Scaling depth is multidimensional: depth, sustainability, ownership, and evolution beyond participant counts¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 review), q1 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The chapter argues scale is not just a bigger n, drawing on Coburn (2003) and Clarke and Dede (2009). It notes that "two innovations may reach a similar number of participants, but still vary in what she describes as the depth of scaling." Depth includes how deeply a practice is employed, density of penetration within districts, alignment of outcome measures, and curricular time. Additional dimensions are sustainability after support is withdrawn, shift of ownership to educators, and evolution, meaning adopters and developers learn and revise as scale occurs.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Educators must come to feel ownership of the innovation for scaling to occur

Constraints¶

• Few things scale without adaptation to local settings

Target Learners¶

• K-12 students and their teachers across adopting districts

Target Learning Objectives¶

• Sustained, deep implementation of inquiry practices

Claims¶

• Inquiry environments are hard to scale because they are ambitious learning activity systems requiring changes in roles, participation, and system coherence [+W]

Related Theories¶

• Scaling up defined as achieving greater reach with predictable, measurable impact

Examples¶

• Complement experimental scale-up research with design and improvement methods such as RPPs, DBIR, and Networked Improvement Communities
• Sustain inquiry innovations through partnerships with business, universities, thought leadership, or institutional policy adoption

Key Sources¶

• Roschelle, J., Mazziotti, C. & Means, B. (2021). Scaling Up Design of Inquiry Environments. In C. Chinn & R.G. Duncan et al (Eds.), International Handbook on Learning and Inquiry. Routledge. ISBN 9781138922600. https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9781138922600. doi:10.4324/9781315685779-7