Seeking Causal Inference: Emerging Tensions in an Evolving Research-Practice Partnership

• In Event: Supporting and Sustaining Productive Research-Practice Partnerships in STEM

Abstract

Purpose
This paper examines tensions encountered as an established research-practice partnership transitioned from a design study toward a quasi-experimental study capable of relating teacher participation in professional learning experiences to changes in student achievement.

Perspective(s)
For the past three years we have partnered with a large, urban school district to investigate how teachers engage in iterative co-design of classroom formative assessments to support classroom practice (Authors, 2016). The structure of our partnership has involved supporting teachers in professional learning communities (PLCs) at their school sites, during which time we have built mutually beneficial and trusting relationships with teachers and district administrators. However, tensions have arisen as the partnership has grown and obtained additional external funding to connect teacher participation in these design experiences with student achievement. Previous studies have identified tensions between the multiple stakeholders in research-practice partnerships have been identified in the context of Design-Based Implementation Research (a.k.a. DBIR; see Penuel et al., 2011; Penuel et al., 2013; Severance, Leary & Johnson, 2014). In this paper, we build upon these prior studies to examine the ways in which a growing and transitioning partnership experiences tensions around evolving goals of creating generalizable knowledge about teacher and student learning.

Mode of Inquiry
The research project described in this paper draws on DBIR as a method for conducting systematic inquiry into processes of teacher learning about formative assessment design and practice, and the relationship of teacher engagement in this process on student achievement. We collaborated with our district partners in data analysis to ensure that our claims are informed by multiple stakeholder perspectives, and to inform subsequent iterations of our project; however, our research agreement with our partner district currently prohibits us from including district administrators as co-authors.

Sources of Evidence
We draw on fieldnotes from PLC meetings, communications with district administrators, artifacts, teacher interviews, and notes from research team meetings to inform our identification and description of tensions that have emerged in the course of our partnership.

Key Findings
We have identified several tensions while moving towards this quasi-experimental study, including mismatched expectations between researchers and teachers, evolving district priorities, and challenges establishing longitudinal tracking systems for students. First, as the partnership has evolved from ‘fly-on-the-wall’ participation in PLCs toward researcher facilitation, we have encountered tensions in honoring and negotiating the problems of practice teachers bring to these PLC meetings with the intended ‘treatment’ of teachers designing and enacting formative assessments in conceptual areas. Second, we have identified tensions between the original purpose of the research-practice partnership, funded by the National Science Foundation, and evolving priorities of district administrators. Finally, as we have moved toward a longitudinal study design, developing new, collaborative processes for de-identifying and tracking student data across schools and study years has taxed relationships with district administrators and teacher partners.

Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work
Given the increasing focus on DBIR, it is important to consider the types of tensions that emerge when research-practice partnerships transition to collect data that allow for causal inference.

Authors

• Erin Marie Furtak, University of Colorado - Boulder

• Derek C. Briggs, University of Colorado, Boulder