Supporting Use of Data and Evidence from Early Warning Indicator Systems in Research–Practice Partnerships
Tóm tắt
Research on data and evidence use suggest that productive use depends on interactive processes, including sustained interactions between educators and researchers. Recent research on research-practice partnerships (RPPs) has examined conditions under which these sustained collaborations support evidence use. Findings from these studies can inform research on early warning indicators, helping interpret implementation studies of productive use and creating conditions for use of data from early warning indicator systems.
This chapter presents results of a review of studies of data and evidence use within RPPs. It investigates the claim that RPPs can support productive data and evidence use only under certain conditions, conditions that are relevant to studying and supporting the implementation of early warning indicator systems in education.
The synthesis focused on identifying studies published between 2013 and 2019 as journal articles, book chapters, and technical reports that focused on data and evidence use in RPPs. To be included, studies had to be empirical and related to the focal topics. A total of 114 studies met criteria for inclusion. For all studies, members of the research team developed summaries, which the team then discussed. Themes emerged from summaries, grouped by RPP, and from team discussions.
The review found six supportive conditions were needed for productive use of data and evidence to guide decision-making and action. These were (1) valuation of knowledge, experience, and perspectives of partners; (2) processes for identifying sources of evidence needed to answer questions that are priorities for educators and community partners; (3) complementarity of knowledge of partners; (4) adoption of a learning perspective on systems change; (5) routines for sensemaking and collaboration; (5) synchrony with decision-making processes; and (6) a commitment to developing and using evidence among partner organizations.
Developers of early warning indicator systems should consider ways an RPP can support the creation of conditions for productive use of data from systems. Effective systems likely will depend on making room for educator voice and valuing of practitioner perspectives at all stages of design and implementation of systems. They will also require allocation of time and skill for structuring opportunities to make sense of data and developing a culture where evidence plays an important role in decision-making.
Từ khóa
Tài liệu tham khảo
Allensworth E., 2005, The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school graduation
Allensworth E., 2007, What matters most for staying on-track and graduating in Chicago public high schools: A close look at course grades, failures, and attendance in the freshman year
Bryk A. S., 2015, Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better
Bryk A. S., 2010, Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago
Cobb P. A., 2018, Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office
Coburn C. E., 2013, Research–practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement
Cousins J. B., 2004, Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning
CPS Office of Communications. (2017). New freshmen-on-track data shows more CPS students are likely to graduate than ever before. Retrieved March 1, 2020, from https://cps.edu/News/Press_releases/Pages/PR1_08_27_2017.aspx
Davidson K. L. & Frohbieter G. (2011). District adoption and implementation of interim and benchmark assessments (CSE Technical Report 806). CRESST.
Deussen T., 2017, Are two commonly used early warning indicators accurate predictors of dropout for English learner students? Evidence from six districts in Washington state
Dukakis K. & Strobel K. R. (2010, March). University and community partners sharing data to improve systems, services and policy. Paper presented at the Society for Research on Adolescence 2010 Biennial Meeting, Philadelphia, PA.
Earl L. M., 1995, Participatory evaluation in education: Studies in evaluation use and organizational learning, 21
Farrell C. C., 2018, A descriptive study of the IES Researcher–Practitioner Partnerships in Education Research program
Gallagher H. A., 2019, Learning and practicing continuous improvement: Lessons from the CORE districts
Haskins R., 2011, Building the connection between policy and evidence: The Obama evidence-based initiatives
Hawkins B., 2019, The 74
Henrick E. C., 2017, Assessing research–practice partnerships: Five dimensions of effectiveness
Henrick E. C., 2018, Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office
Hess F. M., 2006, No Child Left Behind
Honig M. I., Venkateswaran N., McNeil P. & Myers-Twitchell P. (2014, April). Research use as learning: The case of fundamental change in school district offices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Philadelphia, PA.
Ikemoto G. S., 2010, Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide, 93
Jackson K., 2013, Teacher education and pedagogy: Theory, policy and practice, 80
Kelleher M., 2018, Progress and promise: Chicago's nation-leading educational gains
Kochmanski N. M., Henrick E. C. & Cobb P. A. (2015, October). On the development of content-specific practical measures assessing aspects of instruction associated with student learning. Paper presented at Using Continuous Improvement to Integrating Design, Implementation, and Scale Up, Nashville, TN.
Means B., 2009, Implementing data-informed decision making in schools: Teacher access, supports and use
Moeller E., 2018, Practice-driven data: Lessons from Chicago's approach to research, data, and practice in education
National Research Council., 2002, Scientific research in education
National Research Council., 2012, Using science as evidence in public policy
Nayfack M., 2017, Building systems knowledge for continuous improvement: Early lessons from the CORE districts
Penuel W. R., 2016, Findings from a national study on research use among school and district leaders
Penuel W. R., 2017, Teaching in context: The social side of education reform
Penuel W. R., 2017, Creating research–practice partnerships in education
Penuel W. R., Reiser B. J., Novak M., McGill T., Frumin K., Van Horne K., Sumner T. & Watkins D. A. (2018, April). Using co-design to test and refine a model for three-dimensional science curriculum that connects to students’ interests and experiences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Roderick M., 2009, The Consortium on Chicago School Research: A new model for the role of research in supporting urban school reform
Roderick M., 2014, Preventable failure: Improvements in long-term outcomes when high schools focused on the ninth grade year
Russell J. L., 2013, Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 112, 157
Seid H. H. (2016). The practices of action research and its contribution for school improvement in secondary schools of Borena Zone, Oromia Regional State. Unpublished master's thesis, Harayama University, Harayama, Ethiopia.
Shepard L. A., Davidson K. L. & Bowman R. (2011). How middle school mathematics teachers use interim and benchmark assessment data (CSE Technical Report 807). CRESST.
Stuit D., 2016, Identifying early warning indicators in three Ohio school districts
Weidler-Lewis J., Penuel W. R. & Van Horne K. (2017, April). Developing a measure of teachers’ vision for equitable science teaching and learning. Paper presented at the NARST Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.