Using the Service Science Canvas to Understand Institutional Change in a Public School System

  • Shari WeaverEmail author
  • Oleg Pavlov
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)


Reforming STEM education in the United States continues to be a topic of active discussion and research. Why do some school districts succeed while others fail at implementing similar educational interventions? To answer this question, we apply the service science theory to characterize a pK-12 district that is viewed as a complex educational system. Our analysis utilizes the Service Science Canvas, which is a convenient methodological tool that includes common elements of the service science framework.


  1. 1.
    Barile S, Polese F. Smart service systems and viable service systems: applying systems theory to service science. Serv Sci. 2010;2:21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Epstein J. School/Family/Community partnerships: caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan. 1995;76(9):701–12.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Greenwald R, Hedges L, Laine R. The effect of school resources on student achievement. Rev Educ Res. 1996;66(3):361–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hanberger H.: Evaluation in local school governance: a framework for analysis. Educ Inq. 2016;7(3).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanushek E. Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: an update. Educ Eval Policy Anal. 1997;19(2):141–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lyons K, Tracy S. Characterizing organizations as service systems. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Ind. 2013;23(1):19–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCrone T, Southcott C, George N. Governance models in schools. Slough: NFER; 2011.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    National Research Council: Rising Above the Gathering Storm, Revisited: Rapidly Approaching Category 5: Condensed Version. The National Academies Press;2011.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    National Center for Education Statistics (2016). Digest of Education Statistics; 2016.
  10. 10.
    Pavlov O, Hoy F. Toward the service science of education. Handb Serv Sci. 2018;2.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Provasnik S, Malley L, Stephens M, Landeros K, Perkins R, Tang JH. Highlights from TIMSS and TIMSS advanced 2015: mathematics and science achievement of U.S. students in grades 4 and 8 and in advanced courses at the end of high school in an international context (NCES 2017-002). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics;2018.
  12. 12.
    Stecher BM et al. Improving teaching effectiveness: final report: the intensive partnerships for effective teaching through 2015–2016. RAND Corporation;2018.
  13. 13.
    Spohrer J, Anderson L, Pass N, Ager T. Service science and service-dominant language, vol. 2. Otago Forum 2: Academic Papers;2008. pp. 1–18.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Spohrer J, Giuisa A, Demirkan H, Ing D. Service science: reframing progress with universities. Syst Res Behav Sci. 2013;30:561–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vargo S, Maglio P, Akaka M. On value and value co-creation: a service systems and service logic perspective. Eur Manag J. 2008;26:145–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.STEM Education Center, Worcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.Social Science & Policy Studies, Worcester Polytechnic InstituteWorcesterUSA

Personalised recommendations