Maxwell M. Yurkofsky, A. Peterson, Jal Mehta, Rebecca Horwitz-Willis, Kim Frumin
{"title":"持续改进研究:探索管理教育变革的复杂性","authors":"Maxwell M. Yurkofsky, A. Peterson, Jal Mehta, Rebecca Horwitz-Willis, Kim Frumin","doi":"10.3102/0091732X20907363","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As a result of the frustration with the dominant “What Works” paradigm of large-scale research-based improvement, practitioners, researchers, foundations, and policymakers are increasingly embracing a set of ideas and practices that can be collectively labeled continuous improvement (CI) methods. This chapter provides a comparative review of these methods, paying particular attention to CI methods’ intellectual influences, theories of action, and affordances and challenges in practice. We first map out and explore the shared intellectual forebears that CI methods draw on. We then discuss three kinds of complexity to which CI methods explicitly attend—ambiguity, variability, and interdependence—and how CI methods seek a balance of local and formal knowledge in response to this complexity. We go on to argue that CI methods are generally less attentive to the relational and political dimensions of educational change and that this leads to challenges in practice. We conclude by considering CI methods’ aspirations for impact at scale, and offer a number of recommendations to inform future research and practice.","PeriodicalId":47753,"journal":{"name":"Review of Research in Education","volume":"44 1","pages":"403 - 433"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3102/0091732X20907363","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research on Continuous Improvement: Exploring the Complexities of Managing Educational Change\",\"authors\":\"Maxwell M. Yurkofsky, A. Peterson, Jal Mehta, Rebecca Horwitz-Willis, Kim Frumin\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/0091732X20907363\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"As a result of the frustration with the dominant “What Works” paradigm of large-scale research-based improvement, practitioners, researchers, foundations, and policymakers are increasingly embracing a set of ideas and practices that can be collectively labeled continuous improvement (CI) methods. This chapter provides a comparative review of these methods, paying particular attention to CI methods’ intellectual influences, theories of action, and affordances and challenges in practice. We first map out and explore the shared intellectual forebears that CI methods draw on. We then discuss three kinds of complexity to which CI methods explicitly attend—ambiguity, variability, and interdependence—and how CI methods seek a balance of local and formal knowledge in response to this complexity. We go on to argue that CI methods are generally less attentive to the relational and political dimensions of educational change and that this leads to challenges in practice. We conclude by considering CI methods’ aspirations for impact at scale, and offer a number of recommendations to inform future research and practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47753,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Research in Education\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"403 - 433\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3102/0091732X20907363\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Research in Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20907363\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Research in Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X20907363","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Research on Continuous Improvement: Exploring the Complexities of Managing Educational Change
As a result of the frustration with the dominant “What Works” paradigm of large-scale research-based improvement, practitioners, researchers, foundations, and policymakers are increasingly embracing a set of ideas and practices that can be collectively labeled continuous improvement (CI) methods. This chapter provides a comparative review of these methods, paying particular attention to CI methods’ intellectual influences, theories of action, and affordances and challenges in practice. We first map out and explore the shared intellectual forebears that CI methods draw on. We then discuss three kinds of complexity to which CI methods explicitly attend—ambiguity, variability, and interdependence—and how CI methods seek a balance of local and formal knowledge in response to this complexity. We go on to argue that CI methods are generally less attentive to the relational and political dimensions of educational change and that this leads to challenges in practice. We conclude by considering CI methods’ aspirations for impact at scale, and offer a number of recommendations to inform future research and practice.
期刊介绍:
Review of Research in Education (RRE), published annually since 1973 (approximately 416 pp./volume year), provides an overview and descriptive analysis of selected topics of relevant research literature through critical and synthesizing essays. Articles are usually solicited for specific RRE issues. There may also be calls for papers. RRE promotes discussion and controversy about research problems in addition to pulling together and summarizing the work in a field.