Participatory Knowledge Building Within Research-Practice Partnerships in Education

Santo, Rafi; Ching, Dixie; Peppler, Kylie; Hoadley, Chris

doi:10.4135/9781473998933

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our RPP engaged in "participatory knowledge building" (Santo et al, 2017) by leveraging the principles of Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to iteratively improve on the guide and workshop toward answering our research question regarding what supports education leaders want in order to better understand issues related to equityoriented implementation of CS education in public schools. The process included: (1) developing a plan for scaling equitable CS education (Plan), (2) carrying out the plan with tools and workshops (Do), (3) observing and learning from the results (Study), and (4) identifying modifications that could improve the usefulness of the tools and supports (Act).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing School Leaders to Advance Equity in Computer Science Education

Flapan

Ryoo

Hadad

et al. 2021

JCSI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Context: Most large-scale statewide initiatives of the Computer Science for All (CS for All) movement have focused on the classroom level. Critical questions remain about building school and district leadership capacity to support teachers while implementing equitable computer science education that is scalable and sustainable. Objective: This statewide research-practice partnership, involving university researchers and school leaders from 14 local education agencies (LEA) from district and county offices, addresses the following research question: What do administrators identify as most helpful for understanding issues related to equitable computer science implementation when engaging with a guide and workshop we collaboratively developed to help leadership in such efforts? Method: Participant surveys, interviews, and workshop observations were analyzed to understand best practices for professional development supporting educational leaders. Findings: Administrators value computer science professional development resources that: (a) have a clear focus on “equity;” (b) engage with data and examples that deepen understandings of equity; (c) provide networking opportunities; (d) have explicit workshop purpose and activities; and (e) support deeper discussions of computer science implementation challenges through pairing a workshop and a guide. Implications: Utilizing Ishimaru and Galloway’s (2014) framework for equitable leadership practices, this study offers an actionable construct for equitable implementation of computer science including (a) how to build equity leadership and vision; (b) how to enact that vision; and (c) how to scale and sustain that vision. While this construct applies to equitable leadership practices more broadly across all disciplines, we found its application particularly useful when explicitly focused on equity leadership practices in computer science.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preparing School Leaders to Advance Equity in Computer Science Education

Flapan

Ryoo

Hadad

et al. 2021

JCSI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, although the interactions that occur as part of youth development programming undoubtedly lead to relationships of varying degrees of closeness, Hive members recognized that they lacked a formalized way to maintain those relationships and cultivate them into something more meaningful and longer lasting. To capture this and similar challenges, the authors engaged the Hive community in a participatory process aimed at developing a white paper (Santo et al ., 2015). In the course of this process, we developed a greater awareness of these challenges, strategies for addressing them and for reflecting on how well and for whom educators are brokering opportunities (Ching et al ., 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Not just a blip in someone’s life: integrating brokering practices into out-of-school programming as a means of supporting and expanding youth futures

Ching

Santo

Hoadley

et al. 2016

OTH

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This article makes a case for the importance of brokering future learning opportunities to youth as a programmatic goal for informal learning organizations. Such brokering entails engaging in practices that connect youth to events, programs, internships, individuals and institutions related to their interests to support them beyond the window of a specific program or event. Brokering is especially critical for youth who are new to an area of interest: it helps them develop both a baseline understanding of the information landscape and a social network that will respond to their needs as they pursue various goals. The paper aims to describe three critical levers for brokering well in informal settings: creating learning environments that allow trust to form between youth and educators and enable educators to develop an understanding of a young person's interests, needs and goals; attending to a young person's tendency (or not) to reach out to educators after a program is over to solicit assistance; and enabling potential brokers to efficiently locate appropriate future learning opportunities for each young person who approaches them. The authors also include a set of program practices for providers who wish to increase their brokering impact, as well as recommendations geared primarily toward organization leaders. The authors hope that this paper brings clarity and enhanced significance to the practice of brokering as a strategy to support youth pathways toward meaningful futures. Design/methodology/approach-Insights presented here are the result of a participatory knowledge building and sharing process with a community of after-school providers known as the Mozilla Hive NYC Learning Network. The topic of discussion was how these providers might continue to support young people in their intensive project-based programs after the program was over. The authors of this article, acting as embedded research partners to Hive NYC, contributed insights to these discussions based on ethnographic fieldwork and case studies of high-school-age youth in the Hive NYC context. Findings-The authors articulate a set of brokering practices and a conceptual model that communicates how brokering might lead to valued long-term outcomes for youth, including increased social capital. Originality/value-The intent is that information and perspectives from this article will inform youth-serving practice and serve as a catalyst for further conversations and activities geared toward promoting youth pathways of learning and identity development.

show abstract

“…This includes both critically (re)conceptualizing how knowledge is built and what outputs are valued and shared. Strategies such as participatory knowledge building (Santo et al, 2017) argue for a disruption of privilege in our knowledge building process by attempting to flatten the knowledge inherent in the I n f o r m a t i o n a n d L e a r n i n g S c i e n c e structural and systemic hierarchies in which we conduct our work. As part of this reconceptualization, it also demands that we critically consider what products of our scholarship we value and seek to produce outputs that are mutually beneficial (Bevan, 2017).…”

Section: Intellectual Foundationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Culturally disruptive research: a critical (re)engagement with research processes and teaching practices

Litts

Tehee

Jenkins³

et al. 2020

ILS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose As scholars, educators and policymakers recognize the impact of partnership-based research, there is a growing need for more in-depth understanding of how to conduct this work, especially with and in diverse project teams. The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical examination of adopting a culturally disruptive approach in a research–practice partnership (RPP) that includes Indigenous and non-Indigenous researchers, designers and educators who worked together to collaboratively design culturally situated experiences for sixth graders. Design/methodology/approach Following a design-based implementation research methodology, data from design and implementation are presented as two case studies to illustrate key findings. Findings Leveraging the frame of culturally disruptive pedagogy, key tensions, disruptions, self-discoveries and resulting pedagogical innovations are outlined. While the authors experienced multiple forms of disruptions as researchers, designers and educators, they focused on tracing two powerful cases of how culturally disruptive research directly and immediately resulted in pedagogical innovations. Together the cases illustrate a broader shift toward interdependence that the team experienced over the course of the school year. Research limitations/implications A new frame for conducting culturally disruptive research is presented. Both the theoretical application and practical implementation of this frame demonstrate its usefulness in conceptualizing culturally situated research through cultivating an uncomfortable yet generative interdependence. Practical implications Findings include examples and strategies for how to practically conduct multi-sector, interdisciplinary research and teaching. Scholars and educators share their stories which illustrate the practical impact of this work. Originality/value Critical insights presented in this paper build on and contribute to the growing body of work around RPPs, community-based research and other critical partnership methods.

show abstract

Participatory Knowledge Building Within Research-Practice Partnerships in Education

Cited by 11 publications

References 7 publications

Preparing School Leaders to Advance Equity in Computer Science Education

Preparing School Leaders to Advance Equity in Computer Science Education

Not just a blip in someone’s life: integrating brokering practices into out-of-school programming as a means of supporting and expanding youth futures

Culturally disruptive research: a critical (re)engagement with research processes and teaching practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About