Designing and Using Measures for Improving Research-Practice Partnerships

• In Event: Assessing the Effectiveness of Research-Practice Partnerships: Lessons From the Field

Abstract

Purpose: Researchers and educators alike are asking how to measure the effectiveness of research practice partnerships (RPPs) in education (Henrick, et al., 2017). The rapid growth of RPPs in education has also created pressure to demonstrate RPPs’ impact on policy, practice and student outcomes (Schneider, 2018). In our RPPs, we developed a practical measure (Bryk, et al., 2013) to internally examine one-on-one and small group meetings, one of the key strategies our partnerships use to support effectiveness. This study seeks to examine the association of behaviors in these meetings with partnership outcomes in hope of using this information to drive improvements to our partnerships.

Framework: This study uses a conceptual framework stemming from Coburn, Penuel, and Geil’s (2013) definition of partnerships as long-term, mutual endeavors focused on original research addressing practitioners’ problems of practice with specific strategies to foster the partnership. Our partnerships have the desired outcome of supporting research-based decision-making by practice partners aimed at improving policies, practices and student outcomes. To achieve this outcome, our partnership involves university researchers, school district leaders, and brokers working on three activities: rigorous and relevant research using the scientific method (e.g., Gutiérrez and Penuel, 2014; Tseng and Nutley, 2014); strategic engagements between researchers and practitioners, such as establishing specific roles, routines, and expectations (e.g., Penuel, Coburn and Gallagher, 2013); and the development of the mindset among researchers and practitioners that they are stronger by working together.

Methods: This study uses a participant observer methodology (Merriam and Tisdell, 2015) to collect observations of the behaviors in meetings within two RPPs. The observations are collected using a “practical measure” designed as a checklist of behaviors and running notes during meetings in RPPs. The sample includes observations from 59 meetings collected over three months, with 31 meetings in Partnership A and 28 meetings in Partnership B.

Results: The preliminary results suggest certain partnership outcomes are associated with a research project’s developmental phase, the years the partnership has been in existence, and behaviors of researchers, practitioners, and brokers in meetings about the partnership work. A sample of preliminary findings shows that, partnership A in existence for ten years, had the majority of meetings categorized at the “exploring possible research” or “emerging research” phases (45% = 14 out of 31 meetings) and partnership B, in existence for two years, had the majority of the meetings categorized in the “research in process” phase (79% = 22 out of 28 meetings). Across the 59 observed meetings, the brokers made more translating behaviors (rephasing ideas expressed by researchers in more accessible language to practitioners and vice versa) and researchers made more listening behaviors (attentively listening to practitioners’ ideas during meetings).

Significance: One of the challenges with measuring the effectiveness of partnerships is finding data collection methods and measures to be embedded in the day-to-day realities of the partnership. This practical measure of meeting behaviors will help the field understand the implementation of partnership “strategies” which can be associated with “outcomes” to gauge partnership effectiveness (Coburn and Penuel, 2016).

Authors

• Laura Wentworth, California Education Partners

• Michelle B. Nayfack

• Francine Kipnis, California Education Partners