A Framework for the Initiation of Networked Improvement Communities

Abstract

Background/Context Educators around the country are working individually and collectively to improve teaching and learning. Despite marked progress in some places driven by these improvement efforts, overall progress in the education field has been slow and outcomes remain highly variable. This is partly because the field is not organized to learn systematically, accumulate, and disseminate the practical knowledge needed for the improvement of teaching and learning. Purpose/Objective This paper explores the initiation of a social structure to organize collaborative improvement work: the networked improvement community (or NIC). NICs are highly structured, intentionally formed collaborations among education professionals, researchers, and designers that aim to address a high leverage practical problem. We focus on NIC initiation, because of the challenges associated with launching improvement networks. Research Design Drawing on analysis of case studies of network initiation and theory on network initiation and the NIC concept, we posit an organizing framework for describing the process of NIC initiation. Findings/Results The NIC initiation framework specifies five domains of activity that we hypothesize are critical to launching a NIC. These domains attend to: developing a theory of practice improvement; building a measurement and analytics infrastructure; learning and using improvement research methods; leading, organizing, and operating the network; and fostering the emergence of culture, norms, and identity consistent with network aims. We illustrate these five domains with examples from a set of case studies of network initiation that we utilized as a way to test and further elaborate the framework. Conclusions/Recommendations A firm foundation for network initiation is laid through the strategic actions of a network initiation team. By attending to the five domains of activity specified in our framework, initiation teams can catalyze the development of an organizational structure that allows educators to accelerate learning from practice and building a professional knowledge base that enables the field to tackle complex educational problems.

Learning at the Boundaries of Research and Practice: A Framework for Understanding Research–Practice Partnerships

“…It is during boundary practices that RPP members have opportunities to make sense of data and evidence, pose questions to one another, and deliberate possible courses of action (Rigby et al, 2018). Examples of boundary practices in an RPP might include codesign meetings (Bell et al, 2016), plan-do-study-act cycles of networked improvement communities (Russell et al, 2017), or joint meetings where RPP participants discuss findings (Moeller et al, 2018).…”

Extending Evaluation Capacity Building Theory to Improvement Science Networks

“…Current networked improvement community literature advances broad tenets that lack operational specificity. For example, Bryk and colleagues (2015) and Russell and colleagues (2017) offer broad domains for initiating networked improvement communities that are grounded in improvement science theory, such as “use disciplined inquiry to drive improvement” or “foster the emergence of culture, norms, and identity consistent with network aims.” While helpful for framing activities, these tenets are limited in their explanation of processes. By using empirical data to identify underlying mechanisms that contributed to participants learning improvement science, this study unpacks not only what should be done to build capacity but, perhaps more importantly, how to do it.…”

Accelerating Character Education Learning Through a Networked Approach: Insights From the Kern Partners for Character and Educational Leadership

“…While validated measures of character virtues exist (see, for example VanderWeele, 2021 in this issue), the majority of KPCEL members were focused on proximal aims such as building will and capacity for embedding character education approaches, developing resources aligned to existing program aims, and testing out the implementation feasibility of new protocols and practices. Having a centralized data infrastructure can help facilitate data use, as teams do not have to devote limited time and resources to doing that work independently (Russell et al, 2017). At the same time, the issue remains of how to create measures that are applicable across organizations within a NIC when many teams are focused on very different context-specific character education goals (e.g., that align with state licensure requirements, program or institution-wide principles, etc.).…”

“…What teams shared was a commitment to character education. Boston University faculty and the LifeCompass Institute served as the network hub, that is, the central coordinators of the shared learning space, character education and implementation resources, and opportunities for nurturing relationships and trust among NIC members (Russell et al, 2017).…”