This article presents a conceptual framework for analyzing how researchers and district leaders perceive and navigate differences they encounter in the context of research-practice partnerships. Our framework contrasts with images of partnership work as facilitating the translation of research into practice. Instead, we argue that partnership activity is best viewed as a form of joint work requiring mutual engagement across multiple boundaries. Drawing on a cultural-historical account of learning across boundaries (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) and evidence from a study of two longterm partnerships, we highlight the value of the concepts of boundary practices in organizing joint work and boundary crossing as a way to understand how differences are recognized and navigated. The framework has implications for how partnerships can surface and make productive use of difference in organizing joint work and for how funders can better support the work of researchpractice partnerships.Many policymakers, researchers, and practitioners agree that there is a wide gap between the worlds of educational research and practice. Researchers often imagine that the best way to bridge that gap is to translate basic research on learning into interventions that are feasible for teachers to implement, effective for a wide range of students, and accessible to any student who might benefit from them. It is hard to imagine a more worthy goal for education-to build knowledge of and access to effective interventions-but accomplishing that goal has proven elusive for education. There are many practical obstacles to achieving this aim, but there are also less visible obstacles that have to do with how one conceptualizes the relation between research and practice. In this article, we argue that thinking about how researchers can support improvements to educational practice as a process of translation is one of those obstacles.We have chosen to focus on the problems associated with what we are calling the translation metaphor, because policymakers have, for decades, focused significant attention on addressing
As accountability systems have increased demands for evidence of student learning, the use of data in education has become more prevalent in many countries. Although school and administrative leaders are recognizing the need to provide support to teachers on how to interpret and respond to data, there is little theoretically sound research on data-driven decision making (DDDM) to guide their efforts. Drawing on sociocultural learning theory, extant empirical literature, and findings from a recent study, this paper develops a framework for understanding how to build teacher capacity to use data, specifically informing what practices administrators might employ, when in the DDDM process to employ these practices, and how these mechanisms may build teacher knowledge and skills. Given the global economic climate, administrators face difficult choices in how to invest scarce resources to support data use and once invested, how to ensure that teachers gain, and sustain, the needed capabilities once the supports are removed. The framework provided herein presents a set of concepts that may be useful in guiding these decisions. Implications for leadership practice, as well as suggestions to guide future research and theory development, are discussed. KeywordsData-driven decision making, data use, literacy coach, data team, sociocultural learning theory, professional learning community, accountability, school and district leadership An increased availability of technology, financial support from policymakers, and greater accountability for student outcomes have all contributed to the increased focus on data use for educational improvement globally (Hamilton et al.,
Given the rapid growth of research–practice partnerships (RPPs), we need a framework that helps the field understand how RPPs can facilitate organizational learning in service of local educational improvement and transformation. Drawing on sociocultural and organizational learning theories, we argue that learning can happen for the organizations engaged in RPPs at the boundaries of research and practice. Such learning is evident when there are changes in collective knowledge, policies, and routines of participating organizations, with implications for longer-term outcomes of educational improvement and transformation locally and more broadly. The degree to which organizations can make use of the ideas from the RPP is dependent, in part, on the presence and design of boundary infrastructure and the preexisting organizational capacities and conditions. We conclude with implications for those engaging in RPPs and future research.
This study examined how school and district leaders access, value, and use research. From a representative sample of school districts across the United States, we surveyed 733 school and district leaders as part of an effort to develop understanding of the prevalence of research use, the nature of leaders’ attitudes toward research, and individual and organizational correlates of research use. School and district leaders alike reported frequent use of research use and generally positive attitudes toward research. Leaders reported accessing research primarily through their professional networks. Those in certain roles, those pursuing or holding an advanced degree, and those who reported a strong organizational culture of evidence use reported higher levels of research use. These findings suggest that policy efforts to promote evidence use among education leaders will be welcomed but that policy makers need to take into account the prevalence of various types of research use in designing supports for evidence use.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.