Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 379–420 | Cite as

Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround

  • Donald J. Peurach
  • Christine M. Neumerski
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The purpose of this analysis is to increase understanding of the possibilities and challenges of building educational infrastructure—the basic, foundational structures, systems, and resources—to support large-scale school turnaround. Building educational infrastructure often exceeds the capacity of schools, districts, and state education agencies and, thus, requires collaborating with “lead turnaround partners” with specialized capabilities for such work. However, there is little research to guide the selection or operation of lead turnaround partners. The analysis uses a descriptive case study of one organization with success operating as a lead turnaround partner (Success for All) to develop a framework to guide the selection of lead turnaround partners, support their operations, and structure further research. While base level achievement gains can be realized within 3 years, the analysis suggests that fully establishing school-level infrastructure is estimated conservatively as a 7 years process, and fully establishing system-level infrastructure has been an on-going, 40 year process. The analysis suggests a strong need to balance the rhetorical urgency of “turnaround” with the understanding that building educational infrastructure to improve large numbers of underperforming schools will likely require massive, sustained technical, financial, policy, and political support.

Keywords

Capacity building Infrastructure Innovation development Lead turnaround partner Turnaround 

Abbreviations

i3

Investing in Innovation

LOU

Levels of Use

NCLB

No Child Left Behind

SFAF

Success for All Foundation

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research reported here was conducted by the Consortium for Policy Research in Education as part of the Study of Instructional Improvement (SII). The authors gratefully acknowledge funding received from the Atlantic Philanthropies, USA; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; the U.S. Department of Education (R308A6003); and the National Science Foundation (9979863).

