Search
Program Calendar
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Unit
Browse By Session Type
Browse By Descriptor
Search Tips
Annual Meeting Housing and Travel
Personal Schedule
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Perspective
This paper examines issues related to taking DBIR “to scale” by implementing a modified NIC (Bryk, et al., 2015) and analyzing its impact on educator and researcher learning.
Taking DBIR “to scale” involves transitioning from co-designing with teachers to working with new “adapter” teachers. This transition required the team to think deeply about professional development that would continue to foster collective learning among researchers and educators. Further, the team recognized that new PBL teachers would likely struggle with implementing the curriculum because it involves a complex web of pedagogical and content knowledge and skills (Barron & Darling-Hammond, 2008). To reframe professional development on learning and enacting those skills rather than merely focusing on ‘going through’ the curriculum, we looked to improvement science (Bryk, et al., 2015). Also guided by research on expertise and “learning while doing” (e.g., Bransford & Schwartz, 2009) and effective professional development (e.g., Roth, Garnier, Chen, Lemmens, Schwille & Wickler, 2011; Wilson, 2013), we enacted a modified NIC in which we identified a shared problem related to physics learning and enacted rapid change cycles of feedback and targeted noticing to facilitate teacher (and researcher) learning.
Methods and Data
We triangulated data sources, including transcriptions and researcher reflections on NIC meetings, external evaluator memos, teacher interviews, and classroom video (Merriam, 2009). Our analysis included two phases: closed coding guided by the NIC framework, and then looking back through the data for contrasting cases and additional themes (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
Findings
Our analysis indicates several important shifts that eventually resulted in productive “learning while doing” for participants.
Phase 1: Unfamiliar Territory - Establishing the NIC
The NIC was launched at a summer institute where we collaboratively established the focus of the NIC (i.e., deepening students’ conceptual understanding of physics through discourse) and centering the conversation on PBL pedagogies.
Phase 2: Struggle for Balanced Participation
At the beginning of the year, we faced challenges with equitable participation during sessions--teachers participated more when discussing the curriculum content and researchers participated heavily during NIC portions. In this phase, the change cycles focused on designing discourse tools for students, leaving teachers with unclear roles.
Phase 3: Shifts in Accountability - Shifts in Participation
Two crucial changes occurred mid-year: 1) teachers began collecting data on student learning rather than relying on researchers, and 2) the team focused change efforts on teaching practices rather than designing student tools. Consequently, teachers took a more active role in monitoring student understanding through discourse and brought their observations back to the group for collective problem solving.
Phase 4: Changes Take Root
By year-end, data indicate shifts in teachers’ ideas about PBL pedagogy and classroom enactment. At the final PD sessions, curriculum reflections melded with reflections on practice and careful consideration of student learning through discourse.
Significance
Improvement science offers a new paradigm for curriculum implementation and development that provides a user- and problem-centered approach to improving teaching and learning, going beyond traditional approaches that attempt to offer evidence-based proofs of concept that are then taken “to scale”.
Carol Margaret Adams, Seattle University
Nancy J. Vye, University of Washington
Gavin Tierney, University of Washington - Bothell
Sarah Amber Evans, Texas Woman's University
Katherine M. Kovacich, University of Washington - Seattle