Working Together to Answer the Tough Questions When I first envisioned the theme of the 2010 conference, Building Research Partnerships, my prior knowledge led me to view it as multi-disciplinary or mixed methods research conducted by colleagues at the same or multiple colleges and universities. That has been my academic experience. Also, given the role NERA has played in my professional development, I viewed the theme as encompassing the collaborative efforts of senior researchers and their graduate students. But, as I began to talk with others, it became clear that my view was too limited and would close out important, potential research associates. There are others involved with and interested in education that could be a part of research partnerships. Peterson (1998) listed some of these "others" who also care about education, "...school boards, principals’ associations, subject matter organizations, teachers’ unions, PTOs, the NCAA, governors’ associations, the chief state school officers" (p. 9). I would also add classroom teachers, deans of schools of education, members of advocacy groups, parents, and state and federal educational policy makers. Each of these groups and the individuals within them come with a unique perspective, a perspective that could lead to new research questions and different ways of finding the answers to those questions. Partnerships between academic researchers and representatives from governmental, parent, or advocacy groups could lead to a fuller understanding of learning and assessment. The challenges we face in education today cannot be met by one group (Peterson, 1998), nor one research perspective or approach. Nowhere was this more apparent to me than in a mixed method study I did with a colleague in my department. Although we are both in the education department at my institution, we come from two different disciplines within education: educational psychology and educational administration. The research we did (Hoffman & Nottis, 2008) examined the motivation strategies used by a school district with young adolescents prior to their taking a state-mandated, "high stakes" test. The quantitative part of the research had a list of strategies that were employed and students were asked to rank how much each had influenced their performance on the test. The qualitative portion of the study was a letter to the principal where students described the factors that were most influential in helping them put forth their best efforts. Although the quantitative data showed which strategies students felt were most significant, it was in the letters to the principal that unanticipated responses were seen. Most notable was an undercurrent of resentment expressed primarily by a group of gifted and talented boys. The following response came from one young man in this group who thought that the principal had mandated the "high stakes" test in combination with the politicians: "It's a useless and worthless test and the only good purpose, I think ...would be to start a fire, to light up other tests, in order to incinerate them and lift them from the face of the Earth in a gigantic bonfire" (p. 218). This resentment would not have been detected had only the survey been used. The letters to the principal revealed a more complex motivational structure. Researchers need to find out what is happening in addition to the final score and content proficiency labels when students take “high stakes” tests. Students’ attitudes towards learning and testing also need to be examined. I am reminded here of my youngest son, who fortunately was part of the norming year of our state tests. He, I learned after I received the test report, put down “c” for every answer. “Why?” I asked him. “I wanted to go to lunch,” he replied, in a nonchalant manner. “What’s the big deal?" Research partnerships with others who care about education may uncover issues related to and impacting learning and assessment, issues we might not have considered without their voices. Sharing the results of our research with others who care about education has the potential to influence educational policies. But, if our research is to make a difference then we have to be assertive. As Peterson warned, “We cannot sit quietly in our offices waiting for someone to call and ask our opinions” (p. 9). The theme of the 2010 conference emphasizes the need for multiple perspectives to work collaboratively on research to try and answer the very difficult educational questions facing us today. Researchers from different content and research backgrounds, varied disciplines, and constituencies working together can give a fuller picture. “...No one can do it alone...It depends on all of us learning, talking, and working together” (Peterson, 1998, p. 10). Although over ten years has passed since these words were written, they are still relevant today and resonate with the theme of our next conference. There is a need for all of us to work together to really make a difference, to ask the right questions, and then to share our findings with the broader community. I challenge you to consider the following question: What collaborative opportunities, and what research partnerships, are waiting for you? Katharyn Nottis NERA President and Associate Professor, Education Department Bucknell University References Hoffman, L. M., & Nottis, K. E. K. (2008). Middle school students’ perceptions of effective motivation and preparation factors for high-stakes tests. NASSP Bulletin, 92(3), 209-223. Peterson, P. L. (1998). Why do educational research? Rethinking our roles and identities, our texts and contexts. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 4-10.