|
Key Points
|
Several assertions underlie many efforts to improve science education programs, according to Jeanne Century, director of science education and research and evaluation at the University of Chicago’s Center
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 53
5
Fostering Sustainable Programs
Key Points
• Understanding how effective science education programs can be sustained
requires an examination of the assertions and associated assumptions
underlying those programs.
• Sustainability can be defined as the ability of a program to maintain core
beliefs and values and use them to guide adaptations to internal and ex-
ternal changes and pressures over time.
• A comprehensive literature review has revealed more than 25 factors as-
sociated with the sustainability of effective science education for grades
K-8, including some that have not been widely discussed before.
• Sustainability requires and expects that a program’s operating principles
are likely to be adapted to different circumstances as they are instituted in
new places, but that its core beliefs and values will remain largely intact.
• Program planning should accommodate future as well as current goals.
• The critical components of effective programs need to be identified in clear
language to learn from innovation.
• Patience, a long-term perspective, and flexibility are all critical to sustain-
ability.
S
everal assertions underlie many efforts to improve science education
programs, according to Jeanne Century, director of science education
and research and evaluation at the University of Chicago’s Center
OCR for page 53
NURTURING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education.1 Among the most
prominent of these assertions are the following:
• Effective practices need to be identified.
• Those practices need to be scaled up and sustained.
• Decisions need to be based on evidence.
Embedded in each of these three assertions are important assump-
tions that need to be investigated to learn how effective science educa-
tion programs can be sustained, Century said. Her research group at the
University of Chicago has been investigating these assumptions through
a comprehensive review of the literature on both effective science educa-
tion as well as on sustaining reforms in economics, business, marketing,
and health. This noneducation research offers “a different angle on the
question” of sustainability, she said. “We are pretty insular in science
education, and that hasn’t served us well in research because we don’t
benefit from the work that other people have done.”
We are pretty insular in science education, and that hasn’t served us
well in research because we don’t benefit from the work that other people
have done.
—Jeanne Century
PREVIOUS WORK ON SUSTAINABILITY
About a decade ago, Century was involved in a project that looked
at nine school districts around the country that had sustained elementary
science programs for between 10 and 30 years (Century and Levy, 2002).
The study conducted surveys with teachers and principals, interviewed
teachers and school district leaders, and analyzed documents and news
clippings. One outcome of the project was case studies of the districts.
But an even more interesting result was the identification of a number of
factors extending across the districts that either contributed to or inhibited
the sustainability of their programs.
A subset of the factors fell into a category that Century called the
“usual suspects,” because they are both important and often discussed.
1PowerPoint slides from this presentation are available at http://www.nasonline.org/
site/DocServer/CenturyPresentation.pdf?docID=54982. Additional information about the
University of Chicago’s Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education is avail -
able at http://cemse.uchicago.edu.
OCR for page 53
FOSTERING SUSTAINABLE PROGRAMS
These include instructional materials, leadership, accountability, money,
professional development, policy alignment, and culture. “We know that
we need these things to make a program happen,” Century said. In addi-
tion, some factors emerged that Century categorized as unusual suspects,
including adaptation, critical mass, perception, and quality. Whereas the
usual suspects centered mostly on the implementation of programs, the
unusual suspects were critical for sustainability. A third important prod -
uct of the earlier study was a definition of sustainability. In the past, the
term has had many different meanings. Based on the data collected for the
study, the research team settled on the following definition.
Sustainability is the ability of a program to maintain core beliefs
and values and use them to guide adaptations to changes and
pressures over time.
Thus, Century said, sustainability is not necessarily judged by the
ability of a program to find additional funding or to be embedded in a
district budget. Instead, sustainability is focused “on core beliefs, values,
and adaptations.”
FACTORS UNDERLYING SUSTAINABILITY
In their study, Century and her colleagues used a very broad array
of search terms to identify papers connected in some way to the concept
of sustainability. This process resulted in 30,000 abstracts. Team members
read the abstracts and narrowed down the list to about 600 papers. They
then coded the text in those 600 papers to identify the factors involved in
sustainability. “We went through a very iterative process of clearly defin-
ing what every single factor meant.”
The team first had to tackle the question of what is lasting in a pro -
gram. Is it the program itself, the effects of the program, or the philosophy
of the program? For example, in one case studied by Century and her
colleagues, a program disappeared when funding was lost. But funding
for the program was later restored and the program was resumed. Even
during the period when the program was not operating, the philosophy
of the program to rely on hands-on experiences and not on textbooks was
retained.
