Adaptive Assistance for Learning Improvement Efforts: The Case of the Institute for Learning

Abstract

Districts across the country face significant demands to strengthen student learning districtwide, and many are turning to intermediary organizations to help them build their capacity for such demanding, large-scale work. However, how these “learning-support intermediary organizations” assist with these capacity-building efforts is little understood. This article reports data from a largely qualitative investigation into how one such intermediary organization, the Institute for Learning (IFL) at the University of Pittsburgh, partnered with multiple urban districts to help build district capacity for districtwide learning improvements. Our conceptual framework draws on sociocultural learning theory to identify key features of the IFL-district assistance relationships that seem associated with these outcomes. We utilized data from interviews, observations, document reviews, and focus groups conducted over a five-year period. Findings elaborate specific features of their assistance relationships—which we call adaptive assistance relationships—such as enabling particular forms of modeling, tools, and opportunities for rich dialogue. We conclude with implications for the research and practice of districtwide learning improvement efforts and the participation of intermediary organizations in the process.

Research for this article was funded by the Spencer Foundation and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the “Meta Study on the Relationship between Research and Practice.” We thank Cynthia Coburn and Mary Kay Stein, Principal Investigators of the Meta-Study, for their feedback on various drafts of this and related articles. Thank you to Lauren Resnick for her careful reading of our work and all the staff of the Institute for Learning who welcomed us in (one of us for many years) to learn with them about their experiences.

Notes

¹This conceptual framework is adapted from Honig (in press).

Teachers set Clear Expectations when they provide “clear standards of achievement and measures of students' progress toward those standards that offer real incentives for students to work hard and succeed. Descriptive criteria and models that meet the standards are displayed in the schools, and the students refer to these displays to help them analyze and discuss their work” (Resnick et al., 2001).

²Other learning theorists call this kind of engagement double-loop learning (e.g., Argyris, 1976; Argyris & Schon, 1996) or trial-and-error learning (Levitt & March, 1988).