Supporting Implementation of an Ethnic Studies Policy Using Research From a Long-Term Research-Practice Partnership

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session Saturday 9:45 am - Gold 3
  In Roundtable Session: How Research-Practice Partnership Collaboration Can Inform Education Policy and Practice: Examples from Los Angeles

Abstract

Objectives or Purposes:
In 2020, researchers affiliated with a Southern California district research-practice partnership (RPP) began work on a mixed methods study of ethnic studies (ES) in the district’s high schools. District leaders asked our research team to study the impact of ES courses, in response to the district’s Board passing a policy an ES graduation requirement. Research occurred simultaneously with the gradual roll out of the policy. Our study aimed to answer two inter-related questions: 1) What effects do we see (if any) on academic or other outcomes from students taking an ES course as the policy ramps up? and 2) What do ES classroom experiences look like? This paper will reflect on results of this study, whether/how the research was used in district practice, and conditions that helped or hindered research use.

Perspective(s) or Theoretical Framework:
Our study used as a guiding framework the Ethnic Studies Hallmarks, as outlined by Sleeter and Zavala (2020), which enumerates key ES practices, including: developing students’ analytical skills around criticality and considering historical, systemic oppression against current structural inequities; focusing on students as intellectuals, as sources of knowledge and wisdom; exploring intersectionality and multiplicity of identities; reclaiming students’ cultural identities through culturally responsive practices, supported by counter-narratives; and fostering community engagement and activism.

In addition, we draw on types of evidence use to inform how we characterize the use that is reported by district partners, including instrumental use, guiding policy or practice; conceptual use, informing consideration of a problem of practice or solutions; symbolic, strategic, or political use, persuading others of preferred paths or decisions; process use, integrating research processes into practice; imposed use, complying with external requirements to use research; and more recently, latent use, incorporating research into artifacts or materials used by the organization (Coburn et al., 2020; Penuel et al., 2017; Weiss, 1980).

Methods or Modes of Inquiry / Data Sources, Evidence, Objects, or Materials:
Our study used mixed methods, including quasi-experimental estimation methods of effects of ES course-taking and qualitative analyses of interviews (student, teacher, and administrators) and classroom observations and artifacts. In addition to collecting data on implementation efforts, we gather evidence of research use and conditions and obstacles to research use. District leaders are consulted for member checking and co-construction of findings and implications.

Results/Implications/Significance:
Preliminary results indicate district partners used results for both conceptual and instrumental use, supporting broader implementation efforts, particularly informing conversations about how to strengthen and refine professional development practices. Internal discussions emphasized the importance of designing authentic learning opportunities for disparate needs across new and experienced teachers. District partners also indicated limited latent and process use, by embedding findings in workshops or PD materials and underscoring continuous reflection on research and evaluation evidence to monitor implementation progress. Our paper will also include information from this year’s data collection, with partner reflections on conditions that contributed to or hampered use. These combined results will contribute to the developing literature on effective use of research evidence in research-practice partnership settings.

Authors

• Kyo Yamashiro, Loyola Marymount University

• Lucrecia Santibanez, University of California - Los Angeles