Separation of Lanthanides/ Lanthanides and Actinides
Putting a Stake in the Ground: Institutionalizing a University and School Partnership
1. Putting a Stake in the Ground:
Institutionalizing a University and
School Partnership
AECT –International Convention
Accelerate Learning: Racing to the Future, Indianapolis, IN
Beth Rajan Sockman Ph.D.
Zhaoyuan Guo - M.Ed. Candidate
Instructional Technology
Grant Rauch, VISTA
Friday, November 6, 2015
2. Abstract
Innovations have a record of dissipating
after a grant-funded initiative culminates;
public policy has changed or is substituted
with another new trend. However, if an
innovation is worth continuing, it should be
sustained. This research study reports on the
way an initiative that was initially grant-
funded comes to be institutionalized
through the use of sustainability dimensions
and feedback-based systems thinking in
order to create a “win-win” partnership
between a university and local elementary
school.
3. PARTNERSHIPS ARE CHALLENGING
Collaboration between University and K-12
education seems like a natural juncture
Partnerships successes and failures – poor
communication, lacking trust, and time
constraints
(Cornu & Peters, 2009; Ertmer, Hruskocy, & Technology, 1999; H. a.
Peel, Peel, & Baker, 2002).
4. Sustain Partnerships - Purposeful
Interventions encourage stakeholder ownership
in order to institutionalize beneficial innovations
for the long term
Systems thinking
Sustainability dimensions
5. SUSTAINABILITY DIMENSIONS
The “process of ensuring an adaptive system and
innovation that can be integrated into ongoing operations
to benefit diverse stakeholders” (Johnson, 2004)
8. Logistics Dimension
Has the project received the necessary support from key
stakeholders and institutions with facilities and
maintenance?
9. Economic Dimension
Does the project benefit
outweigh the cost both with
economic return and with
educational benefits in an
acceptable level of return?
10. Community Dimension
Is there community buy-in and ownership?
Is there a desirable level of community participation?
11. Equity Dimension
Is there “equitable sharing and distribution of project
benefits?”
Does the project or innovation guarantee “equitable access to
and distribution of project benefits on a continuous basis?”
12. Institutional Dimension
Do the projects or innovations adequately consider the
“institutional requirements and thus make provisions so that
management support to project operations continue during the
life of the project?” (Kahn, 2000).
13. SYSTEMS THINKING
Principles, which guide the thinking needed for implementation: Whole is more
than the sum of the parts, Stakeholder involvement with shared leadership,
leverage points, equilibrium
14. Systems Principles Chosen
* Stakeholder
involvement with
shared leadership
* Leverage points –
Values of each &
Dimensions
* Equilibrium – Work
within organizations
15. Context of E with J
Partnership
University - School
16. VISTA Inspired NOW Without
VISTA Grant
INNOVATION & CONTEXT–VISTA FUNDED UNIVERSITY –
SCHOOL PARTNERSHIP
An Americorps VISTA
Between a university and local elementary school
Children living in poverty
Stipulating plans for sustainability
Title I
66% of its students – free or reduced-cost lunch
17. *Involvement in advisory boards:1-parent, 2-university
students, 3-university faculty and 3 school personnel (1
principal and 2 teachers)
*Weekly Math tutoring: 20-children that were assisted in
school, 6-university students, 6-teachers and 1-professor that
oversaw the project.
*Weekly literacy tutoring with Technology: 35 - 45 children in
grades 3-5, 18 ESU undergraduate tutors,2-university faculty.
Directly involved = Over 100
Directly Involved - Building Capacity
18. Direct academic achievement
interventions – want to sustain
1.) Language/literacy
and civic engagement
tutoring sessions occur
after school with
University students.
2.) Math tutoring is
conducted by
University students in
small group in-class
sessions.
19. Indirect intervention:
3.) An advisory board encourages
communication with shared leadership through
members drawn from both communities who
oversee implementation.
20. Question
What are the benefits and costs of the
relationship to each institution through the
sustainability dimensions?
Are there gradual signs of mutual
transformation among the learning
communities that are indicated through
feedback? If so, what are those indications?