References

  1. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
  4. Berends, M., Bodilly, S. J., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole school reform: New American schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  5. 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), 125–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borman, G., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005a). Success for All: First year results from the national randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(1), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borman, G., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005b). The national randomized field trial of Success for All: Second-year outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 42(4), 673–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 701–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18(3), 34–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryk, A. S. (2009). Supporting a science of improvement. Phi Delta Kappa, 90(8), 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2010a). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.Google Scholar
  12. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010b). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  13. Burwell, S. M., Munoz, C., Holdren, J., & Krueger, A. (2013). Next steps in the evidence and innovation agenda. Retrieved August 27, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-17.pdf
  14. Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. T. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), 347–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2008). Initial results: Congressionally-reviewed initiative to identify social programs backed by top-tier Evidence. Retrieved December 8, 2008. http://ceg.files.cms-plus.com/Evidence/Announcement%20of%20results%2012.3.08.pdf
  16. Cohen, D. K., & Moffit, S. L. (2009). The ordeal of inequality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Cohen, D. K., Peurach, D. J., Glazer, J. L., Gates, K. E., & Goldin, S. (2014). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Correnti, R. (2007). An empirical investigation of professional development effects on literacy instruction using daily logs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4), 262–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 298–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.Google Scholar
  21. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22(4), 357–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Datnow, A., & Honig, M. I. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on scaling up: Teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(3), 323–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
  24. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Towards the co-construction of educational policy: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In D. Plank, B. Schneider, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. David, J. L. (2010). Research says: Drastic school turnarounds are risky. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 78–81.Google Scholar
  26. Donahoo, S., Peurach, D. J., & Scott, J. (2012). Have allowing and encouraging private corporations to participate in public education positively affected school governance? In R. C. Hunter, F. Brown, & S. Donahoo (Eds.), Debating issues in American education: School governance (Vol. 7, pp. 165–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Duke, D., & Salmonowicz, M. (2010). Key decisions of a first-year “turnaround principal”. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 38(1), 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Duncan, A. (2009). Turning around the bottom 5 percent: Address by the secretary of education at the national alliance for public charter schools conference. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/06/06222009.pdf
  29. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263–291). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  31. Finnigan, K. S., Bitter, C., & O’Day, J. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7), 1–27. Retrieved July 27, 2010 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n7/.
  32. Firestone, W. A., & Corbett, H. D. (1988). Planned organizational change. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 321–340). New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  33. Glazer, J. L. (2009). How external interveners leverage large-scale change: The case of America’s choice, 1998–2003. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 269–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. P. (2013). School improvement networks as a strategy for large-scale education reform: The role of environments. Educational Policy, 27(4), 676–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2014). Occupational control in education: Epistemic communities and the control of teaching. Washington, DC: George Washington University.Google Scholar
  36. Glennan, T. K, Jr, Bodilly, S. J., Galegher, J. R., & Kerr, K. A. (Eds.). (2004). Expanding the reach of educational reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.Google Scholar
  37. Haskins, R., & Baron, J. (2011). Part 6: The Obama administration’s evidence-based social policy initiatives: An overview. In R. Puttick (Ed.), Evidence for social policy and practice: Perspectives on how research and evidence can influence decision making in public services. Nesta: London.Google Scholar
  38. Hatch, T. (2000). What does it take to break the mold? Rhetoric and reality in New American Schools. Teachers College Record, 102(3), 561–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing Schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  40. Hess, F. M. (2008). Back to school. The American: The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved February 1, 2009. http://ceg.files.cms-plus.com/Evidence/Announcement%20of%20results%2012.3.08.pdf
  41. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Honig, M. I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  43. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 16–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hopkins, M., Spillane, J. P., Jakopovic, P., & Heaton, R. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.Google Scholar
  46. Institute of Education Sciences/National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  47. Kirp, D. L. (2013). Improbable scholars: The rebirth of a great American school system and a strategy for America’s schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kutash, J., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Rahmatullah, S., & Tallant, K. (2010). The school turnaround field guide. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/district-policy-and-practice/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf
  49. Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership, 49(5), 8–12.Google Scholar
  50. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform low-performing schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  51. Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2008). Turnaround schools and the leadership they require. Toronto, ON, CA: Canadian Education Association.Google Scholar
  52. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.Google Scholar
  53. Livingston, M., Cummings, N., & Madden, N. (1996). Success for All facilitator’s manual. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  54. Louisiana Department of Education. (2011). Louisiana’s turnaround zone: Answering the urgency of now. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University, Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives.Google Scholar
  55. March, J. G. (1996). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen, & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 101–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (Reprinted from Organization Science, 2 (1), February, 1991).Google Scholar
  56. Mass Insight. (2007). The turnaround challenge. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.massinsight.org/publications/turnaround/51/file/1/pubs/2010/04/15/TheTurnaroundChallenge_MainReport.pdf
  57. Mass Insight. (2009). Partnership zones: Selecting and attracting lead partners to support turnaround schools. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stg-resources/92/file/1/pubs/2010/04/20/AbridgedPartnerMarketplace_October_2009.pdf
