The theory and tools of “improvement science” have produced performance improvements in many organizational sectors. This essay describes improvement science and explores its potential and challenges within education. Potential contributions include attention to the knowledge-building and motivational systems within schools, strategies for learning from variations in practice, and focus on improvement (rather than on program adoption). Two examples of improvement science in education are examined: the Community College Pathways Networked Improvement Community and lesson study in Japan. To support improvement science use, we need to recognize the different affordances of experimental and improvement science, the varied types of knowledge that can be generalized, the value of practical measurement, and the feasibility of learning across boundaries.
AkibaM.RampL.WilkinsonB. (2014). Lesson study policy and practice in Florida: Findings from a statewide district survey. Tallahassee: Florida State University.
2.
AkkermanS. F.BakkerA. (2011). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132–169.
3.
ArgyrisC.PutnamR.SmithD. (1985). Action science: Concepts, methods and skills for research and intervention. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Bannan-RitlandB. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21–24.
5.
BerwickD. (2003). Improvement, trust, and the healthcare workforce. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 12(6), 448–452.
6.
BrownA. L.CampioneJ. C. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In McGillyK. (Ed.), Classroom lessons: Integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice (pp. 229–270). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA.LeMahieuP. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
9.
ChenH. T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
CobbP.McClainK.de Silva LambergT.DeanC. (2003). Situating teachers’ instructional practices in the institutional setting of the school and district. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 13–24.
12.
CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
DonaldsonS. (2002). Theory-driven program evaluation in the new millennium. In DonaldsonS. I.ScrivenM. (Eds.), Evaluating social programs and problems: Visions for the new millennium (pp. 115–146). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
GawandeA. (2007). Better: A surgeon’s notes on performance. New York, NY: Picador.
16.
GerstenR.TaylorM. J.KeysT. D.RolfhusE.Newman-GoncharR. (2014). Summary of research on the effectiveness of math professional development approaches. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southeast.
17.
GoldsmithL. T.DoerrH. M.LewisC. C. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ learning: A conceptual framework and synthesis of research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(1), 5–36. doi:10.1007/s10857–013–9245–4
18.
GutierrezK. D.PenuelW. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 19–23.
19.
HatanoG.InagakiK. (1998). Cultural contexts of schooling revisited: A review of the learning gap from a cultural psychology perspective. In ParisS. G.WellmanH. M. (Eds.), Global prospects for education development, culture and schooling (pp. 79–104). Washington, D.C: American Psychological Association.
20.
HillH. C. (2011). The nature and effects of middle school mathematics teacher learning experiences. Teachers College Record, 113(1), 205–234.
21.
LangleyG. J.MoenR. D.NolanK. M.NolanT. W.NormanC. L.ProvostL. P. (2009). The improvement guide. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
22.
LewisC.HurdJ. (2011). Lesson study step by step: How teacher learning communities improve instruction. Portsmouth, NH: Heinneman.
23.
LewisC.PerryR. (2014). Lesson study with mathematical resources: A sustainable model for locally-led teacher professional learning. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 16(1).
24.
LewisC.TsuchidaI. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The case of elementary science instruction. Journal of Educational Policy, 12(5), 313–331.
25.
LipseyM. W. (1993). Theory as method: Small theories of treatments. New Directions for Program Evaluations, 57, 5–38.
26.
MurataA.TakahashiA. (2002). Vehicle to connect theory, research and practice: How teacher thinking changes in district-level lesson study in Japan. In HauryD. L. (Ed.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Meeting of North American Chapter of the International Group of the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 1879–1888). Columbus,OH: ERIC Clearninghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
27.
National Education Policy Research Institute. (2011). Report of survey research on improvement of teacher quality [Kyouin no Shitsu no Koujou ni Kansuru Chosa Kenkyuu]. Tokyo, Japan: National Education Policy Research Institute.
28.
ParkS.HironakaS.CarverP.NordstrumL. (2013). Continuous improvement in education. Standford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
29.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.Haugan ChengB.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40, 331–337.
30.
RotherM. (2009). Toyota Kata: Managing people for improvement, adaptiveness and superior results. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Professional.
31.
SahlbergP. (2011). Finnish lessons: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland?New York, NY: Teacher’s College Press.
32.
SherinM.JacobsV.PhilippR. (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
33.
ShimizuY. (2002). Capturing the structure of Japanese mathematics lessons: Some findings of the international comparative studies. In EdgeD.HarY. B. (Eds.), Proceedings of Second East Asia Regional Conference on Mathematics Education and Ninth Southeast Asian Conference on Mathematics Education: Vol. 1. Invited papers: Plenary lectures and regular lectures (pp. 168–176). Singapore: National Institute of Education.
34.
ShimizuY. (2002, July). Sharing a new approach to teaching mathematics with the teachers from outside the school: The role of lesson study at “Fuzoku” schools. Paper presented at the US-Japan Cross Cultural Seminar on the Professionalization of Teachers Through Lesson Study, Park City, UT.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school and administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–620.
37.
StiglerJ. W.HiebertJ. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Summit Books.
38.
SztajnP. (2011). Standards for reporting mathematics professional development in research studies. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
39.
TakahashiA. (2008, July). Beyond show and tell: Neriage for teaching through problem-solving. Ideas from Japanese problem-solving approaches for teaching mathematics. Paper presented at the 11th International Congress on Mathematical Education, Monterrey, Mexico.
40.
TakahashiA.LewisC.PerryR. (2013). Facilitating curriculum reforms through lesson study. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 2(3), 207–217.
41.
TakahashiA.McDougalT. (2014). Implementing a new national curriculum: Case study of a Japanese school’s 2-year lesson-study project. In KarpK. (Ed.), Annual perspectives in mathematics education: Using research to improve instruction 2014 (pp. 13–22). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
42.
Van CampenJ.SowersN.StrotherS. (2013). Community College Pathways: 2012–13 descriptive report. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
43.
YeagerD.BrykA.MuhichJ.HausmanH.MoralesL. (2013). Improvement research carried out through networked communities: Accelerating learning about practices that support more productive student mindsets. Paper presented at the White House Meeting on Excellence in Education: The Importance of Academic Mindsets, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://cdn.carnegiefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/improvement_research_NICs_bryk-yeager.pdf
