Collaboration versus Concreteness: Tensions in Designing for Scale

Abstract

Background

Substantial research on reform implementation highlights numerous challenges to implementing innovations at scale with depth and sustainability, yet new reforms continue to encounter many of the same challenges. This has led to calls for researchers to work in partnership with practitioners to design, implement, and scale educational innovations. Although these approaches hold promise, little is known about the internal operations of these improvement approaches and the experiences of their participants.

Purpose

Through a case study of a research–practice partnership that uses a continuous improvement approach to design and development, this article explores how the collaborative design process shaped the resulting innovation design. Research Design: This is a qualitative case study that included interviews with members of the district and school design teams, observations and field notes from design team meetings, and participant feedback forms.

Findings/Results

The evidence converges on three main challenges in the design process. These challenges point to tensions in maximizing all the design factors because they sometimes conflicted with each other: (1) Members were most engaged when the work was very specific and deemed feasible in a particular context, (2) Efforts to develop more specificity in the design emphasis were limited by efforts to engage educators in a collaborative process in which school-level actors had ownership over key design decisions, and (3) The abstractness of the emerging reform led to difficulties in establishing a shared deep understanding of each core component of the reform. Finally, the ability of school teams to productively resolve these tensions was related to the existing capacity of the school.

Conclusions

This case study of a collaborative design process in a research–practice partnership illustrates the complexities of the co-construction of a set of reform practices between researchers, practitioners, and other stakeholders and highlights the need for a delicate balance between specificity of the design and local engagement. We showed how a collaborative process fostered high engagement as researchers and practitioners co-constructed the reform, and how the team struggled to define the core strategies in sufficient detail to allow for implementation planning in a way that maintained the co-constructed design. There appeared to be a tension between achieving the necessary concreteness or specificity in the reform design that would be implemented across contexts, and a process that valued local ownership and collaborative decision-making.

References

Berends

Bodilly

, & Kirby

S. N.

(2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade (MR-1498-EDU). RAND. http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB8019/index1.html

Bodilly

(1996). Lessons from New American Schools Development Corporation's demonstration phase. RAND. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED396377

Bodilly

Glennan

T. K.

Kerr

K. A.

, & Galegher

J. R.

(2004). Framing the problem. In Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions (pp. 1—39). RAND Corporation.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

, & Grunow

(2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In Hallinan

M. T.

(Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127—162). Springer.

Bryk

A. S.

Gomez

L. M.

Grunow

, & LeMahieu

P. G.

(2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.

Camburn

E. M.

(2010). Embedded teacher learning opportunities as a site for reflective practice: An exploratory study. American Journal of Education, 116 4, 463—489.

Cannata

Cohen-Vogel

, & Sorum

(2017). Partnering for improvement: Improvement communities and their role in scale-up. Peabody Journal of Education, 92 5, 569—588.

Cannata

Redding

, & Nguyen

(2019). Building student ownership and responsibility: Examining student outcomes from a research-practice partnership. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12 3, 333—362. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1615157

Cannata

, & Rutledge

S. A.

(2017). Introduction to new frontiers in scaling up research. Peabody Journal of Education, 92 5, 559—568.

10.

Coburn

C. E.

(2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43 3, 343—349.

11.

Coburn

C. E.

Bae

, & Turner

E. O.

(2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83 3, 364—399. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560802222350

12.

Coburn

C. E.

, & Penuel

W. R.

(2016). Research–practice partnerships in education outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1),. 48—54.

13.

Coburn

C. E.

Penuel

W. R.

, & Geil

K. E.

(2013). Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. William T. Grant Foundation.

14.

Coburn

C. E.

Russell

J. L.

Kaufman

J. H.

, & Stein

M. K.

(2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119 1, 137—182.

15.

Coburn

C. E.

, & Stein

M. K.

(Eds.). (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Rowman & Littlefield.

16.

Cohen

D. K.

, & Ball

D. L.

(1999). Instruction, capacity, and improvement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

17.

Cohen

D. K.

Moffitt

S. L.

, & Goldin

(2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113 4, 515—548.

18.

