Asking practitioners to make larger changes to their practice is often thought to lead to lower fidelity of implementation. However, salient differences between ambitious new reforms and teachers’ existing practices may also facilitate processes of conceptual change and correspondingly increase fidelity of implementation. I use survey data on the implementation of two Comprehensive School Reform programs to investigate this puzzle, presenting a series of descriptive multivariate regressions that—contrary to conventional wisdom—predominantly support a positive association between larger changes and higher fidelity. I also address alternative explanations for this finding and discuss the conceptual and empirical strengths and weaknesses, implications for future research, and potential utility for practice of each interpretation.
AnsariS. M.FissP. C.ZajacE. J. (2010). Made to fit: How practices vary as they diffuse. Academy of Management Review, 35(1), 67–92.
2.
BerendsM. (2000). Teacher-reported effects of New American School designs: Exploring relationships to teacher background and school context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(1), 65–82.
3.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive School Reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2), 125–230. doi:10.3102/00346543073002125
4.
BrumbyM. N. (1984). Misconceptions about the concept of natural selection by medical biology students. Science Education, 68(4), 493–503.
5.
BrykA. S.SebringP. B.AllensworthE.EastonJ. Q.LuppescuS. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
CareyS. (1988). Reorganization of knowledge in the course of acquisition. Ontogeny, Phylogeny, and Historical Development, 2, 1.
7.
CenturyJ.CassataA. (2016). Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 169–215.
8.
CenturyJ.RudnickM.FreemanC. (2010). A framework for measuring fidelity of implementation: A foundation for shared language and accumulation of knowledge. American Journal of Evaluation, 31(2), 199–218. doi:10.1177/1098214010366173
9.
ChiM. T. H. (2005). Commonsense conceptions of emergent processes: Why some misconceptions are robust. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(2), 161–199.
10.
CoburnC. E. (2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.
11.
CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (2010). Key lessons about the relationship between research and practice. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 201–226). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
12.
CohenD. K. (1988). Teaching practice: Plus ça change. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Research on Teaching, College of Education, Michigan State University.
13.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.
14.
CohenD. K.MoffittS. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres.
15.
CohenD. K.MoffittS. L.GoldinS. (2007). Policy and practice: The dilemma. American Journal of Education, 113(4), 515–548. doi:10.1086/518487
16.
CohenW. M.LevinthalD. A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35, 128–152.
17.
Comprehensive School Reform Quality Center. (2005). CSRQ Center report on elementary school comprehensive school reform models. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
CorcoranT.HoppeM.LuhmT.SupovitzJ. A. (2000). America’s Choice comprehensive school reform design first-year implementation evaluation summary. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
19.
CordrayD. S.PionG. M. (2006). Treatment strength and integrity: Models and methods. In BootzinR. R.McKnightP. E. (Eds.), Strengthening research methodology: Psychological measurement and evaluation (pp. 103–124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
20.
CorrentiR.RowanB. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three Comprehensive School Reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298–339. doi:10.3102/0002831207302501
21.
DaneA. V.SchneiderB. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary prevention: Are implementation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology Review, 18(1), 23–45.
DatnowA.CastellanoM. (2000b). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799. doi:10.2307/1163489
24.
DesimoneL. (2002). How can Comprehensive School Reform models be successfully implemented?Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 433–479.
25.
DiSessaA. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2/3), 105–225.
26.
DusenburyL.BranniganR.FalcoM.HansenW. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of implementation: Implications for drug abuse prevention in school settings. Health Education Research, 18(2), 237–256.
27.
EaglyA. H.ChaikenS. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
28.
FlayB. R. (1986). Efficacy and effectiveness trials (and other phases of research) in the development of health promotion programs. Preventive Medicine, 15(5), 451–474. doi:10.1016/0091-7435(86)90024-1
29.
FosnotC. T. (1996). Constructivism: Theory, perspectives, and practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
30.
FullanM. (1983). Evaluating program implementation: What can be learned from follow through. Curriculum Inquiry, 13(2), 215–227.
31.
GlazerJ. L. (2009). How external interveners leverage large-scale change: The case of America’s Choice, 1998-2003. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 269–297. doi:10.3102/0162373709336745
32.
GregoireM. (2003). Is it a challenge or a threat? A dual-process model of teachers’ cognition and appraisal processes during conceptual change. Educational Psychology Review, 15(2), 147–179.
