Supporting Collaboration and Co-navigating Tensions around Motivation, Engagement, and Persistence in Mathematics Education within a Collaboratory

• In Event: Advancing Math Motivation, Engagement and Persistence: Insights from Digital Interventions and Research-Practice Partnerships

Abstract

Objectives: This paper shares lessons from four years of facilitating a large-scale Community of Practice (“the Collaboratory'') designed to increase mathematics motivation, engagement, and persistence (MEP) among priority students (i.e., Black and Latine students, and students affected by poverty).

Theoretical Framework: We draw from two theoretical perspectives: communities of practice (CoPs; Wenger, 1998) and essential tensions in interdisciplinary research (Kuhn, 1977). Scholarship on CoPs has guided us in our role as hub facilitators, as we design mechanisms to support member learning and capacity building and foster cross-team collaboration around MEP. We also draw on the concept of “essential tensions” from the sociology of science as we work with the CoP to navigate tensions that arise when bringing people together across multiple fields and organizational types (Andersen, 2013). Essential tensions are “necessary and persistent contradictory imperatives” in the scientific process—that is, tensions that must be navigated in order for scientific advancement to occur (Turner et al., 2015). In bringing together researchers, practice-side partners, and ed-tech developers—each situated within drastically different organizational structures—the Collaboratory faces epistemic, institutional, and individual tensions (Turner et al., 2015). As hub facilitators, we understand our role to include co-navigating those tensions with community members so that the work can move forward in meaningful and productive ways.

Methods and Data: As the Facilitation Team (FT), we have conducted “internal research” on the Collaboratory since its inception. We administered ten community-wide surveys including: (1) seven surveys of members’ experiences of the Collaboratory; (2) two surveys about members’ interests in cross-team collaborative opportunities; and (3) one survey about how teams are addressing equity. All surveys included open-response items, giving members the opportunity to describe their experiences and perspectives. We also analyzed Collaboratory artifacts, providing insight into what teams are working on and how members are talking about key topics.

Results: As facilitators of the Collaboratory, FT played a key role in a) bringing teams together to collaborate across projects and b) navigating the tensions that inherently arose through that collaboration. We share mechanisms for facilitating collaboration and three tensions: one around construct definition, one around the extent to which context is an essential component of MEP; and one around how much to prioritize shared measures. For each, we describe how the cross-team, interdisciplinary collaborations themselves surfaced what would have otherwise been unknown or hidden contradictions; share the varying role(s) that FT adopted to co-navigate those tensions with the community; and report the current status/resolution of each tension within the community. We reflect on all of these tensions within the theoretical context of “essential tensions” in interdisciplinary research.

Significance: This study contributes to our understanding of how the hub entity of a collaborative enterprise can support the collective to advance their work within a particular area–here, MEP in mathematics education. Based on four years of systemic inquiry into effective facilitation strategies, we build on existing theories of collaborative and interdisciplinary research and share strategies that support effective collaboration and scientific knowledge-building to improve mathematics education for priority students.

Authors

• Corinne Singleton, Menlo Education Research

• Britte Haugan Cheng, Menlo Education Research

• Ann Edwards, West Ed

• Tiffany L Clark, Menlo Education Research