Bellevue-UW Project Team

1. Bellevue-UW Project Team • Kari Shutt • Carrie Tzou • Nancy Vye • Bellevue Schools • Angie DiLoreto • Laura Gaylord • Allison Snow • Amy Winstanley • Dan Gallagher** Now at Seattle Public Schools COE-UW John Bransford Robert Abbott Philip Bell Hank Clark Leslie Herrenkohl Andrew Morozov Hiroki Oura Giovanna Scalone Andrew Shouse

2. Research Analysis of District Assessments Choice and agency during inquiry were associated with- P < .05 P < .0005 Van Horne, Shutt, Vye& Bransford - Enactment of Inquiry Processes to Support Student Participation in Authentic Science Practices

3. Design Research Partnerships Principle: Partnership Stance & Capacity • Researchers and practitioners needed to be receptive to and capable of engaging in a deep R&D partnership • District staff had collaborative R&D stancewith multiple projects underway; one district person was a UW alum • Researchers had previously engaged in a range of similar efforts with groups of teachers and other districts • Policy Implication: Need to build human capacity for this kind of partnership work—as an alternative to the research-to-practice model. We should incentivize partnership work and ask R+P teams to justify the work in terms of joint problem identification.

4. Design Research Partnerships Principle: Mutually-Beneficial Practices that Leverage Distributed Expertise • This is a sustained, ‘project-focused’ collaboration between university researchers and district practitioners in its 7th year. • We actively manage it to be mutually-beneficial through shared governance (e.g., Co-PIs), institutional subcontracts, and detailed coordination of the work (e.g., around research goals & design / implementation strategies)—while leveraging and building team expertise • Policy Implication: As intensive, soft money efforts, design research partnerships need sustained ‘project’ funding; networking opportunities with other similar efforts and interested networks would benefit & expand the work

5. Design Research Partnerships Principle: Continuous Improvement on Broad Issues within Local Circumstances • Within educational improvement efforts, the work is focused on identifying and working through local ‘problems of educational practice’ through iterative cycles of design, implementation & analysis (e.g., how does learner choice influence learning) • Tools, approaches, and findings are broadly applicable but are locally constrained to fit the district context (culture, infrastructure, routines) • Policy Implication: Focus more on how the resulting tools (as they travel) can be productively adapted to local use in a range of contexts—and less on demonstrating that specific approaches work in a given research study context

6. Four Themes of Work Developing teacher-researcher partnerships to investigate problems of practice and develop useful instructional strategies and tools that can be shared broadly. STEM Practices Formative Assessment Cyberlearning Learning Across Settings • Collaborating Organizations • Exploratorium (Bronwyn Bevan, PI) • University of Washington Institute for Science + Math Education • Education Development Center, Inc. • TERC • University of Colorado, Boulder • Inverness Research Associates • SRI International Partnership for Science & Engineering PracticesSeattle & Renton School Districts Photo by Institute for Systems Biology, June 2013

7. To Learn More… • UW Institute for Science + Math Educationhttp://sciencemathpartnerships.org/ • Design-Based Implementation Researchhttp://www-personal.umich.edu/~fishman/DBIR-AERA-2013/ • LIFE Science of Learning Centerhttp://life-slc.org/ • Or you can email me…pbell@uw.edu

8. Question and Answer