Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
S~. Rt ~ R _ ~ _ ~ 5 ~ TO Committee on a Strategic Eclucation Research Partnership M.S. Donovan, A.K. Wigclor, and C.E. Snow, editors Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Eclucation NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES TH E NATIONAL ACADEMI ES PRESS Washington' D.C. www.nap.edu
· ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, N.W. · Washington, DC 20001 NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This study was supported by Grant No. R305U000002 between the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Department of Education; Grant No. 00- 61980-HCD from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation; Grant Nos. 200200171 and 20030091 from the Spencer Foundation; and Grant No. B7070 from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Any opinions, findings, con- clusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authoress and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organizations or agencies that provided support for the project. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data National Research Council (U.S.~. Committee on a Strategic Education Research Partnership. Strategic education research partnership / Committee on a Strategic Education Research Partnership; M.S. Donovan, A.K. Wigdor, and C.E. Snow, editors. p. cm. "Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education." ISBN 0-309-08879-8 (pbk.) ISBN 0-309-50727-8 (PDF) 1. Education Research United States. 2. School improvement programs United States. I. Donovan, Suzanne. II. Wigdor, Alexandra K. III. Snow, Catherine E. IV. Title. LB1028.25.U6N37 2003 370'.7'2 dc21 2003008695 Additional copies of this report are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, N.W., Lockbox 285, Washington, DC 20055; (800) 624- 6242 or (202) 334-3313 (in the Washington metropolitan area); Internet, http:// www.nap.edu Printed in the United States of America. Copyright 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Suggested citation: National Research Council. (2003~. Strategic Education Re- search Partnership. Committee on a Strategic Education Research Partnership. M.S. Donovan, A.K. Wigdor, and C.E. Snow, editors. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES Advisers to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medirine The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering re- search, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. Wm. A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate profes- sions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Acad- emy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies deter- mined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Wm. A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. www.national-academies.org
STRATEGIC EDUCATION RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP COMMITTEE JOE B. WYATT (Chair), Vanderbilt University JOHN S. REED (Vice Chair), formerly chair, Citigroup CATHERINE SNOW (Vice Chair), Harvard University CAROLE AMES, Michigan State University JAMES N. BARON, Stanford University LLOYD BOND, Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, Menio Park, California DAVID COHEN, University of Michigan LAURA COOPER, Evanston Township High School, Evanston, Illinois CHARLES MILLER, Meridian National, Inc., Houston, Texas RICHARD R. NELSON, Columbia University REBECCA PALACIOS, Zavala Elementary School, Corpus Christi, Texas THOMAS W. PAYZANT, Boston Public Schools, Boston, Massachusetts MICHAEL ROTHSCHILD, Princeton University TED SANDERS, Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colorado PHILIP URI TREISMAN, University of Texas ALEXANDRA K. WIGDOR, Director M. SUZANNE DONOVAN, Associate Director JAMES A. KELLY, Senior Advisor ALLISON E. SHOUP, Senior Project Assistant SHIRLEY THATCHER, Senior Project Assistant
PAN E ~ ON LEARN ~ NG AN D ~ NSTRUCTION STRATEGIC EDUCATION RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP JAMES W. PELLEGRINO (Chair), University of Illinois at Chicago JOHN R. ANDERSON, Carnegie Mellon University DEBORAH LOEWENBERG BALL, University of Michigan JILL HARRISON BERG, Cambridge Public Schools (on sabbatical) SUSAN CAREY, Harvard University STEPHEN J. CECI, Cornell University MARY ELLEN DAKIN, Revere High School, Revere, Massachusetts BARBARA R. FOORMAN, University of Texas-Houston Medical School WALTER KINTSCH, University of Colorado, Boulder ROBERT MORSE, St. Albans School, Washington, DC SHARON P. ROBINSON, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey JON SAPHIER, Research for Better Teaching, Inc., Carlisle, Massachusetts LEONA SCHAUBLE, University of Wisconsin-Madison JOSEPH K. TORGESEN, Florida State University MARK R. WILSON, University of California, Berkeley SUZANNE M. WILSON, Michigan State University M. SUZANNE DONOVAN, Director ALEXANDRA K. WIGDOR, Director, SERF JAMES A. KELLY, Senior Consultant ALLISON E. SHOUP, Senior Project Assistant
lukllow~en~mellls - The committee is grateful to the many people who contributed to this phase in the development of a Strategic Education Research Partnership (SERP). The financial support of our sponsors at the Department of Education, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Founda- tion, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Spencer Foun- dation was essential, of course, but representatives of each also participated in fruitful discussions with the committee. Our thanks to C. Kent McGuire, former assistant secretary of educa- tion research and improvement and to his successor and now director of the National Institute for Education Sciences, Grover I. Russ Whitehurst; thanks likewise are due to Valerie Reyna, Mark Constas, and Sue Betka. We are grateful to Daniel Fallon, director of the education program at Carnegie Corporation, his predecessor Vivien Stewart, and colleague Karin Egan; Ellen Condliffe Lagemann, president of the Spencer Foundation, and Paul Goren, vice president of the Spencer Foundation and be- fore that education officer at the MacArthur Foundation. In the course of our work, the committee drew on the exper- tise of many others. lames A. Kelly, president of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, served as senior adviser to the committee throughout. Kelly is one of the few people in the country to build a new research-based program, national in scope, that has made teachers and school adminis- trators central players in education reform. David A. Goslin, former president of the American Institutes for Research, was a vital link between the first SERP committee and this one, gener- ously providing project memory so that the Phase 2 effort could build fruitfully on what had gone before. In thinking about the conditions required for a powerful research program, the com- mittee benefited greatly from Emerson Elliott's deep experience AC KNOWLE DOME NTS Vii
