Advertisement

Research-Practice Partnerships: Addressing K-12 Educational Problems Through Active Collaborations

  • Heather Leary
  • Samuel Severance
Chapter
Part of the Educational Media and Technology Yearbook book series (EMTY, volume 41)

Abstract

Education researchers have sought to address the divide between research and persistent problems of practice faced by educators through technology, pedagogy, and methodology innovations (Anderson & Shattuck, 2012; Mishra & Koehler, 2007; Richey, 1998). Barriers to the successful development and implementation of technological innovations have impeded innovations from being taken up by educators to support students. Notably, educators and administrators in K-12 schools and districts may lack the expertise to properly implement technological innovations or show integrity to the rationale underlying innovations that stems from research for improving teaching and learning. All too often, research information is inaccessible with few knowledgeable brokers to properly leverage research expertise toward current problems of practice in a school or district.

References

  1. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  3. Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research-practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. E. (2013). Research-practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. A white paper prepared for the William T. Grant Foundation. Retrieved from http://rpp.wtgrantfoundation.org/library/uploads/2016/01/R-P-Partnerships-White-Paper-Jan-2013-Coburn-Penuel-Geil.pdf.
  5. Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Liou, Y. (2016). How leadership churn undermines learning and improvement in low-performing school districts. In A. J. Daly & K. S. Finnigan (Eds.), Thinking and acting systemically: Improving school districts under pressure (pp. 183–208). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Jonassen, D. H. (1997). Instructional design models for well-structured and ill-structured problem solving learning outcomes. Educational Technology Research and Development, 45(1), 65–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2007). Technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK): Confronting the wicked problems of teaching with technology. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2214–2226). San Antonio, TX: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  8. Ormel, B. J. B., Roblin, N. N. P., McKenney, S. E., Voogt, J. M., & Pieters, J. M. (2012). Research-practice interactions as reported in recent design studies: Still promising, still hazy. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60(6), 967–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Penuel, W. R., & Gallagher, D. J. (2017). Creating research practice partnerships in education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  10. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(01), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Richey, R. C. (1998). The pursuit of useable knowledge in instructional technology. Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(4), 7–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Severance, S., Leary, H., & Johnson, R. (2014). Tensions in a multi-tiered research-practice partnership. In J. L. Polman, E. A. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, W. R. Penuel, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, T. Lee, & L. D’Amico (Eds.), Learning and becoming in practice: The International Conference of the Learning Sciences (ICLS) (Vol. 2, pp. 1171–1175). Boulder, CO: International Society of the Learning Sciences.Google Scholar
  13. Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., Sumner, T., & Leary, H. (2016). Organizing for teacher agency in curricular co-design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25(4), 531–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Sumner, T., & CCS Team. (2010). Customizing science instruction with educational digital libraries. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries (pp. 353–356). New York, NY: ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Tatar, D. (2007). The design tensions framework. Human-Computer Interaction, 22(4), 413–451.Google Scholar
  16. Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., & Reed, J. E. (2014). Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Quality and Safety, 23, 290–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Instructional Psychology and TechnologyBrigham Young UniversityProvoUSA
  2. 2.College of Education, Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA

Personalised recommendations