Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 421–450 | Cite as

Conceptualizing relations between instructional guidance infrastructure (IGI) and teachers’ beliefs about mathematics instruction: Regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive considerations

  • Megan HopkinsEmail author
  • James P. Spillane


Scholars have become increasingly interested in what is often referred to as the instructional guidance infrastructure (IGI). Research has identified the characteristics of infrastructures that make them more or less influential in guiding teachers’ instruction, such as alignment, authority, and prescriptiveness. Although these are important, a key question is whether and how IGIs work to influence teachers’ beliefs and practices. We use new institutional theory to theorize relations between IGIs and teachers’ beliefs about how students learn mathematics in two local school systems undergoing instructional reform. Based on new institutional theory, we explore how the three pillars of institutions—regulative, normative, and cultural-cognitive—worked in interaction to shape teachers’ beliefs. In doing so, we develop a more comprehensive framework for examining IGIs and how they operate.


Instructional guidance infrastructure District reform Teacher beliefs New institutional theory 


  1. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 255–296). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(2), 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leader and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19(3), 476–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Coburn, C. E., Mata, W. S., & Choi, L. (2013). The embeddedness of teachers’ social networks: Evidence from a study of mathematics reform. Sociology of Education, 86(4), 311–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Revisiting loose coupling theory: Classroom implementation in an era of prescriptive policy making. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, D. K., & Moffitt, S. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cohen, D. K., Peurach, D. J., Glazer, J. L., Gates, K., & Goldin, S. (2013). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cohen, D. K., & Spillane, J. P. (1992). Policy and practice: The relations between governance and instruction. Review of Research in Education, 18(3), 3–49.Google Scholar
  11. Crow, G. M., Hausman, C. S., & Scribner, J. P. (2002). Reshaping the role of the school principal. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 101(1), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1996). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. In M. W. McLaughlin & I. Oberman (Eds.), Teacher learning: New policies, new practices. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  13. Elmore, R. (1995). Teaching, learning, and school organization: Principles of practice and the regularities of schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 355–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feldman, M. S., & Pentland, B. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Fuhrman, S. H., Goertz, M. E., & Weinbaum, E. H. (2007). Educational governance in the United States: Where are we? How did we get here? Why should we care? In D. K. Cohen, S. Fuhrman, & F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy research (pp. 41–61). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  18. Glickman, C. D. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  19. Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). How institutions form. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(7), 908–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hightower, A. M., Knapp, M. S., Marsh, J. A., & McLaughlin, M. W. (2002). The district role in instructional renewal: Setting the stage for dialogue. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal (pp. 1–6). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hopkins, M. (2014). Beliefs in context: Understanding language policy implementation at a systems level. Educational Policy,. doi: 10.1177/0895904814550073.Google Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers’ workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2012). A research-based framework for Math Expressions. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from
  25. Huguet, A., Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. (2014). Building teachers’ data-use capacity: Insights from strong and developing coaches. Educational Policy Analysis Archives,. doi: 10.14507/epaa.v22n52.2014.Google Scholar
  26. Hunt, K. (2014). Math Trailblazers. Dubuque, IA: Author.Google Scholar
  27. Jepperson, R. L. (1991). Institutions, institutional effects, and institutionalism. In W. W. Powell & P. J. DiMaggio (Eds.), The new institutionalism in organizational analysis (pp. 143–163). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education. Richmond, CA: McCutchan.Google Scholar
  29. Little, J. W. (2012). Understanding data use practices among teachers: The contribution of micro-process studies. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 757–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lytle, S. J., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1994). Inquiry, knowledge, and practice. In S. Hollingsworth & H. Sockett (Eds.), Teacher research and educational reform: Ninety-third yearbook, National Society of Education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Pres.Google Scholar
  32. Mangin, M. M. (2007). The role of elementary principals in teacher leadership initiatives. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(3), 319–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mangin, M. M. (2014). Capacity building and districts’ decision to implement coaching initiatives. Education Policy Analysis Archives,. doi: 10.14507/epaa.v22n56.2014.Google Scholar
  34. Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Mitchell, D. E., Crowson, R. L., & Shipps, D. (2011). Shaping education policy: Power and process. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Mulhern, F., & Rae, G. (1998). Development of a shortened form of the Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitudes Scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58(2), 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools.Google Scholar
  39. Parise, L. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2010). Teacher learning and instructional change: How formal and on-the-job learning opportunities predict changes in elementary school teachers’ instructional practice. Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 323–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Penuel, W. R., Frank, K. A., Sun, M., Kim, C. M., & Singleton, C. A. (2013). The organization as a filter of institutional diffusion. Teachers College Record, 115(1), 1–33.Google Scholar
  41. Peterson, P. L., Fennema, E., Carpenter, T. P., & Loef, M. F. (1989). Teachers’ pedagogical content beliefs in mathematics. Cognition and Instruction, 6(1), 1–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Peurach, D. J. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and success for all. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Peurach, D. J., & Neumerski, C. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change. doi: 10.1007/s10833-015-9259-z
  44. Philipp, R. A. (2007). Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and affect. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 257–315). United States: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. Rorrer, A., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(3), 307–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Scott, W. R. (2005). Institutional theory: Contributing to a theoretical research program. In K. G. Smith & M. A. Hitt (Eds.), Great minds in management: The process of theory development (pp. 460–484). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Scott, W. R. (2007). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 427–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy, 10(1), 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How local schools misunderstand policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  51. Spillane, J. P. (2012). Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education, 118(2), 113–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spillane, J. P., & Hopkins, M. (2013). Organizing for instruction in education systems and organizations: How the school subject matters. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 45(6), 721–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spillane, J. P., Parise, L. M., & Sherer, J. Z. (2011). Organizational routines as coupling mechanisms: Policy, school administration, and the technical core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The role of human, social, and distributed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), Confronting complexity: Defining the field of education policy implementation. Albany, NY: The State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  55. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Stein, M. K., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban districts. American Journal of Education, 114, 583–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Stipek, D. J., Givven, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 213–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stoll, L., Bolam, R., McMahon, A., Wallace, M., & Thomas, S. (2006). Professional learning communities: A review of the literature. Journal of Educational Change, 7, 221–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sun, M., Wilhelm, A. G., Larson, C. J., & Frank, K. A. (2014). Exploring colleagues’ professional influence on mathematics teachers’ learning. Teachers College Record, 116(6), 1–30.Google Scholar
  60. TERC. (2013). Overview of Investigations. Retrieved April 2, 2015, from
  61. Thompson, A. (1992). Teacher’s beliefs and conceptions: A synthesis of the research. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 127–146). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  62. Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers perceive principal leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44(4), 445–498.Google Scholar
  65. Whitney, A., Blau, S., Bright, A., Cabe, R., Dewar, T., Levin, J., et al. (2008). Beyond strategies: Teacher practice, writing process, and the influence of inquiry. English Education, 40(3), 201–230.Google Scholar
  66. Wilson, M., & Cooney, T. (2002). Mathematics teacher change and development: The role of beliefs. In G. Leder, E. Pehkonen, & G. Toerner (Eds.), Beliefs: A hidden variable in mathematics education? (pp. 127–148). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Press.Google Scholar
  67. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Illinois at ChicagoChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Northwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations