This article analyzes a novel effort to strengthen the preparation of both practitioner-scholars and education researchers. It describes a university–district partnership that offers graduate students the opportunity to develop research understandings and skills through participation in a “real” research project and provides district leaders the formative evaluation information they need to guide decision making on major reform initiatives. The article suggests that partnerships that link school district research priorities with university-based, policy evaluation research courses can enrich the university’s approach to the teaching of research methods and can yield rigorous studies that both serve local districts and speak to broader academic and professional audiences.
AndersonG. L. (2002). Reflecting on research for doctoral students in education. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 22-25.
2.
BallD. L.ForzaniF. M. (2007). What makes education research “educational”?Educational Researcher, 36, 529-540.
3.
BensonL.HarkavyI. (2003). The role of the American research university in advancing system-wide education reform, democratic schooling, and democracy. In BrabekM. M.WalshM. L.LattaR. E. (Eds.), Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being (pp. 94-114). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
4.
BowersA. J. (in press). Quantitative research methods training in education leadership and administration preparation programs as disciplined inquiry for building school improvement capacity. Journal of Research on Leadership Education.
5.
BrabeckM. M.WalshM. E.LattaR. E. (2003). Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BrownJ. S.CollinsA.DuguidP. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-41.
7.
CoburnC. E. (2010). The partnership for district change: Challenges of evidence use in a major urban district. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 167-182). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
8.
CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
9.
CubanL. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99, 453-477.
10.
EisenhartM.DeHaanR. L. (2005). Doctoral preparation of scientifically based education researchers. Educational Researcher, 34(4), 3-13.
11.
ElmoreR. F. (1982). Backward mapping: Implementation research and policy decisions. In WilliamsW. (Ed.), Methodological and administrative issues (pp. 36-72). Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
12.
FowlerF. J. (1993). Applied Social Research Methods Series: Vol. 1. Survey research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13.
GoldringE.SimsP. (2005). Modeling creative and courageous school leadership through district-community-university partnership. Educational Policy, 19, 223-249.
14.
GutierrezK. D.PenuelW. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43, 19-23.
15.
HarkavyI.PuckettJ. L. (1991). Toward effective university-public school partnerships: An analysis of a contemporary model. Teachers College Record, 92, 556-581.
16.
HonigM. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenges and opportunities for the field. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-23). Albany: State University of New York Press.
17.
HubbardL. (2010). Research to practice: A case study of Boston Public Schools, Boston Plan for Excellence and Education Matters. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 183-200). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
LaveJ.WengerE. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
20.
LevineA. (2007). Educating researchers. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
21.
MalenB.BasingerK.GonzalezR.NutterA.with assisstance fromMunceyD.E.HildrethJ.SeelkeJ.SusskindD.VincentM. (2007). Urgent work in progress: The first year of the Intensive Supports and Intervention Schools Initiative. College Park: University of Maryland.
22.
MalenB.CurtisK.SinclairK.CroningerR. G.GarciaA.EganL. (2013). In pursuit of equity, autonomy and improvement: A study of the student-based budgeting initiative in the Prince George’s County Public Schools. College Park: University of Maryland.
23.
MalenB.DayhoffJ.EganL.CroningerR. C. (2015). The challenges of advancing fiscal equity in a resource-strained context. Education Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904815613445
24.
MalenB.RiceJ. K.BaumanP.BeanerT.ChenE.DoughertyA.. . .RobinsonC. (2009). Building the plane in flight: A formative evaluation of Financial Incentive Rewards for Supervisors and Teachers (FIRST). College Park: University of Maryland.
25.
MalenB.RiceJ. K.BowsherA.BivoniaL.HoyerK. M.HydeL. (2015). Developing organizational capacity for implementing complex education reform initiatives: Insights from a multi-year study of a Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 15, 133-176.
26.
MalenB.RiceJ. K.JacksonC.HoyerK. H.HydeL.BivonaL.… SutterJ. (2011). Implementation, payouts, and perceived effects: A formative analysis of Financial Incentive Rewards for Supervisors and Teachers (FIRST). A research monograph for the Prince George’s County Public School System, Prince George’s County, MD.
27.
McCroskeyJ. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for higher education. In BrabekM. M.WalshM. L.LattaR. E. (Eds.), Meeting at the hyphen: Schools-universities-communities-professions in collaboration for student achievement and well being (pp. 117-135). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28.
MerriamS. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
29.
MetzM. H. (2001). Intellectual border crossing in graduate education: A report from the field. Educational Researcher, 30(5), 12-18.
30.
MurphyJ. T. (1980). Getting the facts: A fieldwork guide for evaluators and policy analysts. Santa Monica, CA: Goodyear.
31.
NewmanF. M.MarksH. M.GamoranA. (1995, April). Authentic pedagogy and student performance. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
32.
PattonM. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
PattonM. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
PenuelW.FishmanB. H. C.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40, 331-337.
35.
RiceJ. K.MalenB.BaumannP.ChenE.DoughertyA.HydeL.. . . McKithenC. (2012). The persistent problems and confounding challenges of educator incentives: The case of TIF in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Educational Policy, 26, 892-933.
36.
RiceJ. K.MalenB.JacksonC.HoyerK. M. (2015). Time to pay up: Analyzing the motivational potential of financial awards in a TIF program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 29-49.
37.
RiceJ. K.MalenB.JacksonC.HoyerK. M. (2016). Administrator responses to financial
incentives: Insights from a TIF program. Leadership and Policy in Schools. doi:10.1080/15700763.2016.1205201
38.
SabatierP. A. (1986). Top-down and bottom-up approaches to implementation research: A critical analysis and suggested synthesis. Journal of Public Policy, 6, 21-48.
39.
ScheirerM. A. (1987). Program theory and implementation theory: Implications for evaluators. New Directions for Evaluation, 33, 59-76.
40.
SchensulJ. J.LeCompteM.NastasiB. K.BorgattiS. P. (1999). Enhanced ethnographic methods: Audiovisual techniques, focused group interviews, and elicitation. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press.
41.
ShavelsonR. J.TowneL. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education (Report of the National Research Council’s Committee on Scientific Principles for Education Research). Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
42.
ShulmanL. S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In JaegerR. M. (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 3-19). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
43.
ShulmanL. S.GoldeC. M.BueschelA. C.GarabedianK. J. (2006). Reclaiming education’s doctorates: A critique and a proposal. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 25-32.
44.
StipekD. (2007, November14). Bridging the research-practice gap. Education Week, p. 19.
45.
StufflebeamD. L. (2000). Professional standards and principles for evaluations. In StufflebeamD. L.MadausG. F.KellaghanT. (Eds.), Evaluation models: Viewpoints on educational and human services evaluation (pp. 439-455). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Press.
46.
TateW. F. (2007). Linking education research and civic responsibility: Why now?Educational Researcher, 36, 408-409.
47.
WeissC. H. (1998). Evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