  58. Mass Insight. (2010a). The District turnaround office: A comprehensive support structure for struggling schools. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stg-resources/114/file/1/pubs/2010/09/01/STG_District_Turnaround_Office_August_2010.pdf
  59. Mass Insight. (2010b). The lead partner: A new partnership model. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stg-resources/108/file/1/pubs/2010/07/09/STG_Lead_Partner_master_deck_March_2010.pdf
  60. McRobbie, J. (1998). Can state intervention spur academic turnaround. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.Google Scholar
  61. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. M. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. EducationPolicy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved January 5, 2009 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/.
  62. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  63. Murphy, J. (2008). The place of leadership in turnaround schools: Insights from organizational recovery in the public and private sectors. Journal of Educational Administration, 46(1), 74–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2009). Rebuilding organizational capacity in turnaround schools: Insights from the corporate, government, and non-profit sectors. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 37(9), 9–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, coach, and teacher instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Neumerski, C. M. (2014). Understanding instructional leadership by understanding instructional systems: A cross-case comparison of three high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Education Research Association Conference. Philadelphia, PA: April, 2014.Google Scholar
  67. Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. NGA, Ccsso, & Achieve. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring US students receive a world-class education. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.Google Scholar
  69. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  70. Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40, 331–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peurach, D. J. (2000). Success for All: Interim report. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan, School of Education, Study of Instructional Improvement.Google Scholar
  72. Peurach, D. J. (2006). Large scale reform of school-level leadership: Managerial leadership in Success for All. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration. San Antonio, TX. November 2006.Google Scholar
  73. Peurach, D. J. (2009). Building an infrastructure for large-scale instructional improvement. Van Leer Education Conference: From Vision and Policy to Implementation. Jerusalem. May, 2009.Google Scholar
  74. Peurach, D. J. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and Success for All. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Peurach, D. J. (2014, January 16). Lessons from innovators: Calibrating expectations for i3 evaluation results. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-e-slavin/lessons-from-innovators-c_b_4609088.html
  76. Peurach, D. J., & Glazer, J. L. (2012). Reconsidering replication: New perspectives on large-scale school improvement. Journal of Educational Change, 13(2), 155–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Peurach, D. J., Glazer, J. L., & Lenhoff, S. W. (2014). The developmental evaluation of school improvement networks. Educational Policy,. doi: 10.1177/0895904814557592.Google Scholar
  78. Peurach, D. J., & Gumus, E. (2011). Executive leadership in school improvement networks: A conceptual framework and agenda for research. Current Issues in Education, 14(3), 1–17.Google Scholar
  79. Peurach, D. J., Lenhoff, J.W., & Glazer, J. L. (In press). Large scale high school reform through school improvement networks: Examining possibilities for “developmental evaluation.” National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 15(1).Google Scholar
  80. Phenix, D., Siegel, D., Zaltsman, A., & Fruchter, N. (2004). Virtual district, real improvement: A retrospective evaluation of the Chancellor’s District, 1996–2003. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
  81. Preskill, H., & Beer, T. (2012). Evaluating social innovation. Washington, DC: Center for Evaluation Innovation.Google Scholar
  82. Quint, J. C., Balu, R., DeLaurentis, M., Rappaport, S., Smith, T. J., & Zhu, P. (2013). The Success for All Model of school reform: Early findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) scale-up. New York, NY: MDRC.Google Scholar
  83. Quint, J. C., Balu, R., DeLaurentis, M., Rappaport, S., Smith, T. J., & Zhu, P. (2014). The Success for All Model of school reform: Interim findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) scale-up. New York, NY: MDRC.Google Scholar
  84. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education, 93(3), 352–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change, 3, 283–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rowan, B. (2011). Intervening to improve the educational outcomes of students in poverty: Lessons from recent work in high-poverty schools. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 523–538). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. (co-published with the Spencer Foundation).Google Scholar
  87. Rowan, B., Correnti, R. J., Miller, R. J., & Camburn, E. M. (2009a). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.Google Scholar
  88. Rowan, B., Correnti, R. J., Miller, R. J., & Camburn, E. M. (2009b). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), AERA handbook on education policy research (pp. 637–651). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal, 44(2), 252–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(6), 440–443.Google Scholar
  91. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  92. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  93. Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. A. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School Journal, 84, 409–422.Google Scholar
  94. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1996). Disseminating Success for All: Lessons for policy and practice. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Education for Students Placed at Risk.Google Scholar
  95. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). One million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.Google Scholar
  96. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Chambers, M. E., & Haxby, B. (2008). Two million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.Google Scholar
  97. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Datnow, A. (2007). Research in, research out: The role of research in the development and scale-up of Success for All. In S. H. Fuhrman, D. K. Cohen, & F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy research (pp. 261–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  98. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.Google Scholar
  99. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1992). Success for All: A relentless approach to prevention and early intervention in elementary schools. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.Google Scholar
  100. Smarick, A. (2010). The turnaround fallacy. Education Next, 10(1), 21–26.Google Scholar
  101. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233–267). New York: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  102. Stevens, R., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 433–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Success for All Foundation. (2002). Success for All: Leadership guide. Towson, MD: Success for All Foundation.Google Scholar
  105. Success for All Foundation. (2008). Raising the bar. Towson, MD: Success for All Foundation.Google Scholar
  106. Trujillo, T. (2012). The paradoxical logic of school turnarounds: A Catch-22. Teachers College Record, Date Published June 14, 2012. http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16797. Accessed December 28, 2013 7:37:26 AM.
  107. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Race to the top: Application for initial funding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  108. U.S. Department of Education. (2011). An overview of school turnaround. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  109. Zavadsky, H. (2012). School turnarounds: The essential role of districts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options