Lessons Learned in Developing and Implementing a Continuous Improvement Model Chris Harrison / Chris Redding / Stephanie Brown This research was conducted with funding from the Institute of Education Sciences (R305C10023). The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the institutions with which they are affiliated or the U.S. Department of Education.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
LessonsLearnedinDevelopingandImplementing
aContinuousImprovementModel
ChrisHarrison/ChrisRedding/StephanieBrown
ThisresearchwasconductedwithfundingfromtheInstituteofEducationSciences(R305C10023).TheopinionsexpressedarethoseoftheauthorsanddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheviewsoftheinstitutionswithwhichtheyareaffiliatedortheU.S.DepartmentofEducation.
TheNCSUPartnership• FiveResearchUniversities– VanderbiltUniversity,UniversityofNorthCarolina,FloridaStateUniversity,UniversityofWisconsin,GeorgiaStateUniversity
• Developer– EducationDevelopmentCenter(EDC)
• Twolargeurbandistricts– BrowardCountyPublicSchools(FL)– FortWorthIndependentSchoolDistrict(TX)
TheNCSU’sModelforImprovement
ASystematicStudyofOurProcess• BCPSandFWISDNCSUteamsengageinextensivedatacollection
throughoutprocess
• Dataanalyzedusinganalyticframeworkleveragingbothaprioricodesandconstructsemergingfromthedata– Text/photographsanalyzedusingNVivo 10– Audio“transcribed”usingreflectionformspromptingresearchersto
captureexcerptsandsynthesizeinformationrelatedtoanalyticframework.
• Analysiswasmulti-staged,proceedingroughlyinlinewiththe“phases”outlinedinthemodel.– Findingsfromeachphaseinformedtheanalysisofdatafrom
subsequentphases.
Overviewof“ProcessData”DataType BCPS FWISD Total
Meetingaudio 498hours 172hours 670hours
Feedbacksurveys 260 294 554
Fieldnotelogs 46 63 109
Artifacts 291 509 800
ReflectionForms 7 15 22
InterviewTranscripts
110 47 157
ChronologyoftheProcess
BuildingPASL
Phase1(Research)•Fall2011–Spring2012
Phase2(Design&Development)•Fall2012– Spring2014
Phase3(Implementation)• Fall2014– Spring
2015
Phase4(Scale)Fall2015- future
BuildingSOAR
Phase1(Research)•Fall2011–Spring2012
Phase2(Design&Development)•Spring2013–Summer2013
Phase3(PhasedImplementation)
• Fall2013– Spring2015
Phase4(Scale)Fall2015- future
ACloserLook:FindingsfromtheProcessinBCPS– Participantsintheprocessfounditdifficulttograpplewithquestionsofdesignanddevelopmentintheabsenceofclearinformationregardingcapacity,resources,andsupport.
– NegotiatingtheprocessofbringingthePASLinnovationtoan“implementable”statenecessitatedasystematicmethodfor“testing”ideas:PDSA• While"planning"and"doing"appearedtobesuccessfulaspectsofthePDSAprocess,significantquestionssurroundedtheprocessof"studying"and"acting”
ACloserLook:FindingsfromtheProcessinBCPS
• Shiftsinthedistrictenvironment,andlackofclarityregardingthebalancebetween“topdown”and“bottomup”natureofthework,requiredtheteamtore-thinktheroleandmembershipoftheDIDT.
EarlyLessonsfromImplementingtheProcessinBCPS
• Development,likedesign,mustoccurwithimplementationinmind
• Utilizingaframeworkforimplementationandscale-- likePDSA/ContinuousImprovement--requirescarefulplanningforandintegrationofthatframeworkfromthebeginningoftheprocess
ACloserLook:FindingsfromtheProcessinFWISD– AdaptationsfromtheBCPSProcess
• SIDTmemberswereintegratedearlierintheprocessforthedevelopmentworkwiththeinnovationschools.
• PDSAwasintroducedatthebeginningofthedevelopmentprocessenablingitsintegrationwithotherelementsofthedevelopmentprocess.
– Despitethefocusonacommondistrictteam,membersfromtheinnovationschoolsconsistentlythoughtaboutcreatingadesignthatwouldbeimplementedattheirschool.
– Initially,"planning"and"doing"weresuccessfulaspectsofthePDSAprocess,whileSIDTswerelesslikelytoengagein"studying"and"acting.”Overtime,thefocusofPDSAshiftedtotheimplementationofpracticesratherthanthetestingofpractices.
LessonsLearnedfromtheProcessinFWISD
• Theopennesstoconsensusinthedesignanddevelopmentprocesshelpedbuildcommitmenttotheinnovationdesign.Atthesametime,theinvolvementofmultipleschoolanddistrictstakeholderslimitedtheabilitytocreateaspecific,actionableinnovation.
• Allowingteamstofocusontheirschoolcontexthelpedtomovetowardsactionablepracticesbutdiminishedcommonalitiesacrosstheschools.
LessonsLearnedfromtheProcessinFWISD
• WhenintegratingPDSAintothedesignprocess,itisvitaltodistinguishbetweendataforimprovementandaccountability.– Implementationteamsrecognizedtheimportanceofoutcomedataindemonstratingtheeffectivenessoftheinnovationtosecuredistrictsupportforscaleup.
– Teamsweremorelikelytouseperceptualdataforimprovements.
OverarchingLessons
• Developmentinthecontextofpartnershiprequirescareful(andlikelycontinual)identification,management,andacquisitionofcapacityovertime.
• Withoutprocessesfacilitatinginter-organizationallearningandcommunication,theremaybetensionbetweenadaptinginnovationsindividualcontextsandscalingthemtonewcontexts.
OverarchingLessons
• Whilea"bottomup"emphasismayfacilitatebuy-in,depthofimplementation,andshiftinownership,"topdown"supportisimportantforsustainingimplementationandscale.
ConcludingThoughts• ImplementationoftheCenter’smodelforimprovementrequiredadaptationandlearningovertime.– Eachpartnerhadtoacquirenewcapacitiesastheprocessmovedfromphasetophase.
– Roleflexibilitybecameadefiningcharacteristicofthework.
• Whilethiskindofprocesshassignificantpromise,itmayrequireustore-conceptualizeinstitutionalboundariesinsometimesuncomfortableways.
QuestionsfortheFuture
• Aseachinnovationshiftstoward“scale”:– Howdotherolesofpractitionerpartners,developers,andresearcherschangeasweshiftfromtesting anddoing tosustainingandspreading?
– HowwillthepartnershipadaptastheformalstructureoftheCenterchanges?
Related Documents
