Putting a Stake in the Ground: Institutionalizing a University and

School Partnership

AECT –International ConventionAccelerate Learning: Racing to the Future, Indianapolis, IN

Beth Rajan Sockman Ph.D. Zhaoyuan Guo - M.Ed. Candidate

Instructional TechnologyGrant Rauch, VISTA

Friday, November 6, 2015

AbstractInnovations have a record of dissipating after a grant-funded initiative culminates; public policy has changed or is substituted with another new trend. However, if an innovation is worth continuing, it should be sustained. This research study reports on the way an initiative that was initially grant-funded comes to be institutionalized through the use of sustainability dimensions and feedback-based systems thinking in order to create a “win-win” partnership between a university and local elementary school.

PARTNERSHIPS ARE CHALLENGING Collaboration between University and K-12

education seems like a natural juncture Partnerships successes and failures – poor

communication, lacking trust, and time constraints

(Cornu & Peters, 2009; Ertmer, Hruskocy, & Technology, 1999; H. a. Peel, Peel, & Baker, 2002).

Sustain Partnerships - Purposeful Interventions encourage stakeholder ownership

in order to institutionalize beneficial innovations for the long term

Systems thinking Sustainability dimensions

SUSTAINABILITY DIMENSIONS

The “process of ensuring an adaptive system and innovation that can be integrated into ongoing operations to benefit diverse stakeholders” (Johnson, 2004)

Institutionalization.

Sustainable innovations become Institutionalization

What’s Sustainability? An innovation is sustained when it becomes institutionalized (Johnson, 2004)

Innovation

Sustainability Dimensions (Kahn, 2000)

*Logistics Dimension *Economic Dimension *Community Dimension *Equity Dimension *Institutional Dimension

Logistics Dimension Has the project received the necessary support from key

stakeholders and institutions with facilities and maintenance?

Economic Dimension

Does the project benefit outweigh the cost both with economic return and with educational benefits in an acceptable level of return?

Community Dimension Is there community buy-in and ownership? Is there a desirable level of community participation?

Equity Dimension Is there “equitable sharing and distribution of project

benefits?” Does the project or innovation guarantee “equitable access to

and distribution of project benefits on a continuous basis?”

Institutional Dimension Do the projects or innovations adequately consider the

“institutional requirements and thus make provisions so that management support to project operations continue during the life of the project?” (Kahn, 2000).

SYSTEMS THINKING

Principles, which guide the thinking needed for implementation: Whole is more than the sum of the parts, Stakeholder involvement with shared leadership, leverage points, equilibrium

Systems Principles Chosen

* Stakeholder involvement with shared leadership

* Leverage points – Values of each & Dimensions

* Equilibrium – Work within organizations

Context of E with J PartnershipUniversity - School

VISTA Inspired NOW Without VISTA Grant

INNOVATION & CONTEXT–VISTA FUNDED UNIVERSITY – SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP

An Americorps VISTA Between a university and local elementary school Children living in poverty Stipulating plans for sustainability Title I 66% of its students – free or reduced-cost lunch

*Involvement in advisory boards:1-parent, 2-university students, 3-university faculty and 3 school personnel (1 principal and 2 teachers)

*Weekly Math tutoring: 20-children that were assisted in school, 6-university students, 6-teachers and 1-professor that oversaw the project.

*Weekly literacy tutoring with Technology: 35 - 45 children in grades 3-5, 18 ESU undergraduate tutors,2-university faculty.

Directly involved = Over 100

Directly Involved - Building Capacity

Direct academic achievement interventions – want to sustain

1.) Language/literacy and civic engagement tutoring sessions occur after school with University students.

2.) Math tutoring is conducted by University students in small group in-class sessions.

Indirect intervention:

3.) An advisory board encourages communication with shared leadership through members drawn from both communities who oversee implementation.

Question

What are the benefits and costs of the relationship to each institution through the sustainability dimensions?

Are there gradual signs of mutual transformation among the learning communities that are indicated through feedback? If so, what are those indications?

MethodProvides feedback

Multi-Data Sources with Various Stakeholders

(ESU - IRB approved) 4 Surveys - Parents, ESU students - Tutors,

Elementary students grades 3-5, Elementary School Teachers

2- Focus Groups– 3-5 graders, Advisory Board 2-Interviews – University Professors Policies & Practices – In each organization

Participants – Surveys Spring 2015 Type Distributed RespondedElementary Students

35 Reading (Most below reading level)

27 (77%)

Elementary Teacher

22 10 (45%)

Parents of Elementary

35 8 (22%)

ESU students 33 20 (60%)

Confirmed Participants

Data Collection Strategy

Participants

Focus Group Advisory Board

1-parent, 2-university students, 3-university faculty and 5 school personnel (1 principal and 2 teachers)

Focus Group Elementary School Students

5 children (Grades 3-5) All in program

ResultsData & Analysis

Elementary Students – 3-5 Grade Surveys N=27

92% were engaged Students looked forward to afterschool =

3.5 out of 4 (Mode & Median = 4) Students felt that they enjoyed their

projects (Book creator & Art)= 3.8 out of 4 (Mode & Median = 4)

Students felt that they improved on their reading = 3.6 out of 4 (Mode & Median = 4)

Focus Group N= 5 Looked forward to the program Wish they didn’t have to change tutors ½

through

Elementary Teachers N=10

90% E with J was a good use of students’ time. 100% Agreed Most Beneficial

One-one time with college-aged students who function as role-models, motivators, and develop good relationships with them.