Without determining exactly what about a program needs to be last-
ing, Century and her colleagues simply called that enduring quality “the
it,” where “it” may refer to the program, its impact, its philosophy, or
some other entity. Similarly, they abandoned the word “sustainability”
OCR for page 53
NURTURING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
and referred to the quality of lasting as “the concept,” with different
aspects of this quality being labeled “concept A,” “concept B,” and so
on. The researchers also emphasized the time frame over which change
occurs, since different kinds of change can occur over different periods.
Century and her colleagues identified more than 25 factors that affect
“the it.” Among those factors are flexibility, adaptability, specificity, com -
plicatedness, feasibility, and effectiveness. All of these are interconnected.
For example, while effectiveness is an important characteristic of a pro-
gram, it is only one factor. Similarly, when an effective practice becomes
embedded in daily practice, it is sustained. But a practice can be embed-
ded in daily practice and stay the same, or it can be embedded in daily
practice and change.
Century and her colleagues identified several factors that emerged as
especially important in their study. One factor encompasses the character-
istics of people in an organization, including their experiences and points
of view. In addition, the factor “elements of the internal environment,”
including the internal structures, social climate, and resources of a program,
is important, as is the “external environment,” which involves the political
climate, students’ opportunities for learning, and other external forces.
An unusual factor that the researchers identified was “emotional
mediators,” which include characteristics like trust, loyalty, and incen -
tives. “These are things we don’t usually hear people talk about when
they’re talking about the elements of reform. But we know that these
things have a huge impact on why people do and don’t do things.”
“Fit” is a measure of whether “the it” is consonant with the values,
beliefs, needs, and practices of the people involved in the program. For
example, if the fit of a program is too close to current practice, then change
is not really occurring, whereas if the fit is too far from current practice,
people become so uncomfortable that they are not likely to change. “You
need to find a sweet spot,” she said. “If you find yourself in a place where
you are very comfortable, it suggests that you’re not pushing yourself
enough.” People change out of necessity and out of will. Feeling uncom-
fortable is a sign that you’re doing something differently, and that’s where
the opportunities lie.
If you find yourself in a place where you are very comfortable, it suggests
that you’re not pushing yourself enough.
—Jeanne Century
The factor “mechanisms” has to do with the spread or scale-up of “the
it.” But does scale-up refer to the spread of a program, to the expansion
OCR for page 53
FOSTERING SUSTAINABLE PROGRAMS
of a program’s benefits, or to the acceptance of a program’s philosophy?
“We didn’t know what it meant, so we decided that we were just going
to talk about types of movement, because we knew we had a grip on that.
The ‘it’ moves from one place to another.” Similarly, the idea of replication
does not help much in understanding sustainability, which is more about
translation and adaptation.
The interplay of the factors identified by Century and her colleagues
is a dynamic and complex process. “All of these factors come into play at
the same time, and they then all change, and then they all change again
because the context and conditions around us are always changing.”
REEXAMINING THE ASSERTIONS
Given the importance of these factors, the three assertions with which
Century began can be viewed in a new light. The first assertion was that
effective practices need to be identified. As an example, Century dis -
cussed the Slip! Slop! Slap! campaign in Australia (Montague et al., 2001).
In an effort to encourage people to take steps to prevent skin cancer, the
Australian government supported a program to encourage people to slip
on a shirt, slop on sunscreen, and slap on a hat. These are easy things to
do, said Century. But it took 10 years for the program to make much of
a difference in people’s behavior. “It’s not that it wasn’t effective. But it
didn’t fit with their belief systems, with current practice, or with the way
people were functioning in their lives.”
From a sustainability perspective, effective practices are useable, flex-
ible, and resilient. “The it” is not necessarily the practice but something
deeper.
The next assertion was that effective practices need to be scaled up,
which in the most common formulation means replicating a program in
multiple places. But as Century pointed out, teachers never teach a lesson
exactly as it was written. They take their knowledge and expertise and
adapt that lesson to their context and conditions, because that’s how a
lesson becomes effective. Any particular program, intervention, or model
is going to change because of local circumstances. “It doesn’t just transfer
and replicate. It translates every time it moves. So why are we focused on
replication when we really should be thinking about how to capture and
understand the way things translate as they move from place to place?”
We really should be thinking about how to capture and understand the
way things translate as they move from place to place.
—Jeanne Century
OCR for page 53
8 NURTURING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
Translation requires more than the identification and replication of
best practices. It requires hard thought about what is being replicated and
how to replicate that quality. “It’s not really about identifying the best
practice,” said Century. “It’s about identifying the processes by which we
can thoughtfully and then effectively help them move and last.”