22. Multi-Data Sources with
Various Stakeholders
(ESU - IRB approved)
4 Surveys - Parents, ESU students - Tutors,
Elementary students grades 3-5, Elementary
School Teachers
2- Focus Groups– 3-5 graders, Advisory Board
2-Interviews – University Professors
Policies & Practices – In each organization
23. Participants – Surveys
Spring 2015
Type Distributed Responded
Elementary
Students
35 Reading
(Most below reading level)
27 (77%)
Elementary
Teacher
22 10 (45%)
Parents of
Elementary
35 8 (22%)
ESU students 33 20 (60%)
24. Confirmed Participants
Data Collection
Strategy
Participants
Focus Group
Advisory Board
1-parent, 2-university students, 3-
university faculty and 5 school
personnel (1 principal and 2
teachers)
Focus Group
Elementary School
Students
5 children (Grades 3-5)
All in program
26. Elementary Students – 3-5 Grade
Surveys N=27
92% were engaged
Students looked forward to afterschool =
3.5 out of 4 (Mode & Median = 4)
Students felt that they enjoyed their
projects (Book creator & Art)= 3.8 out of 4
(Mode & Median = 4)
Students felt that they improved on their
reading = 3.6 out of 4 (Mode & Median =
4)
Focus Group N= 5
Looked forward to the program
Wish they didn’t have to change tutors ½
through
27. Elementary Teachers N=10
90% E with J was a good use of students’ time.
100% Agreed Most Beneficial
One-one time with college-aged students who function
as role-models, motivators, and develop good
relationships with them.
Curriculum and educational objectives support—general
academic support..
All students liked using technology
Wanted to see webquests
28. Parent Survey N=8
100% Felt good use of Child’s time
100% Did not talk to their child about what was going
on
87% ( 7 out of 8) Felt their child enjoyed
100% Felt their child liked technology in learning & in
Leisure time
100% No concerns with the program
Suggestions: Access to materials (2), meet the tutor &
field trips
29. ESU Students Survey N=20
As a result of E with J…
90% have strength understanding of community issues
90% greater confidence in instructional technology
90% gain confidence to work independently from the
university
80% Found the project enjoyable
85 % Valuable way to learn about course content
30. ESU Students Survey N=20
As a result of E with J…
Qualitative Example (90%
benefit):
I used to be skeptical
about technology with
kindergarteners to third
grade, but I have seen
how it makes sense! I
think technology in the
classroom is very
important and it is very
useful.
Before, I knew that kids
liked technology. When
using it for tutoring,
though, I was taken
aback by the enthusiasm
the students exhibited
about using the iPads.
31. Focus Group – Advisory
Board & Professors interview
Focus Group - Advisory board
100% Sustain – win – win for school
Time - Secretaries can help with communication
Need to get more professors on board
Need Elementary teacher to supervise
Professor Interview
Needs to be integrated in class – Got approval to
change the schedule from the dean
Enlist other professors for help
Uses classes and students to create curriculum
33. COST-Benefit to University
Dimension Cost Benefit
Logistic/Instit
utional
• Change class structure -
disrupts other classes
• Cars on campus
Value - ESU helps the
community!
Economic • Professors spending time
• planning
• implemenation
• 30 iPads - Suitcase
• Paper & sometimes color
• Clearances
• USE iPads!
• Value - ESU helps the
community!
• Value – Professors
create meaningful
learning (90% ESU
students)
Community/
Equity
• Only 2 professors & 4 class
• Admin supported needed
• Increasing to 4
professors and 6
Classes
VALUE!
• Administrators - show
collaboration
• Undergraduates get
hand-on experience
34. Cost - Benefit to Elementary School
Dimension Cost Benefit
Logistic/Insti
tutional
• Notes and
communications
to parents, busses,
teachers
• Feelings of space
Value – School & ESU providing
service to students (92%
engaged, 90% Teacher’s felt
positive)
Economic • Snack
• Space - area
• USE space!
• Value – School & ESU
providing service to students
Community
/Equity
• Other after school
programs conflict
• VALUE - Get students help
• Academic clubs on
Mondays
35. Signs for Mutual
Transformation
University - More
time commitment
University: College Dean changed
the class schedule to
accommodate project
Cooperating professor changed
schedule to accommodate
schedule
2 Professors presented at the first
meeting of the year at the
elementary school to share data
4 more professors have chosen to
get involved
2 courses have been included or
been modified to include this
experience in 2 different
departments
Elementary Education
Technology course for teachers
Elementary
School
Teacher volunteered to
be the club leader
Invite ESU professors to
the faculty meetings
Provide technical
support – of ESU
technology
Provide snack
Distribute surveys and
collect data
Share student test scores
36. Questions
How can sustainability dimensions continue to guide
implementation and assess the innovation’s
probability of institutionalization?
