The connection between professional learning (PL) and student success is well-known, leading countries worldwide to prioritize the creation and evaluation of new and innovative PL models to enhance STEM education. PL projects, while diverse in goals and structure, all aim to support teachers and students. Research on how PL affects teacher learning hasn't yielded clear guidance for teacher educators and schools. It's crucial to identify the elements of PL that sustainably affect teacher instruction and student learning. More rigorous evidence is needed to guide developers, teacher educators, and policymakers on the impact of PL on mathematics and STEM learning outcomes for teachers and students. This study was guided by the following research question: What is the nature of what teachers take up and use two to five years after participating in various PL workshops?

Data was collected from six large scale PL programs that share many similar design elements and focus on developing science and mathematics teaching practices but are uniquely different in their goals, structures, and uses of technology. Due to their variety, these projects are useful for learning more about how distinct features of PL can influence long-term teacher learning. Unique features of these models range from technology-mediated online programs, mathematics teachers collaborating on lesson plans internationally using annotation technology, using a video observation tool and connected technological tool to focus on teacher movement and space, to innovative problem-solving approaches that support teachers' use of mathematical practices.

This paper is focused on a survey given to all teachers from the projects (N= ~400) one to five years after participation in the PL programs. The survey includes questions asking participants to reflect on their PL experience and characterize their past and current use of the PL content, pedagogy, and materials. The survey included both Likert items, in which participants responded to statements on a scale of 1-10, and follow-up questions that allowed the participants to provide more details about their numeric responses.

Data analysis included consideration of both qualitative and quantitative responses from participants. We identified key factors using factor analysis, and then compared the distributions of averages within factors across the six projects. Preliminary analysis suggests that while all PDs are high quality in terms of materials provided, building community, and pedagogical tools, they differed in their foci as evidenced in the descriptive statistics. Continued analyses will use the written responses of the participants to provide nuance and dimension to these comparisons, along with providing validation of the quantitative results. Our initial findings suggest that even among highly effective research-based PL, there are substantive differences, and that there is not “one way,” to conduct high-quality PD but there are a multitude of options for teachers, coaches, administrators and researchers to select depending on the needs and goals of the local content.

Keywords: STEM education, professional development, professional learning, mathematics education, teacher learning.