Curriculum and educational objectives support—general academic support..

All students liked using technology Wanted to see webquests

Parent Survey N=8

100% Felt good use of Child’s time 100% Did not talk to their child about what was

going on 87% ( 7 out of 8) Felt their child enjoyed 100% Felt their child liked technology in learning &

in Leisure time 100% No concerns with the program Suggestions: Access to materials (2), meet the

tutor & field trips

ESU Students Survey N=20 As a result of E with J… 90% have strength understanding of community issues

90% greater confidence in instructional technology 90% gain confidence to work independently from the

university 80% Found the project enjoyable 85 % Valuable way to learn about course content

ESU Students Survey N=20 As a result of E with J…

Qualitative Example (90% benefit): I used to be skeptical

about technology with kindergarteners to third grade, but I have seen how it makes sense! I think technology in the classroom is very important and it is very useful.

Before, I knew that kids liked technology. When using it for tutoring, though, I was taken aback by the enthusiasm the students exhibited about using the iPads.

Focus Group – Advisory Board & Professors interview Focus Group - Advisory board

100% Sustain – win – win for school Time - Secretaries can help with communication Need to get more professors on board Need Elementary teacher to supervise

Professor Interview Needs to be integrated in class – Got approval to

change the schedule from the dean Enlist other professors for help Uses classes and students to create curriculum

Sustainability through dimensions

COST-Benefit to UniversityDimension Cost BenefitLogistic/Institutional

• Change class structure - disrupts other classes

• Cars on campus

Value - ESU helps the community!

Economic • Professors spending time• planning • implemenation

• 30 iPads - Suitcase• Paper & sometimes color• Clearances

• USE iPads! • Value - ESU helps the

community! • Value – Professors

create meaningful learning (90% ESU students)

Community/Equity

• Only 2 professors & 4 class

• Admin supported needed

• Increasing to 4 professors and 6 Classes

VALUE! • Administrators -

show collaboration • Undergraduates get

hand-on experience

Cost - Benefit to Elementary School

Dimension Cost BenefitLogistic/Institutional

• Notes and communications to parents, busses, teachers

• Feelings of space

Value – School & ESU providing service to students (92% engaged, 90% Teacher’s felt positive)

Economic • Snack• Space - area

• USE space!• Value – School & ESU

providing service to students

Community/Equity

• Other after school programs conflict

• VALUE - Get students help• Academic clubs on

Mondays

Signs for Mutual TransformationUniversity -

More time commitment

University: College Dean changed the class schedule to accommodate project

Cooperating professor changed schedule to accommodate schedule

2 Professors presented at the first meeting of the year at the elementary school to share data

4 more professors have chosen to get involved

2 courses have been included or been modified to include this experience in 2 different departments

Elementary Education Technology course for teachers

Elementary School

Teacher volunteered to be the club leader

Invite ESU professors to the faculty meetings

Provide technical support – of ESU technology

Provide snack Distribute surveys and

collect data Share student test scores

Questions

How can sustainability dimensions continue to guide implementation and assess the innovation’s probability of institutionalization?

To what extent does value drive stakeholders to overcome the obstacles?

In this innovation – can it be sustained beyond the professors involved?

If trust is continually built between partners, what more could be done for the support/growth of both in collaboration?

ReferencesBanathy, B. H. (1973). Developing a Systems View of Education: The Systems Model Approach. Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers.

Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2011). Transformational Partnerships: A New Agenda for Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 29-40.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA; London, UK; New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.

Govekar, M. A., & Rishi, M. (2007). Service Learning: Bringing Real-World Education Into the B-School Classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 3-10.

Hutchins, L. C. (1996). Systemic thinking: Solving complex problems. Saint Louis, MO: Professional Development Systems.Kahn, M. A. (2000). Planning for and monitoring of Project Sustainability: A guideline on concepts, issues and tools. Retrieved from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/khan.htm

Le Cornu, R., & Peters, J. (2009). Sustaining School-university Collaboration for Reciprocal Learning. International Journal of Learning, 16(9), 231-246.

Levesque-Bristol, C., & Cornelius-White, J. (2012). The public affairs scale: Measuring the public good mission of higher education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(4), 695-716.

Molely, B., & Ilustre, V. (2014). The impact of service-learning course characteristics on university students' learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(1), 5-16.

Selkrig, M., & Keamy, K. (2009). Beyond Borderlanders: Universities Extending their Role in Fostering Creative Partnerships within Communities. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 185-196.

Senge, P., & Lannon-Kim, C. (1991). Recapturing the spirit of learning through a systems approach. The school administrator.

Stringer, E. (2007). Action research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.