and wisdom. A Tong-time federal career employee, Elliott occu- pied positions from 1957 to 2000 that placed him in the center of the federal education research enterprise, including four stints as acting director of the research function and appointment as the first commissioner of education statistics in 1992. His paper, commissioned by the committee and entitled Three Visions for Investment in Education Research: An Insider's Recollections from Four Decades in Federal Policy and Practice (January 2002) appears in condensed form as Appendix A. The committee extends its appreciation to participants in a workshop on the organization of research and its relation to practice in other sectors, held in November 2000. Richard Klausner, then director of the National Cancer Institute, and Annetine C. Gelijns and Alan I. Moskowitz, codirectors of the International Center for Health Outcomes and Innovation Re- search, Columbia University, gave us insight into important aspects of the medical sector. Internationally known agricul- tural economists Vernon Ruttan of the University of Minnesota and Robert E. Evenson of Yale University shared their knowI- edge of the system linking research, product development, and farming through federal and state programs (the agricultural experiment stations, the extension service) and, more recently, through private-sector investment. In addition, the committee benefited from papers commissioned from Linda Argots of Carnegie Mellon University and lames Rosenbaum of North- western University on organizational research and educational change. The committee's work was enhanced by the Panel on Learn- ing and Instruction, whose chair, lames Pellegrino, attended all committee meetings to ensure adequate communication and coordination between committee and panel. The panel's report, Learning and Instruction: A SERP Research Agenda, is being pub- lished as a companion volume to this report. A special note of thanks is due to committee members Catherine Snow and John Reed, who agreed to take on the role of vice chair to help us accomplish a great deal of work in all- too-little time. Our thanks go as well to Timothy Ready, who helped get things started, to administrative assistants Shirley Thatcher and Allison Shoup, and to Kirsten Sampson Snyder, who managed the review process. This report has been reviewed in draft form by individuals viii STRATEGIC EDUCATION RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP
chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the Report Review Committee of the National Research Council. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical com- ments that will assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and to ensure that the report meets institutional standards for objectivity, evidence, and respon- siveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Sherri Andrews, General Studies, North Carolina School of the Arts, Winston-SaTem, NC; Nicholas A. Branca, Mathematical and Computer Sciences, San Diego State Univer- sity; lames R. Brown, Superintendent, Glendale Unified School District, CA; Anthony S. Bryk, Center for School Improvement, The University of Chicago; Williamson M. Evers, Hoover Insti- tution, Stanford University; Richard M. Felder, Department of Chemical Engineering, North Carolina State University; Henry M. Levin, Teachers College, Columbia University; Marcia C. Linn, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Berkeley; lames G. March, Graduate School of Business-Dean's Office, Stanford University; Lorraine McDonnell, Department of Political Science, University of California, Santa Barbara; Bar- bara Schneider, Sociology and Human Development, The Uni- versity of Chicago; and Neil I. Smelser, Department of Sociol- ogy, University of California, Berkeley. Although the reviewers listed above have provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations nor did they see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by William Danforth, Washington Univer- sity, St. Louis, and Richard Shavelson, School of Education, Stanford University. Appointed by the National Research Coun- cil, they were responsible for making certain that an indepen- dent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content of this report rests entirely with the authoring committee and the institution. In addition to the NRC-led review, the committee invited external review from four others, to whom we extend our thanks: AC KNOWLE DOME NTS in
Chester Finn, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and presi- dent of the Thomas B. For~ham Foundation; Steven Fleischman, executive director of the Education Quality Institute; lames Guthrie, director of the Peabody Center for Education Policy at Vanderbilt University; and Mary Anne Schmitt, president of the New American Schools. loe B. Wyatt, Chair Alexandra K. Wigdor, Director Committee on the Strategic Education Research Partnership x STRATEGIC EDUCATION RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP
Lonienis Foreword Executive Summary The Need for a New Partnership The Challenge, 9 SERP Capabilities, 23 Helping Hercules: Why Infrastructure Matters Boston Reading Study, 30 Reciprocal Teaching, 33 Creating the Cognitive Tutor, 36 The Cognitive Tutor Algebra I in an Oklahoma School District, 39 Linking Research and Practice with Ease, 42 Consortium on Chicago School Research, 45 Conclusion, 51 The SERP Organization Developing a Program, 52 Attracting Stable Funding and Support, 64 The SERP Governance Structure, 69 SERP Organizational Structure, 70 Summary, 78 X111 1 9 29 52 xi
