At the end of 2022, Congress passed an omnibus bill that provides the Institute of Education Sciences with millions in funding for research, development, and dissemination—with a strong focus on research involving education technology and innovation. It’s an exciting development and a strong indicator of the momentum toward advancing evidence-based learning solutions that have the potential to scale and reach millions of students.

The bill offers four areas of focus: breakthrough technologies; new pedagogical approaches; innovative learning models; and more efficient, reliable, and valid forms of measurement of student learning. This is a laudable move—an important acknowledgement of the power and potential of technology in a post pandemic/ChatGPT enabled world. What’s missing, however, is the human element of this work.

More precisely, what’s missing is the where and how this emerging body of research will be generated; we still need to bring attention to the school and learning environments where such research can and should occur, as well as to the researchers and approaches that can accommodate the pressures faced by classroom environments in a post-pandemic/ChatGPT reality. Lastly, as we continue to grapple with how technology can benefit students across lines of race and class, how we do research in traditionally marginalized communities matters.

As the amount of research conducted in schools inevitably increases, it’s crucial that we ask important questions.

What makes a school system “research ready?”
What resources can be provided for them to become research ready?
How can you purposefully design research studies with the constraints of schools at the forefront?
How do you conduct equity-centered R&D?

Background

For five years, we’ve worked with our School Research Network partners to implement research projects of various sizes. The research that we conduct requires involvement from people at every level of the school—teachers, administrators, and students.

While we focus on qualitative, product-focused research—what we call Codesign Product Research—that elevates the unique expertise of students, teachers and administrators in the product development and evaluation process, we’ve also conducted large-scale implementation, correlational, and quasi-experimental studies.

Across all study types, there’s no denying that research requires a lot from schools and it can be burdensome if not done well. School systems are often entrenched bureaucracies, resistant to change, and are fatigued after three years of continual crisis. Enduring and mutually beneficial relationships between researchers and school systems are necessary to conduct research with fidelity over a prolonged period.

Learnings

After years of iterating on our approach to partnering with schools, some patterns began to emerge. In an effort to better understand the incentives and deterrents that may guide an educator's decision to participate in a research study, we also surveyed our past, present, and potential pilot research school partners. The resounding consensus was that time and capacity constraints would keep them from conducting research, while compensation and access to edtech are enticing incentives.

We’ve institutionalized practices aligned to these findings; we offer small unrestricted grants (about $4500) to school districts willing to sign multi-year agreements to participate in research, we offer participant stipends that average ~$45/hour, and we have created a virtual professional learning community, where school systems engaged in piloting convene every two months to share insights and to learn about research processes themselves.

In addition to these practices, we’ve also become more discerning about what makes a strong research partner. Most recently, Dr. Laura Burgos, who leads our school partnership efforts, has codified what we think make strong school partners into a Research Readiness Index, which calls attention to four distinct domains: Compelling Narrative, Innovation Infrastructure, Commitment to Codesign, Ease of Entry and Partnership Longevity.

Compelling Narrative

Finding alignment between a school system and research study is the most critical part of the research process. Authenticity matters when it comes to finding learning environments that match specific use cases that need to be measured for a particular study. Imposing a solution on a school environment that does not address the problems they’re facing can cause attrition of study participants, low usage, and skewed results.

We haven’t employed a matching algorithm quite yet, but data collected during our intake process helps us align school and edtech goals prior to beginning studies. During the onboarding process to the school network, we gather information on the top pain points at the district as well as the amount of time they’re able to commit to a research project.

To ascertain alignment, we assess if there’s a “compelling narrative,” or argument to be made, that this particular school environment is a good “match” for the proposed study.

What we look for:

The school system clearly articulates a problem statement, as well as underlying relevant root causes, and identifies a purpose for partnership with Leanlab. Use of longitudinal data analysis drives this narrative.

The goal of the collective work to be done is aligned to the mission of both Leanlab and the edtech partner, with measurable outcomes for students and educators.

The school system has engaged in careful data analysis and provides evidence for the problem as defined.

There is a clear understanding of the work to be accomplished through our collective effort and how this aligns with school or district goals.

The school system indicates an aspirational vision for future collaboration and sense of curiosity around what can be accomplished over time.