33.
GuskeyT. R. (1991). Enhancing the effectiveness of professional development programs. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 2(3), 239–247.
34.
HallettT. (2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74.
35.
HonigM. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation: Challenge and opportunities for the field. In HonigM. I. (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1–25). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
36.
HubermanA. M.MilesM. B. (1984). Innovation up close: How school improvement works. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
37.
LewisL. K.SeiboldD. R. (1993). Innovation modification during intraorganizational adoption. Academy of Management Review, 18, 322–354.
38.
LinA. C. (2002). Reform in the making: The implementation of social policy in prison. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
LinderS. H.PetersB. G. (1987). A design perspective on policy implementation: The fallacies of misplaced prescription. Review of Policy Research, 6(3), 459–475. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1987.tb00761.x
40.
LipseyM. W.CordrayD. S. (2000). Evaluation methods for social intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 51(1), 345–375.
41.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.
42.
MajoneG.WildavskyA. (1979). Implementation as evolution. In PressmanJ. L.WildavskyA. (Eds.), Implementation (3rd ed., pp. 163–180). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
43.
MatlandR. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174.
44.
MazmanianD. A.SabatierP. A. (1983). Implementation and public policy. Glenview, IL: Scott Foresman.
45.
McLaughlinM. W. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(2), 171–178.
46.
MehtaJ. (2015). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
National Center on Education and the Economy, & University of Pittsburgh. (1997). New standards performance standards (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author.
48.
OrlandM.HoffmanA.VaughnE. S. (2010). Evaluation of the Comprehensive School Reform program implementation and outcomes: Fifth-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development Policy and Program Studies Service.
49.
PhelpsG.SchillingS. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 31–48. doi:10.1086/428764
50.
PiagetJ. (1977). The essential Piaget. New York, NY: Basic Books.
51.
PoglincoS. M.BachA. J.HovdeK.RosenblumS.SaundersM.SupovitzJ. A. (2003). The heart of the matter: The coaching model in America’s Choice schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
52.
PosnerG. J.StrikeK. A.HewsonP. W.GertzogW. A. (1982). Accommodation of a scientific conception: Toward a theory of conceptual change. Science Education, 66(2), 211–227.
53.
RowanB.CamburnE.BarnesC. (2004). Benefiting from comprehensive school reform: A review of research on CSR implementation. In CrossC. T. (Ed.), Putting the pieces together: Lessons from comprehensive school reform research (pp. 1–52). Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform.
54.
RowanB.CorrentiR.MillerR. J.CamburnE. M. (2009). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of Comprehensive School Reform programs. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
55.
RumelhartD. E. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. Theoretical Issues in Reading Comprehension, 1, 33–58.
56.
SchankR. C.AbelsonR. P. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into human knowledge structures (Vol. 2). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
57.
ScottW. R.MeyerJ. W. (1983). The organization of societal sectors. London: Elsevier.
58.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
59.
SherinM. G.DrakeC. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in teachers’ use of a reform-based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500.
60.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. (1999). Disseminating Success for All: Lessons for policy and practice (No. 30). Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
61.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A. (2000). One million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
62.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A.DolanL. J.WasikB. A.RossS.SmithL.DiandaM. (1996). Success for All: A summary of research. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 1(1), 41–76.
63.
SpillaneJ. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy (Vol. 43). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
64.
SpillaneJ. P.BurchP. (2006). The institutional environment and instructional practice: Changing patterns of guidance and control in public education. In MeyerH.-D.RowanB. (Eds.), The new institutionalism in education (pp. 87–102). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
65.
SpillaneJ. P.ReiserB. J.ReimerT. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
66.
StrikeK. A.PosnerG. J. (1992). A revisionist theory of conceptual change. In DuschlR. A.HamiltonR. J. (Eds.), Philosophy of science, cognitive psychology, and educational theory and practice (pp. 147–176). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
SupovitzJ. A.PoglincoS. M.BachA. (2002). Implementation of the America’s Choice literacy workshops. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
73.
SupovitzJ. A.PoglincoS. M.SnyderB. A. (2001). Moving mountains: Successes and challenges of the America’s Choice comprehensive school reform design. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
74.
Van MeterD. S.Van HornC. E. (1975). The policy implementation process. Administration & Society, 6(4), 445–488. doi:10.1177/009539977500600404
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