Cohen

D. K.

Peurach

D. J.

Glazer

J. L.

Gates

K. E.

, & Goldin

(2013). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. University of Chicago Press.

19.

Cohen-Vogel

Allen

Rutledge

Cannata

Harrison

, & Smith

(2018). Organizing for school improvement: The dilemmas of research-practice partnerships. Journal of Research on Organization in Education, 2 1, 1—24.

20.

Cohen-Vogel

Cannata

Rutledge

, & Socol

A. R.

(2016). A model of continuous improvement in high schools: A process for research, innovation design, implementation, and scale. Teachers College Record, 116 13, 1—26.

21.

Cohen-Vogel

Tichnor-Wagner

Allen

Harrison

Kainz

Socol

A. R.

, & Wang

(2015). Implementing educational innovations at scale: Transforming researchers into continuous improvement scientists. Educational Policy, 29 1, 257—277.

22.

Datnow

Hubbard

, & Mehan

(2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. Routledge.

23.

Datnow

McHugh

Stringfield

, & Hacker

D. J.

(1998). Scaling up the core knowledge sequence. Education and Urban Society, 30 3, 409—432.

24.

Datnow

, & Park

(2009). Conceptualizing policy implementation: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In Sykes

Schneider

, & Plank

D. N.

(Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348—361). Routledge.

25.

Dede

, & Honan

J. P.

(2005). Scaling up success: A synthesis of themes and insights. In Dede

Honan

J. P.

, & Peters

L. C.

(Eds.), Scaling up success: Lessons learned from technology-based educational improvement (pp. 227—239). Jossey-Bass.

26.

Desimone

(2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72 3, 433—479.

27.

Devos

Tuytens

, & Hulpia

(2014). Teachers’ organizational commitment: Examining the mediating effects of distributed leadership. American Journal of Education, 120 2, 205—231.

28.

Durlak

J. A.

, & Dupre

E. P.

(2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327—350.

29.

Elmore

R. F.

(2016). “Getting to scale…” it seemed like a good idea at the time. Journal of Educational Change, 17 4, 529—537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9290-8

30.

Engelbart

D. C.

(1992). Toward high-performance organizations: A strategic role for groupware. Bootstrap Institute. http://www.dougengelbart.org/pubs/augment-132811.html#3

31.

Fishman

B. J.

Penuel

W. R.

Allen

A.-R.

Cheng

B. H.

, & Sabelli

(2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. In Fishman

B. J.

Penuel

W. R.

Allen

A.-R.

, & Cheng

B. H.

(Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars (pp. 136—156). Teachers College, Columbia University.

32.

Fullan

(2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17 4, 539—544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9289-1

33.

Gallagher

M. J.

Malloy

, & Ryerson

(2016). Achieving excellence: Bringing effective literacy pedagogy to scale in Ontario's publicly-funded education system. Journal of Educational Change, 17 4, 477—504.

34.

Glennan

T. K.

Bodilly

S. J.

Galegher

J. R.

, & Kerr

K. A.

(2004). Expanding the reach of education reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions. RAND Publishing.

35.

Harrison

Wachen

Brown

, & Cohen-Vogel

(2019). A view from within: Lessons learned from partnering for continuous improvement. Teachers College Record, 121 9, 1—38. https://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 22782

36.

Hatch

(2002). When improvement programs collide. Phi Delta Kappan, 83 8, 626—639.

37.

Hatch

, & White

(2002). The raw materials of reform: Rethinking the knowledge of school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 3 2, 117—134.

38.

Knapp

M. S.

(2008). How can organizational and sociocultural learning theories shed light on district instructional reform? American Journal of Education, 114 4, 521—539.

39.

LeMahieu

P. G.

Grunow

Baker

Nordstrum

L. E.

, & Gomez

L. M.

(2017). Networked improvement communities: The discipline of improvement science meets the power of networks. Quality Assurance in Education, 25 1, 5—25.

40.

Lewis

(2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44 1, 54—61. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X15570388

41.

Louis

K. S.

(2008). Learning to support improvement—Next steps for research on district practice. American Journal of Education, 114 4, 681—689.

42.

