own efforts and ability (reversed).

• I sometimes feel it is a waste of time to try to do my best as a teacher (reversed).

• I am certain I am making a difference in the lives of my students.

• To what extent do you feel that you have been successful in providing the kind of education you would like to provide for students in the target class?

• The attitudes and habits my students bring to my class greatly reduce their chances for academic success (reversed).

• Many of the students I teach are not capable of learning the material I am supposed to teach them (reversed).

• I feel responsible for the students I teach but not for other students in the school (reversed).

• In this school, I am likely to experience the following consequence as a direct result of my students’ academic success or failure: public recognition in meetings of the faculty or the larger community, in school publications, or in the mass media and press.

• Teachers are expected to help maintain discipline in the entire school, not just their classroom.

• The level of student misbehavior (e.g., noise, horseplay or fighting in the halls, cafeteria, or student lounge) and/or drug or alcohol use in this school interferes with my teaching (reversed).

• Most of my colleagues share my beliefs and values about what the central mission of the school should be.

• Goals and priorities for the school are clear.

• In this school the teachers and the administration are in close agreement on school discipline policy.

• How often since the beginning of the current school year did you receive useful suggestions for curriculum materials from colleagues in your department?

• How often since the beginning of the current school year did you receive useful suggestions for teaching techniques or student activities from colleagues in your department?

• There is a great deal of cooperative effort among staff members.

• I make a conscious effort to coordinate the content of my courses with other teachers.

• In a typical planning period when you meet with other teachers, about how much time is spent (on coordinating content)? Do teachers decide common themes and suggest related materials and activities to guide instruction?

• Since the beginning of the current school year, about how much time per month have you spent meeting with other teachers on lesson planning, curriculum development, guidance and counseling, evaluation of programs, or other collaborative work related to instruction?

• Higher level skills (reasoning, problem solving, critical and creative thinking) are important to your teaching as a goal for your students.

• Teachers focus on what and how well students are learning rather than how they are teaching.

• Teachers exhibit a reasonably focused commitment to authentic curriculum and instruction.

• A focused school vision for student learning is shared by most staff in the school.

• How often do two or more teaching colleagues regularly observe your students’ academic performance or review their grades or test scores?

• Except for monitoring student teachers or substitute teachers, how often have you visited another teacher's classroom to observe and discuss their teaching since the beginning of the current school year?

• Since the beginning of the current school year, how often has another teacher come to your classroom to observe your teaching (exclude visits by student teachers or those required for formal evaluations)?

• How often since the beginning of the current school year did you receive meaningful feedback on your performance from supervisors or peers?

• In a typical planning period when you meet with other teachers, about how much time is spent (on diagnosing individual students?) on teachers discussing problems of specific students and arranging appropriate help?

• In a typical planning period when you meet with other teachers, about how much time is spent (on analyzing teaching?) on teachers discussing specific teaching practices and behaviors of team members?

• How often since the beginning of the current school year did you meet with colleagues to discuss specific teaching behaviors?

• Proportion of teachers reporting they teach nonacademic subjects (i.e., art, physical education, music).

• Ratio of the number of assistant principals to the number of full-time teachers.

• Ratio of the number of guidance counselors to the number of full-time teachers.

• Ratio of other nonteaching professional staff (full-time equivalents) to the number of full-time teachers.

• How often do you participate in a regularly scheduled planning period with teachers?

• How often do you meet with other teachers for a planning period?

• How much influence do teachers have over determining student behavior codes?

• How much influence do teachers have over setting policy on grouping students in class by ability?

• How much control do you feel you have in your target class over disciplining students?

• How much influence do teachers have over determining the content of in-service programs?

• How much influence do teachers have over planning school building budgets?

• How much influence do teachers have over determining specific professional and teaching assignments?

• How much influence do teachers have over establishing the school curriculum?

• How much influence do teachers have over determining the school schedule (including teacher prep periods)?

• How much influence do teachers have over hiring new professional personnel?

• How much control do you feel you have in your target class over selecting textbooks and other instructional materials?

• Staff are involved in making decisions that affect them.

• I have influence on the decisions within the school that directly affect me.

• The school administration's behavior toward the staff is supportive and encouraging.

• The principal is interested in innovation and new ideas.

• The current principal has influence on restructuring.

• I feel accepted and respected as a colleague by most staff members.

• To what extent do you feel respected as a teacher by other teachers?

• …by your department chair?

• …by your principal (or equivalent)?

• …by your district office?

• …by students’ parents?

• …by your students?

• …by this community?

• Teachers in this school are continually learning and seeking new ideas.

• In this school I am encouraged to experiment with my teaching.

• In this school, are you likely to experience any of the following consequences as a direct result of your students’ academic success or failure?

• Written congratulations or reprimand.

• Oral congratulations or reprimand.

• Approval or disapproval from parents.

• Most of the in-service programs I attended this school year dealt with issues specific to the needs and concerns of this school's students or staff.

• Staff development programs in this school permit me to acquire important new knowledge and skills.

Source: Modified from Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., and Kruse, S., “Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools,” Am. Educ. Res. J. 33(4), 787–791 (1996).