Reimagining the Research-Practitioner Partnership: A New Professional School Role to Foster Authentic Practitioner Research (Poster 4)

• In Event: Practice and Positionality: Critical Instantiations of STEAM Education and Research

Abstract

Is it time for a new kind of professional role to address questions of equity at the intersection of STEM education research and practice? Education researchers acknowledge that in order to push the field forward, practitioners such as teachers represent a critical voice in the scholarly community (Fichtman, 2016). Practitioner research has a long history in education, with the traditional model involving researchers or scholar mentors paired with embedded practitioners who lead their own inquiries (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009). Recent decades have seen a movement to systematize practitioner research to improve trustworthiness and validity, with calls for more methodological training and advanced degrees among practitioners, stronger mentorship from research partners, and more outlets willing to publish (and even scaffold) such work (e.g., Finch, 2021, Maksimović, 2012).

While these are admirable goals, they rest the burden of (often unpaid) professional development and research training on practitioners whose time is typically already stretched across multiple roles of curriculum development, parent engagement, student remediation, certification maintenance, daily school commitments, etc. (Lewis & King, 2019). Similarly, researchers bring their own ideally aligned but distinct agenda to partnerships, and mentorship requires a significant investment potentially unrelated to their institutional obligations. This paper explores a more sustainable solution, involving a fusion of the research-practitioner partnership (RPP) into a single role, embedded permanently within a school, and designed to facilitate and support both internal practitioner investigation, and external scholarly collaborations. By situating a practitioner as a “bridge”, translating their emic perspective of the school’s priorities into research investigations to yield and disseminate evidence-informed practice, this approach addresses the communication gap and goal misalignment that can result from multiple RPP partners.

This paper describes a case example of developing such a role, as I looked for a research position situated within a practice setting, and connected with the Curriculum Director at a PreK-8 private parochial school, who was actively seeking ways to infuse evidence-based STEM pedagogy across the school’s curriculum. After embarking on a months-long process of shaping conversations and interviews with all STEM-affiliated practitioners at the school, we arrived at the idea for a new kind of resource member to help practitioners bridge gaps in their STEM pedagogy and content knowledge (e.g., Koehler & Mishra, 2009), and to document and disseminate moments of success in their already-rich STEM teaching. Core to the tasks of this role would be: (1) initiating an internal culture-change in the school to reframe STEM interventions from specialized and advanced enrichment opportunities to broadly inclusive explorations for children of all backgrounds and readiness levels; and (2) fostering a strengthened network of external collaborators, both at the research level (e.g., universities, scholarly meetings) and community level (e.g., local STEM-relevant organizations, companies), to (3) offer students real-world relevance and access to STEM experiences and professionals. The paper discusses the approach we took to involve school stakeholders in developing this role and themes that emerged from those conversations, as well as the significance of creating a role to mitigate RPP issues that exist.

Author

• Amanda Strawhacker, Solomon Schechter Day School of Greater Boston
  Presenting Author