Swerdlow Improvement Partners

Research library

The research behind the tools

The 27 sources behind the tools on this site, grouped by the idea each one supports.

Adam Grant’s Think Again makes the case for thinking like a scientist: treat what you believe as a hypothesis, and change your mind when the evidence calls for it. I try to hold my own tools to that standard. Each one rests on published research, and every source is here so you can check my reasoning and question it. When the evidence changes, I update the tools.

Signed, Amanda

Amanda Swerdlow

Themes

  1. Programs take time to show results 7 sources
  2. Measuring for improvement and for accountability 4 sources
  3. Deciding before the data 5 sources
  4. Teams learning from their own cycles 4 sources
  5. Teachers and the adults in the room 5 sources
  6. Whose voice shapes the findings 2 sources

Each entry says what the source found, links to the original, and links to the pages where I use it.

The gatormarks researchers from the University of Florida, where I studied.

Show the research behind

Showing all 27 sources.

Programs take time to show results

Why a flat first year is often a measurement problem before it is a program problem.

  • Fixsen et al. (2005)

    Getting a program fully running in a new site often takes two to four years. Most evaluations happen before that point, so a program can look ineffective because it was measured too early.

    Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. National Implementation Research Network, University of South Florida. Source for Fixsen et al. (2005) (opens in a new tab)

    Used in The curve · Capabilities, Applied Research Studies

  • Fullan (2001)

    Fullan named the early slump after a change starts the implementation dip.

    Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.

    Used in The curve

  • Borman, Hewes, Overman & Brown (2003)

    Across 29 comprehensive school reform models, effects were particularly strong in schools that had implemented a model for five years or more.

    Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73(2). Source for Borman, Hewes, Overman & Brown (2003) (opens in a new tab)

    Used in The curve

  • May & Supovitz (2006)

    Following one reform model in Rochester, New York, for 11 years, the authors found yearly effects in elementary and middle grades reading and math that kept adding up.

    May, H., & Supovitz, J. A. (2006). Capturing the cumulative effects of school reform: An 11-year study of the impacts of America's Choice on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3). Source for May & Supovitz (2006) (opens in a new tab)

    Used in The curve

  • Wiltsey Stirman et al. (2012)

    After initial support ends, partial continuation was more common than continuing the whole program. Where fidelity was rated independently, fewer than half of providers kept the practice up at a high level.

    Wiltsey Stirman, S., Kimberly, J., Cook, N., Calloway, A., Castro, F., & Charns, M. (2012). The sustainability of new programs and innovations: A review of the empirical literature and recommendations for future research. Implementation Science, 7, 17. Source for Wiltsey Stirman et al. (2012) (opens in a new tab)

    Used in The curve

  • Hess (1998)

    In urban districts, superintendents with short tenures face pressure to show they are making a difference, so new reforms keep arriving. Hess calls this policy churn, and it seldom produces lasting change in classrooms.

    Hess, F. M. (1998). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Brookings Institution Press. Source for Hess (1998) (opens in a new tab)

    Used in The curve

  • Durlak & DuPre (2008)

    Mean effect sizes were two to three times higher in programs that were implemented well. Positive results often came with implementation around 60 percent, and few studies reached levels above 80 percent. Shared decision-making among providers, administrators, researchers and community members “has consistently led to better implementation.”

    Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350. Source for Durlak & DuPre (2008) (opens in a new tab)

    Used in The curve · The pebble problem · Capabilities, Instructional Materials Review & Adoption Fidelity

Measuring for improvement and for accountability

The data a team reports and the data a team learns from are often different data.

Deciding before the data

Settling the question and the plan before anyone looks at the numbers.

Teams learning from their own cycles

What makes a team debrief and an improvement cycle worth the time.

Teachers and the adults in the room

Why the people doing the work shape what a program can do.

Whose voice shapes the findings

Who gets heard when findings are written.