Abstract
This chapter proceeds from two very different views on scale-up theory. Cynthia Coburn (2003) provides a retrospective query into normative dimensions of scale-up (depth, spread, transfer of ownership and sustainability) and argues that scale-up is ‘not about numbers’. In contrast, McDonald and colleagues (2006) take a methodological approach to understanding scale-up research in two stages, intervention effectiveness and intervention scaling in multiple contexts, with the focus primarily about the numbers. This chapter builds scale-up theory further by offering four preconditions for scale-up based on a 6-year study of the scale-up of middle school science units. Preconditions include: a close partnership between the university and the school district; recognition that the success of any intervention is determined by the pervasive policy climate of the school system; scale-up decisions being driven by the quality of assessment feedback and other information; and an organised research agenda for systematically introducing the intervention. This leads to an ecological metaphor on scale-up, with the insight that it is ‘information’ that scales up. Further, scale-up is a socio-cultural phenomenon explained by activity theory because it allows overlapping levels of complexity for explanations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Borman, G. D., & Hewes, G. M. (2002). The long-term effects and cost effectiveness of Success for All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 243–266.
Caroll, J. M. (1997). Human-computer interaction: Psychology as the science of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 501–522.
Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3–12.
Cohen, D. K., Ball, D. L., & Barnes, C. A. (2001). Scale in improving instruction (Proposal submitted to NSF/IERI 2001 competition). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Dahlkemper, L. (2003). What does scientifically based research mean for schools? SEDL Newsletter, XV(1), 3–6.
Desimone, L. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research, 72, 433–479.
Engeström, Y. (1992). Interactive expertise: Studies in distributive working intelligence (Research Bulletin No. 83). Helsinki, Finland: Helsinki University Department of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED349956).
Gilbert, L. S. (1999, February). Where is my brain? Distributed cognition, activity theory, and cognitive tools. Proceedings of selected research and development papers presented at the National Convention on the Association for Educational Communications and Technology, Houston, TX.
Kesidou, S., & Roseman, J. E. (2002). How well do middle school science programs measure up? Findings from Project 2061’s curriculum review. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 39, 522–549.
Kuipers, J. C., Viechnicki, G. B., Massoud, L., & Wright, L. J. (in press). Science, culture, and equity in curriculum: An ethnographic approach to the study of a highly-rated curriculum unit. In K. Richardson & K. Gomez (Eds.), Talking science, writing science: The work of language in multicultural classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality (M. J. Hall, Trans.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Lewis, A. (2003, Fall). Research goes to school–Part 3. CRESST LINE Newsletter of the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Testing, 4–9.
Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Lynch, S. J. (2008, March). How do curriculum materials improve student outcomes at the class level? Study of construct validity, fidelity of implementation, and the comparison group. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Lynch, S., Kuipers, J., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2005). Examining the effects of a highly rated science curriculum unit on diverse students: Results from a planning grant. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 42, 912–946.
Lynch, S., & O’Donnell, C. L. (2005, April). The evolving definition, measurement, and conceptualization of fidelity of implementation in scale-up of highly rated science curriculum units in diverse middle schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Researchers Association, Montreal, Canada.
Lynch, S., Szesze, M., Pyke, C., & Kuipers. J. C. (2007a). Scaling-up highly rated middle science curriculum units for diverse student populations: Features that affect collaborative research, and vice versa. In B. Schneider & S. K. McDonald (Eds.), Scale-up in education, Volume 2: Issues in practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Lynch, S., Taymans, J., Watson, W. A., Ochsendorf, R., Pyke, C., & Szesze, M. (2007b). Scaling up highly rated curriculum units for students with disabilities in mainstream classrooms: Initial findings and implications for scale-up. Exceptional Children, 73, 202–223.
McDonald, S. K., Keesler, V. A., Kaufman, N. J., & Schneider, B. (2006) Scaling-up exemplary interventions. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 15–24.
McLaughlin, M. B., & March, D. D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record, 80, 71–94.
National Science Foundation. (2002). Interagency Education Research Initiative (FY2002) (IERI) program solicitation, NSF-02-062. Arlington, VA: Author.
Nuttall, G. (2000, November). Understanding what students learn in school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the New Zealand Association for Research in Education, Hamilton, New Zealand (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455205).
O’Donnell, C., Lynch, S., Lastica, J., & Merchlinsky, S. (2007, April). Analyzing the relationship between Fidelity of Implementation (FOI) and student outcomes in a quasi-experiment. Symposium presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
Planet Maryland. (2001, March 21). Bald eagle population soars to 23-year high along Chesapeake Bay [Television Broadcast]. Maryland Public Television.
Schneider, B., & McDonald, S. K. (Eds.). (2007a). Scale-up in education, Volume 1: Ideas in principle. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Schneider, B., & McDonald, S. K. (Eds.). (2007b). Scale-up in education, Volume 2: Issues in practice. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
State of Michigan. (1993). Chemistry that applies. Lansing, MI: Author.
University of Helsinki Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research. (2006). The activity system. Retrieved October 25, 2006 from the University of Helsinki Center for Activity Theory and Developmental Work Research, Department of Education Web site: http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/pages/chatanddwr/activitysystem/
Watson, W., Pyke, C., Lynch, S., & Ochsendorf, R. (2007, April). Understanding the effectiveness of curriculum materials through replication. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, New Orleans, LA.
Weast, J. D. (2000). Studies of mathematics instruction and curriculum: Implications for the future (Memorandum to MCPS Board of Education). Rockville, MD: Montgomery County Public Schools.
Acknowledgement
This work (REC-0228447) was supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the US Department of Education (USDOE), and the National Institute of Health (NIH). Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position, policy or endorsement of the funding agencies. The author thanks Okhee Lee, Joel Kuipers, Annie Knight, Bill Watson and Carol O’Donnell for their contributions to this chapter.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lynch, S.J. (2012). Metaphor and Theory for Scale-up Research: Eagles in the Anacostia and Activity Systems. In: Fraser, B., Tobin, K., McRobbie, C. (eds) Second International Handbook of Science Education. Springer International Handbooks of Education, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_61
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9041-7_61
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-1-4020-9040-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-4020-9041-7
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawEducation (R0)