The process of moving a program requires consideration of the time
frame. Program directors need to ask themselves whether they want a
particular program to be exactly the same 5 years from now, 10 years from
now, and 20 years from now. “Planning is not something that happens at
the beginning,” said Century. “It’s something that happens all the time.
[It’s] an ongoing process by which we’re constantly thinking about the
factors, adjusting our program, and hopefully improving.”
Identifying the critical or essential elements of a program is important
in this planning process. Some components may be necessary at the begin-
ning of a program but are not needed later. Some parts of a program may
need to be discontinued while other parts remain. “This is a good thing,
because you toss away the things that aren’t necessary anymore.”
The process of involving others in change through a collaborative
process can be misleading if it involves convincing others to agree with
and accept a preexisting model. From a sustainability perspective, the
important thing is to have a process in place by which a model can be
continuously examined and improved. A collaborative change process
involves creating change together.
Knowledge does not exist to be discovered or revealed, said Century.
It is fabricated in practice through talking, writing, or acting. Information
dissemination is different from knowledge building. The process of change
needs to be captured systematically and clearly, using a shared language,
so that understanding about the process of change accumulates.
“We don’t want to make changes that last,” said Century. “We really
want lasting change. We want continuous, ongoing change.” Change
needs to be accepted rather than resisted. A program may retain some
of its essential elements as it moves from one place to another, but it will
translate as it does so. That’s how investments in science education will
endure in the long term.
We don’t want to make changes that last. We really want lasting change.
—Jeanne Century
Finally, Century’s study has revealed that multiple sources of evi-
dence, not just student outcomes, need to be examined to inform deci -
sions about which elements of a program should last. The climate, the
OCR for page 53
FOSTERING SUSTAINABLE PROGRAMS
time frame, and different perspectives all need to be considered, because
“everything counts.”
CORE CONCEPTS
Two core concepts emerged from the study. First, “we need to think
about what we’re doing now at the same time that we think about where
we’re going.” That’s hard, because getting a program in place can be an
all-consuming task, but it is necessary. “If we just focus on the program
now, all of the context and conditions around us are going to keep chang -
ing. . . . It’s not going to wait for us to get our program in place.” This is
a problem in science education, according to Century, because the goals
for science education have not changed much since the launch of Sputnik
more than a half-century ago. “We need to rethink what the goals for sci -
ence education are now. And at the same time, we need to be thinking
about what the goals are for 50 years from now so that we can be think -
ing about what we’re doing now that’s going to help us get to where we
need to be.”
The second core concept is the importance of learning from innova -
tions. Existing science education programs have many things in common
and some things that are different. By identifying the critical compo-
nents of the programs in clear language, the similarities and differences
among programs can be studied. Every investment in a program needs to
have a return in knowledge gained about the program. This requires that
researchers develop a shared language with which they can accumulate
knowledge in the field. This is not typically done in science education
today, according to Century.
One conclusion she has drawn from her analysis is that funders need
to be patient and embrace mistakes. Fields, such as cancer research, have
been funded for decades resulting in a steady accumulation of data and
knowledge. It will take time to accumulate knowledge once a system to
analyze education is established. In addition, funders, researchers, and
practitioners need to be willing to look across programs to accumulate
knowledge. And parts of the system need to be willing to accept fail -
ure, since some programs that are innovative will fail. But people learn
from failure. “It’s not about the perfect program. It’s about the process,”
Century said. “We need to create an environment of learning, not an
environment of success, . . . because that’s really going to teach us what’s
going to work and what’s not going to work.”
Business, in particular, needs to bring a long-term perspective to
its efforts in education. Century said that she was surprised recently to
learn that business assigns individuals the task of thinking about where
the business is going to be in 10 years. “Business can help bring us this
OCR for page 53
0 NURTURING AND SUSTAINING EFFECTIVE PROGRAMS
perspective and, of course, participate with us, not just as a supporter,
but as a real partner.”
Finally, the leaders of reform initiatives need to consider flexible
adaptation. Everyone involved in science education needs to be will-
ing to give up aspects of a program that are not working. “We need to
be continuously flexible and adaptable. That’s how we’re going to get
sustainability.”
Century and her colleagues are still in the middle of their project.
Given the importance of engaging in a collaborative change process,
they have decided to make all of their work public. They have put all
their analysis into an open collaborative research environment called
Researchers Without Borders2 so that anyone can follow the research and
join in on the effort. Besides trying to put into practice the lessons they
are learning, posting their preliminary analysis allows them to be system-
atic and explicit about their work and form partnerships with program
practitioners.
2For additional information, see http://www.researcherswithoutborders.org.