SERP Networks: Who Would Come and What Would They Do? Creating Network Partnerships, 79 Who Would Come?, 79 What Would They Do?, 85 An Illustrative Agenda for a SERP Network on Learning and Instruction, 86 Would SERP Change Practice?, 105 R , Xii 79 Charting a Course of Action Getting to Launch, 110 Taking Off, 115 References Appendixes 107 ~7 Federal Investments in Education Research: 121 A Sobering History SERP Cost Projections: A Scenario for the Proof-of-Concept Period Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff 127 138 STRATEGIC EDUCATION RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP
~otewotn n 1996, the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences and its sister institutions (henceforth, the National Academies), es- tablished a committee composed of educators, re- searchers, and policy experts to examine whether it might be feasible to mount a strategic program of education research that could make a strong contribution to improving education in the United States. Their answer, somewhat to the surprise of the committee members, turned out to be a unanimous and enthu- siastic "yes!" The committee's report was published in 1999. Entitled Im- proving Student Learning: A Strategic Plan for Education Research and Its Utilization, it proposed as an ambitious experiment- the establishment of a new research program focused on obtain- ing answers to four specific questions: · How can advances in research on human cog- nition, development, and learning be incorporated into educational practice? · How can student engagement in the learning process and motivation to achieve in school be in- creased? · How can schools and school districts be trans- formed into organizations that have the capacity to continuously improve their practices? · How can the use of research knowledge be increased in schools and school districts? To address the above questions, the committee called for a large-scale program of research, development, and evaluation. Its report pointed out that much of the work would need to be FO REWO RD Xiii
embedded in school settings, and that it should be informed by the needs of the most challenging schools in particular, high- poverty urban schools. Proposing a "built-in partnership" of research, policy, and practice, the report recommended that the new research program be "focused, collaborative, cumulative, sustained, and solutions oriented." With generous support from the U.S. Department of Educa- tion, the MacArthur Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, and the Spencer Foundation, the National Academies have been able to build on the powerful vision presented in Improving Student Learning with this follow-up report. A new committee, convened in early 2001, was charged with the task of elaborating and refining both organizationally and substan- tively the general plan outlined in the first report. To enable it to deal with organizational design issues, the new committee included not only education practitioners and researchers, but also those who either have served as leaders of successful orga- nizations or have studied them. The committee's report that follows lays out, in considerable detail, a proposal for a Strategic Education Research Partner- ship (SERP). Representing a call to action, it focuses on generat- ing a much more vigorous connection between research and the practice of education. Among its most important and novel elements is the conclusion that the states should become both the major clients and the supporters of a Tong-term, sustained effort dedicated to applying the best possible science to the process of educational improvement. Critical to the success of the partnership will be the generation of a new spirit of sharing and cooperation between education researchers, as emphasized throughout the report. How might such a goal be achieved? An experience from a different area of research is relevant here. I began my own work in science policy in 1986, when I was asked to chair a committee of the National Academies that would examine whether there should be a major project in the United States to map and sequence the human genome. My committee was initially quite divided on this issue. But we quickly reached the conclusion that a special project was indeed essential. One of the decisive factors in our decision was the belief that we could enforce a new culture of sharing among scientists in the field of human genetics by enforcing the appro- priate standards through a special funding mechanism. xiv STRATEGIC EDUCATION RESEARCH PARTNERSHIP
And so it turned out. As I write this foreword, the finished sequence of the human genome is about to be published, fol- lowing the plan that was laid out in the National Academies report 15 years earlier. This remarkable achievement was pos- sible only because of the intense teamwork exhibited by all those who participated in the publicly funded Human Genome Project. The aims of a SERP are certainly no less critical to our future than those of improving our health through biomedical research. Thus, in principle, the research program envisioned in this report should generate the same type of excitement, sense of public service, and widespread support as did our 1988 re- port Mapping and Sequencing the Human Genome. In order to further dissect the process of making research useful to teachers, school administrators, and policy officials, a special expert Pane! on Learning and Instruction was estab- lished to pursue the first question posed in Improving Student Learning. Its membership includes teachers, cognitive and de- velopmental scientists, and subject matter specialists all of whom have been engaged with the problems of practice. Chap- ter 4 of this report is drawn from that panel's work. And the full product of their deliberations is presented in the companion volume, Learning and Instruction: A SERP Research Agenda. We look forward to the end of SERP as an initiative of the National Academies and the beginning of its life as a joint ven- ture of partners who are committed to improving student learn- ing in the United States. The National Academies recognize the critical importance of improving the education of our nation's young; we therefore stand ready to serve as part of the broad coalition that will be needed to launch this endeavor success- fully in the years ahead. Bruce Alberts President, National Academy of Sciences Chair, National Research Council FO REWO RD TV