Educational improvement approaches prioritize solving problems to improve educational systems. However, scholarship often constrains problems to the initiation of improvement efforts. This study examined problem work to understand how ongoing production of and engagement with problems enables problem solving in educational improvement. Drawing on process views of problems and temporality, I analyzed 94 stories from 13 data conversations in a teacher-preparation networked improvement community. I found that problem work that enabled robust problem solving often required orientations to future possibilities that reframe past actions and evaluate present conditions. However, future-oriented problem work was rare, emerging when educators experienced significant dissatisfaction and had historical familiarity with data. This study offers practical insights for generating productive problem solving in educational improvement.
BohannonA. X.FarrellC. C.CookS. (2025). Overcoming or overstepping? Boundary infrastructure for learning in the context of continuous improvement research–practice partnership. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1441856. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1441856
2.
BojeD. M. (1991). The storytelling organization: A study of story performance in an office-supply firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 36(1), 106–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393432
3.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA.LeMahieuP. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America's schools can get better at getting better. Harvard Education Press.
4.
CoburnC. E.PenuelW. R.GeilK. E. (2013). Research–practice partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. William T. Grant Foundation.
DatnowA. (2002). Can we transplant educational reform, and does it last?Journal of Educational Change, 3(3), 215–239. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021221627854
7.
DawsonP.SykesC. (2019). Concepts of time and temporality in the storytelling and sensemaking literatures: A review and critique. International Journal of Management Reviews, 21, 97–114. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijmr.12178
8.
DunhamH.Murdter-AtkinsonJ.NashB.WetzelM. M. (2022). Building on linguistic strengths: Tenets of a culturally sustaining teacher. The Reading Teacher, 75(6), 677–684. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2094
9.
EasterdayM. W.LewisD. R.GerberE. M. (2014). Design-based research process: Problems, phases, and applications. International Society of the Learning Sciences.
10.
EmirbayerM.MischeA. (1998). What is agency?American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
11.
FeldmanM. S.SköldbergK.BrownR. N.HornerD. (2004). Making sense of stories: A rhetorical approach to narrative analysis. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muh010
12.
FishmanB. J.PenuelW. R.AllenA. R.ChengB. H.SabelliN. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. Teachers College Record, 115(14), 136–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311501415
13.
FloresN.RosaJ. (2015). Undoing appropriateness: Raciolinguistic ideologies and language diversity in education. Harvard Educational Review, 85(2), 149–171. https://doi.org/10.17763/0017-8055.85.2.149
14.
GravemeijerK.CobbP. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In PlompT.NieveenN. (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 29–63). Routledge.
15.
GrunowA.ParkS.BennettB. (2024). Journey to improvement: A team guide to systems change in education, health care, and social welfare. Rowman & Littlefield.
16.
HardyC.ThomasR. (2016). Power and process: The production of “knowing” subjects and “known” objects. In LangleyA.TsoukasH. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of process organization studies (pp. 466–479). Sage.
17.
Hinnant-CrawfordB. (2024). Problem identification and framing. In AndersonE.CunninghamK. M. W.Eddy-SpicerD. H. (Eds.), Leading continuous improvement in schools (pp. 113–135). Routledge.
18.
KaplanS.OrlikowskiW. J. (2013). Temporal work in strategy making. Organization Science, 24(4), 965–995. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0792
19.
KuhnT.JacksonM. H. (2008). Accomplishing knowledge: A framework for investigating knowing in organizations. Management Communication Quarterly, 21(4), 454–485. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318907313710
20.
LangleyA.SmallmanC.TsoukasH.Van De VenA. H. (2013). Process studies of change in organization and management: Unveiling temporality, activity, and flow. Academy of Management Journal, 56(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.4001
21.
MehtaJ. (2015). The allure of order: High hopes, dashed expectations, and the troubled quest to remake American schooling. Oxford University Press.
22.
MeyerJ. L.WatermanC.ColemanG. A.StramblerM. J. (2023). Whose agenda is it? Navigating the politics of setting the research agenda in education research–practice partnerships. Educational Policy, 37(1), 122–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048221131567
23.
MintropR. (2020). Design-based school improvement: A practical guide for education leaders. Harvard Education Press.
24.
MintropR.ZumpeE. (2019). Solving real-life problems of practice and education leaders’ solving improvement mind-set. American Journal of Education, 125(3), 295–344. https://doi.org/10.1086/702733
25.
NayfackM.ParkV.HoughH.WillisL. (2017). Building systems knowledge for continuous improvement: Early lessons from the CORE Districts. Policy Analysis for California Education.
26.
NiemanH.JacksonK.Jarry-ShoreM.BorkoH.KazemiE.ChinenS.LengesA.YilmazZ.HainesC. (2023). Using a practical measure to support inquiry into professional development facilitation. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 12(1), 70–83. https://doi.org/10.5951/mte.2022.0038
27.
PenuelW. R.CoburnC. E.GallagherD. J. (2013). Negotiating problems of practice in research–practice design partnerships. Teachers College Record, 115(14), 237–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311501404
28.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.Haugan ChengB.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x11421826
29.
PenuelW. R.RiedyR.BarberM. S.PeurachD. J.LeBouefW. A.ClarkT. (2020). Principles of collaborative education research with stakeholders: Toward requirements for a new research and development infrastructure. Review of Educational Research, 90(5), 627–674. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654320938126
30.
PeurachD. J.GlazerJ. L. (2012). Reconsidering replication: New perspectives on large-scale school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 13, 155–190. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-011-9177-7
31.
ProvostL. P.MurrayS. K. (2022). The health care data guide: Learning from data for improvement. Wiley.
32.
RicoeurP. (1990). Time and narrative (Vol. 1). University of Chicago Press.
33.
RoweL. W. (2018). Say it in your language: Supporting translanguaging in multilingual classes. The Reading Teacher, 72(1), 31–38. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1673
34.
RussellJ. L.BrykA. S.DolleJ. R.GomezL. M.LemahieuP. G.GrunowA. (2017). A framework for the initiation of networked improvement communities. Teachers College Record, 119(5), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811711900501
35.
SaldañaJ. (2021). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (4th ed.). Sage.
36.
SandovalC. (2023). Synthesizing as a power-laden facilitation practice in a networked improvement community. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 8(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1108/jpcc-06-2022-0033
SandovalC.Van EsE. A. (2021). Examining the practices of generating an aim statement in a teacher preparation networked improvement community. Teachers College Record, 123(6), 1–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146812112300606
39.
SchönD. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Routledge.
40.
TakahashiS.SandovalC.JacksonB.CunninghamJ.TaylorC. (2025). Practical measurement for equity and justice. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1442505. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1442505
41.
TimmermansS.TavoryI. (2012). Theory construction in qualitative research: From grounded theory to abductive analysis. Sociological Theory, 30(3), 167–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275112457914
42.
TsoukasH. (2017). Don’t simplify, complexify: From disjunctive to conjunctive theorizing in organization and management studies. Journal of Management Studies, 54(2), 132–153. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12219
YinR. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
47.
YurkofskyM. M.PetersonA. J.MehtaJ. D.Horwitz-WillisR.FruminK. M. (2020). Research on continuous improvement: Exploring the complexities of managing educational change. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 403–433. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732x20907363
48.
ZumpeE.UyP. S.HakouzA.SzczesiulS. A. (2024). Developing mindsets for equity-focused continuous improvement: Tracing shifts in an Ed.D. program using critical improvement science. Frontiers in Education, 9, 1426126. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1426126