To what extent does value drive stakeholders to
overcome the obstacles?
In this innovation – can it be sustained beyond the
professors involved?
If trust is continually built between partners, what
more could be done for the support/growth of both in
collaboration?
37. References
Banathy, B. H. (1973). Developing a Systems View of Education: The Systems Model Approach.
Belmont, CA: Fearon Publishers.
Butcher, J., Bezzina, M., & Moran, W. (2011). Transformational Partnerships: A New Agenda for
Higher Education. Innovative Higher Education, 36(1), 29-40.
Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(2 ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA; London, UK; New Delhi, India: Sage Publications.
Govekar, M. A., & Rishi, M. (2007). Service Learning: Bringing Real-World Education Into the B-
School Classroom. Journal of Education for Business, 83(1), 3-10.
Hutchins, L. C. (1996). Systemic thinking: Solving complex problems. Saint Louis, MO: Professional
Development Systems.
Kahn, M. A. (2000). Planning for and monitoring of Project Sustainability: A guideline on concepts,
issues and tools. Retrieved from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/khan.htm
Le Cornu, R., & Peters, J. (2009). Sustaining School-university Collaboration for Reciprocal Learning.
International Journal of Learning, 16(9), 231-246.
Levesque-Bristol, C., & Cornelius-White, J. (2012). The public affairs scale: Measuring the public
good mission of higher education. Journal of Public Affairs Education, 18(4), 695-716.
Molely, B., & Ilustre, V. (2014). The impact of service-learning course characteristics on university
students' learning outcomes. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 21(1), 5-16.
Selkrig, M., & Keamy, K. (2009). Beyond Borderlanders: Universities Extending their Role in Fostering
Creative Partnerships within Communities. International Journal of Learning, 16(3), 185-196.
Senge, P., & Lannon-Kim, C. (1991). Recapturing the spirit of learning through a systems approach.
The school administrator.
Stringer, E. (2007). Action research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hinweis der Redaktion
An innovation is sustained when it becomes institutionalized. According to Johnson (2004) institutionalization “refers to the long-term viability and integration of a new program within an organization” (p. 136). When an innovation is institutionalized it continually perpetually meets stakeholder needs and is woven into the fabric of the organization.
*Logistics Dimension – Has the project received the necessary support from key stakeholders?
*Economic Dimension (Continued flow of net benefits) – Does the project benefit outweigh the cost both with both economic return and with educational benefits in an acceptable level of return?
*Community Dimension - Is there community buy-in and ownership? Is there a desirable level of community participation?
*Equity Dimension – For all parties involved, is there “equitable sharing and distribution of project benefits?” Does the project or innovation guarantee “equitable access to and distribution of project benefits on a continuous basis?”
*Institutional Dimension – Do the projects or innovations adequately consider the “institutional requirements and thus make provisions so that management support to project operations continue during the life of the project?” (Kahn, 2000).
*Logistics Dimension – Has the project received the necessary support from key stakeholders?
*Economic Dimension (Continued flow of net benefits) – Does the project benefit outweigh the cost both with both economic return and with educational benefits in an acceptable level of return?
*Community Dimension - Is there community buy-in and ownership? Is there a desirable level of community participation?
*Equity Dimension – For all parties involved, is there “equitable sharing and distribution of project benefits?” Does the project or innovation guarantee “equitable access to and distribution of project benefits on a continuous basis?”
*Institutional Dimension – Do the projects or innovations adequately consider the “institutional requirements and thus make provisions so that management support to project operations continue during the life of the project?” (Kahn, 2000).
*Logistics Dimension – Has the project received the necessary support from key stakeholders?
*Economic Dimension (Continued flow of net benefits) – Does the project benefit outweigh the cost both with both economic return and with educational benefits in an acceptable level of return?
*Community Dimension - Is there community buy-in and ownership? Is there a desirable level of community participation?
*Equity Dimension – For all parties involved, is there “equitable sharing and distribution of project benefits?” Does the project or innovation guarantee “equitable access to and distribution of project benefits on a continuous basis?”
