Education researchers are increasingly working in practice-based partnerships in order to direct their research efforts toward important problems of practice. We argue for the creation of an infrastructure to support routine and sustained interaction among researchers, practitioners, and designers in order to make partnership efforts more efficient and effective over time. We describe SERP's efforts to initiate such an infrastructure through the creation and operation of “field sites”—long-term research, development, and implementation partnerships with school districts. We describe principles for field site operation and for product design that are emerging through our “learning by doing” approach. And we argue that the field site partnerships have produced work that is fundamentally different in character and content because of the SERP rules of engagement. SERP work is also more coherent because of its interdisciplinary character, and the sophistication of the partnership's work grows over time as related lines of work become integrated and as those engaged in sustained collaboration learn from each other.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AtkinsonR. K., RenklA., & MerrillM. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Combining fading with prompting fosters learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774–783.
2.
Booth, Koedinger, Paré-Blagoev. (under review). Does practice alone make perfect?Taking example-based assignments for a test drive in real-world classrooms.
3.
BurkhardtH., & SchoenfeldA. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.
4.
CaseR. (1992). The mind and its modules: Toward a multi-level view of the development of human intelligence. In CaseR. (Ed.), The mind's staircase (pp. 343–399). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
ChapinS., O'ConnorC., & AndersonN. (2003). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn. Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
6.
ChiM. T. H., BassokM., LewisM. W., ReimannP., & GlaserR. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2), 145–182.
7.
ClarkR. C., NguyenF., & SwellerJ. (2006). Efficiency in learning: evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco: Pfeiffer.
8.
CoburnC. E., BaeS., & TurnerE.O., (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 364–399.
9.
CoburnC. E., PenuelW. R., & GeilK. (2012). Research-practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement. Berkeley, CA and Boulder, CO: University of California and University of Colorado.
10.
CoburnC. E., ToureJ., & YamashitaM. (2009). Evidence, interpretation, and persuasion: Instructional decision making at the district central office. Teachers College Record, 111(4), 1115–1161.
11.
CohenD. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
DolleJ. R., GomezL. M., RussellJ. L., & BrykA. S. (2013). More than a network: Building professional communities for educational improvement. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 443–463.
13.
FischerK. W. (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87(6), 477–531.
14.
GarvinD. A., & RobertoM. A., (2005). Change through persuasion. Harvard Business Review, 83(2), 104–113.
15.
HausmannR. G. M., & VanLehnK. (2007). Explaining self-explaining: A contrast between content and generation. In LuckinR., KoedingerK. R., & GreerJ. (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education: Building technology rich learning contexts that work (Vol. 158, pp. 417–424). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
16.
Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Rigor and relevance redux: director's biennial report to Congress (IES 2009–6010). Washington, DC: Author.
17.
KahnemanD. (2011) Thinking fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
18.
MeyerJ., & RowanB. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerM. W (Ed.), Environments and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
19.
National Research Council. (2003). Strategic Education Research Partnership. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
20.
NonakaI., & TakeuchiH. (1995). The knowledge-creating company: How Japanese companies create the dynamics of innovation. New York: Oxford University Press.
21.
NonakaI., & von KroghG. (2009). Perception—Tacit knowledge and knowledge conversion: Controversy and advancement in organizational knowledge creation theory. Organization Science 20(3), 635–652.
22.
PashlerH., BainP., BottgeB., GraesserA., KoedingerK., McDanielM., & MetcalfeJ. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007–2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
23.
PenuelW., FishmanB., ChengB., & SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.
24.
SabelliN., & DedeC. (2013). Empowering design based implementation research: The need for infrastructure. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2) 464–480.
25.
SchoenfeldA. H., (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its application to education. New York, NY.: Routledge.
26.
SnowC., LawrenceJ., & WhiteC. (2009). Generating knowledge of academic language among urban middle school students. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. 2(4), 325–344.
27.
SnowD. A., & BenfordR. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In MorrisA. & MuellerC. (Eds.), Frontiers in school improvement theory. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
SwellerJ., & CooperG. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), 59–89.
30.
WeickK. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.
