Benefits and Challenges Associated With Building Cohesive Researcher/Practitioner Partnerships Between Universities and Informal Educational Settings

• In Event: Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships for Developing and Assessing Informal STEM Learning Experiences

Abstract

Objectives: Building effective STEM education programs in informal settings is challenging on many levels, and the process becomes even more challenging when practitioners who have designed exhibits or programs for these settings work with researchers who are tasked with conducting empirical studies on these learning opportunities. This presentation will describe challenges related to organizational culture and communication modes in two researcher/practitioner partnerships, and the strategies used to overcome them.

One program was designed to teach middle-school girls the value of nutrition, portion control, and physical activity in a camp setting, and involved practitioners from two science museums and University researchers (Project#1). The second project is an international partnership involving practitioners from five museums, three universities, and a charity across the U.S. and U.K. This project investigates how the integration of certain movements into the design of museum exhibits and facilitation enhances learning in young children (Project#2). A large education non-profit served as the external evaluator of both projects.

Perspective: As described by Patton (2011), developmental evaluation, the approach used to evaluate these projects, involves working “collaboratively. . . to conceptualize, design, and test new approaches in a long-term, on-going process of adaptation, intentional change, and development.” One hallmark of developmental evaluation is that evaluation questions and data collection activities evolve as the innovation is designed and implemented. In both projects, evaluators worked closely with practitioners and researchers as thought partners, rather than as an external agency serving primarily to monitor progress of grant implementation.

Methods, Data Sources, and Analysis: The mixed-methods designs of these evaluations included collecting both qualitative and quantitative data, allowing for triangulation of findings. Data sources included attending leadership meetings; administering surveys; and conducting site visits and interviews. Qualitative data were analyzed using grounded theory and established methods for coding these data. Survey data analysis employed standard quantitative analysis procedures.

Results: Since Project#1 involved an RCT, while Project #2 involved design-based research, it is not surprising that each project had unique challenges associated with building cohesive partnerships. Examples of challenges in Project#1 included researchers’ need for consistency across sites/years in curricula and pacing, since the research design called for combining data across cohorts. Other challenges were negative museum practitioner and student attitudes toward many assessments required by the RCT; the admission policy (researchers wanted to ensure participants’ demographic equivalency, while museum staff were not accustomed to such constraints); and disagreements between practitioners and researchers about making changes in the program to meet children’s needs vs. constraints of the research design. In Project#2, challenges included cultural differences (between universities/museums and between the U.S./U.K.); staff accountability; and different perspectives about measuring child/family outcomes.

Significance: Data indicate that these partner organizations overcame many challenges associated with reconciling research needs and contextual barriers associated with informal learning settings. Staff from these organizations developed strong collegial relationships that enhanced experiences for participants and supported research implementation. This poster will describe the strategies contributing to building cohesive partnerships, despite inherent challenges.

Authors

• Cathy Ringstaff, WestEd

• Judy Brown, Phillip and Patricia Frost Museum of Science

• Cheryl Juarez, Phillip and Patricia Frost Museum of Science