*Institutional Dimension – Do the projects or innovations adequately consider the “institutional requirements and thus make provisions so that management support to project operations continue during the life of the project?” (Kahn, 2000).
*Logistics Dimension – Has the project received the necessary support from key stakeholders?
*Economic Dimension (Continued flow of net benefits) – Does the project benefit outweigh the cost both with both economic return and with educational benefits in an acceptable level of return?
*Community Dimension - Is there community buy-in and ownership? Is there a desirable level of community participation?
*Equity Dimension – For all parties involved, is there “equitable sharing and distribution of project benefits?” Does the project or innovation guarantee “equitable access to and distribution of project benefits on a continuous basis?”
*Institutional Dimension – Do the projects or innovations adequately consider the “institutional requirements and thus make provisions so that management support to project operations continue during the life of the project?” (Kahn, 2000).
*Logistics Dimension – Has the project received the necessary support from key stakeholders?
*Economic Dimension (Continued flow of net benefits) – Does the project benefit outweigh the cost both with both economic return and with educational benefits in an acceptable level of return?
*Community Dimension - Is there community buy-in and ownership? Is there a desirable level of community participation?
*Equity Dimension – For all parties involved, is there “equitable sharing and distribution of project benefits?” Does the project or innovation guarantee “equitable access to and distribution of project benefits on a continuous basis?”
*Institutional Dimension – Do the projects or innovations adequately consider the “institutional requirements and thus make provisions so that management support to project operations continue during the life of the project?” (Kahn, 2000).
*Logistics Dimension – Has the project received the necessary support from key stakeholders?
*Economic Dimension (Continued flow of net benefits) – Does the project benefit outweigh the cost both with both economic return and with educational benefits in an acceptable level of return?
*Community Dimension - Is there community buy-in and ownership? Is there a desirable level of community participation?
*Equity Dimension – For all parties involved, is there “equitable sharing and distribution of project benefits?” Does the project or innovation guarantee “equitable access to and distribution of project benefits on a continuous basis?”
*Institutional Dimension – Do the projects or innovations adequately consider the “institutional requirements and thus make provisions so that management support to project operations continue during the life of the project?” (Kahn, 2000).
* Whole is more than the sum of the parts(Banathy, 1973; Senge & Lannon-Kim, 1991): A body can be split into parts but it may not survive. But, as a complete body, it works together as a whole.
* Stakeholder involvement with shared leadership: Shared leadership can encourage trust which is essential to build a partnership (Bryk & Schneider, 2003). Trust has historically been important, but not always well established among stakeholders (Abell, 2000; Cornu & Peters, 2009; Linn, Shear, Bell, & Slotta, 1999).
* Leverage points(Hutchins, 1996): There are key leverage points within every system. If a leverage point changes the rest of the system will respond by changing.
* Equilibrium: A system will seek equilibrium and revert back to the original state without sufficient support to make the change. The system resists conflict (Banathy, 1973; Goodman, 1995; Reigeluth, 1993; Sarason, 1990).
An Americorps VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) grant was awarded to facilitate a partnership between a university and local elementary school with the majority of children living in poverty. Each year, for up to three years, the grant could be awarded with the stipulating plans for sustainability. Therefore, the implementers needed to address the viability for sustainability from inception. The elementary school receives Title I, in which 66% of its students are receiving free or reduced-cost lunch.
multiple sources of data, a mixed methods approach supplies the data gathering strategy (Creswell, 2003; Johnson & Onwuebuzie, 2004; Stake, 2000; Stringer, 2007). The data was collected from the stakeholder groups through surveys, field notes and observations. The stakeholder groups represent both institutions: children, college students, professors and k-12 faculty and administrators. Observations were taken from the tutoring sessions and field notes from advisory board meetings
Zhaoyuan – Tell Us what a tutoring session was like?
multiple sources of data, a mixed methods approach supplies the data gathering strategy (Creswell, 2003; Johnson & Onwuebuzie, 2004; Stake, 2000; Stringer, 2007). The data was collected from the stakeholder groups through surveys, field notes and observations. The stakeholder groups represent both institutions: children, college students, professors and k-12 faculty and administrators. Observations were taken from the tutoring sessions and field notes from advisory board meetings