Innovation Infrastructure

The United States education system is one of fragmentation and unequal distribution of resources. That said, a strong “innovation infrastructure” can go a long way to increase the efficiency of R&D implementation.

What we look for:

The school system has invested in an actionable technology plan with clear goals for teaching and learning evidenced within their current strategic plan. There is a cohesive action plan to integrate innovation into daily practice.

Current initiatives indicate a commitment to digital literacy and access, and maximizing instructional technology to drive student outcomes.

Previous and/or existing edtech partnerships are in place. The school system may have also participated in past research studies.

The school system has invested in device and bandwidth access. School may be a 1:1 device institution and/or may be actively pursuing diversified funding to become one.

Budgetary and hiring practices reflect a commitment to technology and innovation, including key staffing positions and internal information networks designed to infuse innovation across grade levels, content areas, departments, etc.

Ease of Entry

Again, school systems are complex bureaucracies. To get to a successful study that is implemented at the classroom level, you must attain permission and buy-in from senior district administration, as well as buy-in at the building level. Strong communication across hierarchy is essential to get to a streamlined implementation, as well as to effectively share critical learnings from the pilot/research itself.

What we look for:

The school system has a clear path to partnership formation in place. This includes operating procedures around IRB processes, MOU finalization, and data-sharing agreements. The school system may also have a vetting process for external partners and vendors.

There are guidelines in place to shepherd outside partners, identified points of contact that are accessible, and commitment to seeing the process through from start to finish.

A clear communication structure exists, with a defined cadence around deadlines, touch points, and the deliverables required to move a partnership opportunity through the IRB process within a reasonable timeframe.

Key district liaisons are accessible and proactive in moving partnerships forward during the cultivation process.

Partnership Longevity

Another critical aspect to effective education R&D is bridging the gap between research and practice, so that critical findings make their way to impacting students. A unique aspect of product focused edtech research is that it provides an opportunity to narrow the research/practice divide, as edtech solutions are often piloted in real classrooms in real time, while measurement and evaluation occurs. However, as we continue to grapple with an education system in flux, we know it may take years and multiple studies to find breakthroughs in the field. To achieve the level of research rigor required, we need partners that are committed for the long haul, and see this work as mutually beneficial.

What we look for:

The school system is willing to engage in a multi-year agreement to join the School Research Network and is committed to participating in a minimum number of pilot research studies during this time.

Partner views our relationship as one that will evolve over time and is interdependent with other school and/or district improvement initiatives.

Partner recognizes the opportunity to build staff capacity through partnership efforts and sees an opportunity for strengthening its innovation infrastructure through our collective work.

There is a degree of leadership stability, across the systems hierarchy, that may sustain the continuity of the partnership over time.

Commitment to Codesign

Finally, as we seek breakthroughs in the field of education technology and innovation with a particular focus on potential advancements for historically marginalized communities, we need to be mindful of process.

Complex hierarchies, detached research methodologies and the presence of for-profit education technology companies create complex conditions when working to center the lived experiences of vulnerable or historically marginalized populations.

We believe one way to promote equity is to acknowledge power imbalances and create systems or processes to correct for these—this is how we came to Codesign Product Research, or research that prioritizes the recommendations and expertise of study participants. By elevating the expertise of those closest to the classroom, we can advocate for processes that prioritize shared decision making (do teachers and students have a say in the process, the study design itself, the product evolution, if it gets adopted or purchased?).

What we look for:

The school system team is committed to the principles of codesign and deepening their knowledge of what this looks like in practice.

Their internal approach to collaboration and shared leadership is authentic and mirrors our own values. Structures are in place to engage all critical stakeholders and ensure equity of voice.

There is a sense of curiosity around adopting codesign as an approach to other external partnership objectives.

Team demonstrates reliability with sharing feedback, informing scope of research, and asking questions that pushes the learning of all collaborators.

Beyond defining the characteristics that make school systems strong research partners, we will also need to reflect and consider the ways that we, as researchers, engage with school systems. While the focus and funding for edtech research will increase in the coming years, it’s important that we continually strive to forge strong, enduring and fruitful partnerships with school systems.