Launching the Student-Centered Learning Research Collaborative

November 11, 2016 by

research-collaborativeThere is increasing evidence supporting the growth of student-centered learning (competency-based learning is one of the four elements) to promote success for all students and drive equity in education. Yet, work remains. How can we curate research-based best practices for implementation? How can we scale student-centered learning, knowing implementation varies based on local contexts? How do we intentionally foreground equity in new school designs to prevent defaulting to the status quo? How can we overcome barriers from policy and the traditional system?

In early November, Jobs for the Future, in partnership with the Nellie Mae Education Foundation, launched the Student-Centered Learning Research Collaborative, a new effort to investigate and evaluate what we know about student-centered learning and leverage that knowledge to effect meaningful change at scale. For more information on the Research Collaborative, view their concept paper.

The goals of the Research Collaborative are three-fold:

  1. Catalyze: Support new and innovative research that catalyzes action and builds coherence within the field.
  2. Curate: Curate best and most relevant scholarship and practices and communicate findings.
  3. Connect: Connect research and implementation to learn from and inform policy and practice.

JFF hosted a convening to announce this new Research Collaborative including researchers, experts, practitioners, funders, and policymakers to bridge the gap and create dialogue between research and practice. The following nine Distinguished Fellows will take on this work over two years:

  1. Arthur Eduardo Baraf, Principal, The Met
  2. Dana L. Mitra, Professor and Director of Graduate Studies, Penn State University
  3. Frank Labanca, Principal, Westside Middle School Academy Magnet
  4. Jennifer Fredricks, Professor, Connecticut College
  5. Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, Director, of Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), Tufts University
  6. Kim Carter, Executive Director, Q.E.D. Foundation (Read about Making Community Connections Charter School here)
  7. Lori Batista McEwen, Outgoing Chief of Instruction, Leadership and Equity, Providence Public School Department
  8. Mary Bellavance, Instructional Coach, Biddeford Middle School (Read about Biddeford School District here)
  9. Michelle L. Puhlick, Executive Director of Planning & Partnerships, Hartford Public Schools

The Research Collaborative also created the following group of seven highly respected senior leaders, scholars and educators to serve as Advisors, providing invaluable perspectives regarding research questions, progress, and deliverables:

  1. Alison Hramiec, Head of School, Boston Day and Evening Academy (Read about BDEA here)
  2. Paul Leather, Deputy Commissioner of Education, New Hampshire
  3. Jal Mehta, Associate Professor, Harvard Graduate School of Education
  4. Beth M. Miller, Managing Director of Research and Communications, EL Education
  5. James W. Pellegrino, Co-Director, Learning Sciences Research Institute; Distinguished Professor of Education
  6. Paul Reville, Francis Keppel Professor of Practice of Educational Policy and Administration, Harvard Graduate School of Education
  7. Jorge Ruiz de Velasco, Associate Director of the Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities, Stanford Graduate School of Education

Three Takeaways from the Convening

  1. Focus on Equity: Equity was a key theme throughout the many conversations at the convening. What do we mean by ‘equity’ and how do we know when we get there? How do we ensure that equity is an explicit goal in school design research to prevent defaulting to the status quo? How can we anticipate and address possible unintended consequences in personalized, competency-based systems? It’s important to remember that educational equity does not exist in a vacuum; there are also inequities that students face in their environments outside the realm of traditional education.
  2. Lack of Empirical Data: To effectively design and scale personalized, competency-based systems, we need empirical data to demonstrate its effectiveness on student outcomes, particularly for historically underserved groups. This Research Collaborative hopes to find research-backed strategies to improve equity in student-centered learning.
  3. Defining Key Terms: Different definitions are sometimes used by different groups of people, causing confusion and misunderstandings. Practitioners, policymakers, and researchers need to come to a common language to talk across boundaries. When networks talk past one another, it becomes difficult for research to inform practice and for practice to inform research.

Learn more about the Research Collaborative:

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
share this post:Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Email this to someone
email

2 Comments »

  1. Comment by alice ray 11:53 am, November 14, 2016

    I hope there will be an explicit place within this effort to address the need to personalize social-emotional, as well as academic learning. There may be no more important subject for today’s students to understand than themselves and their relationships to others, their relationship to “the other” That learning starts from the inside out. We have found technology does not de-personalize – rather instead deepens – personalization of learning about the mysteries of one’s self and one’s relationships – and that learning translates into improved academic and behavioral outcomes. We hope you will take a look at the NREPP vetted research on the impact of Ripple Effects personalized learning program.

  2. Comment by Chris Sturgis 12:19 pm, November 14, 2016

    Hi — Indeed social emotional learning is very important. It’s an interesting question how much that should be viewed as “competencies” that students should be able to demonstrate and apply or whether social-emotional learning, like the growth mindset and habits of learning, are important qualities and processes students should develop. I just came back from District 51 and they are thinking deeply about how to integrate social and emotional learning, habits and growth mindset into the core of the culture and practices of the learner-centered environment.

    As for the question of technology — there are certainly ways to use it to strengthen personalization. There are also examples where technology is no more than an electronic textbook and the only characteristic of personalization is flexible pacing. Technology is a tool and it all depends on how we use it.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

WordPress SEO fine-tune by Meta SEO Pack from Poradnik Webmastera