McLaughlin

M. W.

(1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9 2, 171—178.

43.

Niesz

, & Ryan

(2018). Teacher ownership versus scaling up system-wide educational change: The case of activity based learning in South India. Educational Research for Policy and Practice, 17, 209—222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10671-018-9232-8

44.

Nunnery

J. A.

(1998). Reform ideology and the locus of development problem in educational restructuring: Enduring lessons from studies of educational innovation. Education and Urban Society, 30 3, 277—295.

45.

Nunnery

J. A.

Bol

Dietrich

Rich

Kelly

Hacker

, & Sterbin

(1997). Teachers’ initial reactions to their pre-implementation preparation and early restructuring experiences. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8 1, 72—94. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345970080104

46.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.

47.

Payne

C. M.

(2008). So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Harvard Education Press.

48.

Penuel

W. R.

Fishman

B. J.

Cheng

B. H.

, & Sabelli

(2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40 7, 331—337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826

49.

Peurach

D. J.

, & Glazer

J. L.

(2012). Reconsidering replication: New perspectives on large-scale school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 13 2, 155—190.

50.

Redding

Cannata

, & Miller

(2018). System learning in an urban school district: A case study of intra-district learning. Journal of Educational Change, 19 1, 77—101.

51.

Rincon-Gallardo

, & Elmore

(2012). Transforming teaching and learning through social movement in Mexican public middle schools. Harvard Educational Review, 82 4, 471—490. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.82.4.46751717307t4j90

52.

Rosing

Frese

, & Bausch

(2011). Explaining the heterogeneity of the leadership-innovation relationship: Ambidextrous leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 22 5, 956—974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.07.014

53.

Rowan

Correnti

Miller

R. J.

, & Camburn

E. M.

(2009). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. In AERA handbook on education policy research (pp. 637—651). Routledge.

54.

Russell

J. L.

Bryk

A. S.

Dolle

J. R.

Gomez

L. M.

LeMahieu

P. G.

, & Grunow

(2017). A framework for the initiation of networked improvement communities. Teachers College Record, 119 7, 1—36.

55.

Sabelli

, & Harris

C. J.

(2015). The role of innovation in scaling up educational innovations. In Looi

C.-K.

, & Teh

L. W.

(Eds.), Scaling educational innovations (pp. 13—30). Springer.

56.

Sanders

M. G.

(2014). Principal leadership for school, family, and community partnerships: The role of a systems approach to reform implementation. American Journal of Education, 120 2, 233—255.

57.

Sawchuk

(2017, November 1). With latest education investments, Gates Pivots Again. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2017/10/23/with-latest-education-investments-gates-pivots-again.html

58.

Shiffman

C. D.

Riggan

Massell

Goldwasser

, & Anderson

(2008). Channeling adaptation: The role of design in enactment patterns. In Supovitz

J. A.

, & Weinbaum

E. H.

(Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 46—67). Teachers College Press.

59.

Spillane

J. P.

Reiser

B. J.

, & Reimer

(2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72 3, 387—431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387

60.

Stein

M. K.

, & Coburn

C. E.

(2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114 4, 583—626.

61.

Stringfield

, & Datnow

(1998). Scaling up school restructuring designs in urban schools. Education and Urban Society, 30 3, 269—276.

62.

Supovitz

J. A.

(2008). Implementation as iterative refraction. In Supovitz

J. A.

, & Weinbaum

E. H.

(Eds.), The implementation gap: Understanding reform in high schools (pp. 151—172). Teachers College Press.

63.

Tett

Crowther

, & O'Hara

(2003). Collaborative partnerships in community education. Journal of Education Policy, 18 1, 37—51.

64.

Waterman

R. H.

(1992). Adhocracy: The power to change. W. W. Norton.

65.

Watson

, & Michael

M. K.

(2016). Translations of policy and shifting demands of teacher professionalism: From CPD to professional learning. Journal of Education Policy, 31 3, 259—274. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2015.1092053

66.

Zavadsky

(2016). Bringing effective instructional practice to scale in American schools: Lessons from the Long Beach Unified School District. Journal of Educational Change, 17 4, 505—527. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9287-3