The last 5 years have witnessed growing support amongst government institutions and educational foundations for applying continuous improvement research (CIR) in school settings. CIR responds to the challenge of implementing effective educational innovations at scale by working with practitioners in local contexts to understand “what works, for whom, and under what conditions.” CIR works to achieve system improvement through the use of plan–do–study–act (PDSA) cycles, which are multiple tests of small changes. This comparative case study of two urban school districts examined how innovation design teams took up PDSA in their work to improve high school student outcomes, and their perceptions of PDSA as an approach to innovation development, adaptation, and implementation. Findings revealed both possibilities and challenges for implementing PDSA. Nearly all participants reported the value in PDSA, and participants pointed to connections to previous experiences and PDSA training as helping to build capacity. However, we found mixed levels of enthusiasm for actually conducting PDSA cycles, and capacity constraints regarding time and data collection.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research a decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41, 16–25.
Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14.
Berwick, D. M. (1998). Developing and testing changes in delivery of care. Annals of Internal Medicine, 128, 651–656.
Bheuyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: From the past to the present. Management Decision, 43, 761–771.
Bhuiyan, N., & Baghel, A. (2005). An overview of continuous improvement: From the past to the present. Management Decision, 43(5), 761–771.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Bryk, A. S. (2009). Support a science of performance improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(8), 597–600.
Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Cannata, M., Redding, C., & Rubin, M. (2016). Continuous improvement in action: Educators’ evidence use for school improvement. Presented at the annual meeting of the Assocation for Education Finance and Policy, Denver, CO.
Cobb, P., Jackson, K., Smith, T., Sorum, M., & Henrick, E. (2013). Design research with educational systems: Investigating and supporting improvements in the quality of mathematics teaching and learning at scale. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A. R. Allen, & B. H. Chang (Eds.), Design based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. New York: Teachers College.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cohen-Vogel, L. (2011). “Staffing to the test” are today’s school personnel practices evidence based? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 483–505.
Cohen-Vogel, L., Tichnor-Wagner, A., Allen, D., Harrison, C., Kainz, K., Socol, A. R., & Wang, Q. (2015). Implementing educational innovations at scale: Transforming researchers into continuous improvement scientists. Educational Policy, 29(1), 257–277.
Deming, W. E. (2000). The new economics for industry, government, and education. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Dolle, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Russell, J. L., & Bryk, A. S. (2013). More than a network: Building professional communities for educational improvement. National Society for the Study of Education, 112(2), 443–463.
Farrell, C. C., & Marsh, J. A. (2016). Metrics matter how properties and perceptions of data shape teachers’ instructional responses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(3), 423–462. doi:10.1177/0013161X16638429.
Firestone, W. A. (1989). Using reform: Conceptualizing district initiative. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 151–164.
Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., & Cheng, B. H. (Eds.). (2013). Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (Vol. 112, No. 2) (pp. 136–156). New York, NY: Teachers College Record.
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Suk Yoon, K. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
Hatch, T. (2001). Incoherence in the System: Three perspectives on the implementation of multiple initiatives in one district. American Journal of Education, 109(4), 407–437.
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: An “experiment’’ model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), 201–222. doi:10.1023/A:1025162108648.
Honig, M. I., & Venkateswaran, N. (2012). School-central office relationships in evidence use: Understanding evidence use as a systems problem. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 199–222.
Hopkins, M., & Woulfin, S. L. (2015). School system (re)design: Developing educational infrastructures to support school leadership and teaching practice. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 371–377. doi:10.1007/s10833-015-9260-6.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggart, R. (2005). Participatory action research: Communicative action and the public sphere. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (pp. 559–603). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Langley, G. J., Nolan, K. M., Norman, C. L., & Provost, L. P. (2009). The improvement guide: Practical approach to enhancing organizational performance (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Lewis, C. (2015). What is improvement science? Do we need it in education? Educational Researcher, 44(1), 54–61.
Lynch, D., Smith, R., Provost, S., & Madden, J. (2016). Improving teaching capacity to increase student achievement: The key role of data interpretation by school leaders. Journal of Educational Administration, 54(5), 575–592. doi:10.1108/JEA-10-2015-0092.
Mann, N.R. (1993). Statisticians in history: W. Edwards Deming. Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/about/statisticiansinhistory/index.cfm?fuseaction=biosinfo&BioID.
Marsh, J. A. (2012). Interventions promoting educators’ use of data: Research insights and gaps. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 110309.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2011). Designing qualitative research (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McLaughlin, M. W. (1990). The RAND change agent study revisited: Macro perspectives and micro realities. Educational Researcher, 19, 11–16.
Means, B., & Harris, C. J. (2013). Towards an evidence framework for design-based implementation research. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A. R. Allen, & B. H. Chang (Eds.), Design based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. New York, NY: Teachers College.
Miles, M., & Huberman, M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Morris, A. K., & Hiebert, J. (2011). Creating shared instructional products an alternative approach to improving teaching. Educational Researcher, 40(1), 5–14.
Morris, A., Hiebert, J., Sisofo, E., & Hwang, S. (2015). Using evidence in classroom practice. Presented at the National Center on Scaling Up Effective Schools conference: Using continuous improvement to integrate design, implementation, and scale. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
Orginc, G., & Shojania, K. G. (2014). Building knowledge, asking questions. BMJ Quality and Safety, 23, 265–267.
Park, S., Hironaka, S., Carver, P., & Nordstrum, L. (2013). Continuous improvement in education. Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Coburn, C. E., & Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20(1–2), 182–197.
Peurach, D. J. (2016). Innovating at the nexus of impact and improvement: Leading educational improvement networks. Educational Researcher, 45(7), 421–429. doi:10.3102/0013189X16670898.
Reed, J. E., & Card, A. J. (2016). The problem with Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles. BMJ QualSaf, 25, 147–152.
Russell, J. L., Bryk, A. S., Dolle, J. R., Gomez, L. M., LeMahieu, P. G., & Grunow, A. (in press). A framework for the initiation of networked improvement communities. Teachers College Record, 119(7).
Shortell, S. M., Bennett, C. L., & Byck, G. R. (1998). Assessing the impact of continuous quality improvement on clinical practice: What it will take to accelerate progress. Milbank Quarterly, 76(4), 593–624.
Sowers, N., & Yamada, H. (2015). Pathways impact report. Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.
Supovitz, J. A. (2012). Getting at student understanding: The key to teachers’ use of test data. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 110309.
Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., & Reed, J. E. (2014). Systematic review of the application of the plan–do–study–act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Quality and Safety, 23, 290–298.
Tseng, V. (2012). Forging common ground: Fostering the conditions for evidence use. William T. Grant Foundation Annual Report.
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiss, J. A. (2012). Data for improvement, data for accountability. Teachers College Record, 114(11), 110309.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (Vol. 5). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R305E100030 to Vanderbilt University. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education.
Appendix: Sample form from PDSA facilitation guide
Appendix: Sample form from PDSA facilitation guide
About this article
Cite this article
Tichnor-Wagner, A., Wachen, J., Cannata, M. et al. Continuous improvement in the public school context: Understanding how educators respond to plan–do–study–act cycles. J Educ Change 18, 465–494 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-017-9301-4
- School improvement
- Continuous improvement research
- School districts