This was a presentation for the AECT 2015 International Conference. Thank you to all participants that made this study worthwhile!

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)

6. Institutionalization.
Sustainable innovations become
Institutionalization
What’s Sustainability? An innovation is sustained
when it becomes institutionalized (Johnson, 2004)
Innovation

7. Sustainability Dimensions
(Kahn, 2000)
*Logistics Dimension
*Economic Dimension
*Community Dimension
*Equity Dimension
*Institutional Dimension

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?

21. Method
Provides feedback

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

25. Results
Data & Analysis

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

32. Sustainability through
dimensions

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.