Bellevue-UW Project Team

COE-UW• John Bransford• Robert Abbott• Philip Bell • Hank Clark• Leslie Herrenkohl• Andrew Morozov• Hiroki Oura• Giovanna Scalone• Andrew Shouse

1

• Kari Shutt• Carrie Tzou• Nancy Vye

Bellevue Schools• Angie DiLoreto• Laura Gaylord• Allison Snow• Amy Winstanley• Dan Gallagher*

* Now at Seattle Public Schools

Research Analysis of District Assessments

Questi

on

Pred

ictio

n

Conclu

sion

Contro

l Vari

able

Mea

sured

Vari

able

Chang

ed V

ariab

le

Follo

w-Up S

tudy

Follo

w-Up R

ation

ale0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

Traditional Inquiry IHC

Mea

n P

ropo

rtio

n C

orre

ct

P < .0005 P < .05

Choice and agency during inquiry were associated with-

Van Horne, Shutt, Vye & Bransford - Enactment of Inquiry Processes to Support Student Participation in Authentic Science Practices

Researchers and practitioners needed to be receptive to and capable of engaging in a deep R&D partnership

• District staff had collaborative R&D stance with multiple projects underway; one district person was a UW alum

• Researchers had previously engaged in a range of similar efforts with groups of teachers and other districts

• Policy Implication: Need to build human capacity for this kind of partnership work—as an alternative to the research-to-practice model. We should incentivize partnership work and ask R+P teams to justify the work in terms of joint problem identification.

Design Research PartnershipsPrinciple: Partnership Stance & Capacity

This is a sustained, ‘project-focused’ collaboration between university researchers and district practitioners in its 7th year.

• We actively manage it to be mutually-beneficial through shared governance (e.g., Co-PIs), institutional subcontracts, and detailed coordination of the work (e.g., around research goals & design / implementation strategies)—while leveraging and building team expertise

• Policy Implication: As intensive, soft money efforts, design research partnerships need sustained ‘project’ funding; networking opportunities with other similar efforts and interested networks would benefit & expand the work

Design Research PartnershipsPrinciple: Mutually-Beneficial Practices that Leverage Distributed Expertise

Within educational improvement efforts, the work is focused on identifying and working through local ‘problems of educational practice’ through iterative cycles of design, implementation & analysis (e.g., how does learner choice influence learning)

• Tools, approaches, and findings are broadly applicable but are locally constrained to fit the district context (culture, infrastructure, routines)

• Policy Implication: Focus more on how the resulting tools (as they travel) can be productively adapted to local use in a range of contexts—and less on demonstrating that specific approaches work in a given research study context

Design Research PartnershipsPrinciple: Continuous Improvement on Broad Issues within Local Circumstances

Collaborating Organizations Exploratorium (Bronwyn Bevan, PI) University of Washington Institute

for Science + Math Education Education Development Center, Inc. TERC University of Colorado, Boulder Inverness Research Associates SRI International

Cyberlearning

STEM Practices

Formative Assessment

Learning Across Settings

Developing teacher-researcher partnerships to investigate problems of practice and develop useful instructional strategies and tools that can be shared broadly.

Four Themes of Work

Partnership for Science & Engineering Practices

Seattle & Renton School Districts

Photo by Institute for Systems Biology, June 2013

• UW Institute for Science + Math Educationhttp://sciencemathpartnerships.org/

• Design-Based Implementation Researchhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~fishman/DBIR-AERA-2013/

• LIFE Science of Learning Centerhttp://life-slc.org/

• Or you can email me…pbell@uw.edu

To Learn More…

Question and Answer