Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 17, Issue 2, pp 251–278 | Cite as

Enhancing use of learning sciences research in planning for and supporting educational change: Leveraging and building social networks

  • William R. PenuelEmail author
  • Philip Bell
  • Bronwyn Bevan
  • Pam Buffington
  • Joni Falk


This paper explores practical ways to engage two areas of educational scholarship—research on science learning and research on social networks—to inform efforts to plan and support implementation of new standards. The standards, the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS; NGSS Lead States in Next generation science standards: For states, by states. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013), have been adopted by U.S. states serving more than one-quarter of all students, and they are grounded in decades of research on how students learn science. In this paper we discuss efforts to leverage recent research on social networks to inform standards implementation across a set of professional associations and school districts. These efforts are being undertaken by the Research + Practice Collaboratory which is testing a set of conjectures related to how the knowledge base from both research and practice can mutually inform STEM education improvement.


Implementation Research–practice partnerships Research use Social networks Standards 


  1. Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Studying teachers’ sensemaking to analyze teachers’ responses to professional development focused on new standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(2), 136–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen, C. D., Severance, S., & Penuel, W. R. (2015). Leveraging professional development to design and enact NGSS-aligned materials in uncertain policy contexts. Paper presented at the NARST Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  3. Bang, M., Medin, D., Washinawatok, K., & Chapman, S. (2010). Innovations in culturally based science education through partnerships and community. In M. S. Khine & M. I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers, and collaboration in education (pp. 569–592). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett, M., Anderson, J., Houle, M., Higginbotham, T., & Gatling, A. (2010). The process of trust building between university researchers and urban school personnel. Urban Education, 45(5), 630–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baron, J. (2007). Making policy work: The lesson from medicine. Education Week, 26(38), 32–33.Google Scholar
  6. Bell, P., Bricker, L. A., Tzou, C. T., Lee, T., & Van Horne, K. (2012a). Exploring the science Framework: Engaging learners in scientific practices related to obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Science Scope, 79(8), 31–37.Google Scholar
  7. Bell, P., Bricker, L. A., Tzou, C. T., & Van Horne, K. (2012b). Exploring the science Framework: Engaging learners in scientific practices related to obtaining, evaluating, and communicating information. Science Teacher, 79(8), 31–36.Google Scholar
  8. Bevan, B., Gutwill, J. P., Petrich, M., & Wilkinson, K. (2015). Learning through STEM-rich tinkering: Findings from a jointly negotiated research project taken up in practice. Science Education, 99(1), 98–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bickel, W. E., & Hattrup, R. A. (1995). Teachers and researchers in collaboration: Reflections on the process. American Educational Research Journal, 32(1), 35–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in sociology of education (pp. 127–162). Dordrecht: Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burch, P. E., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). Leading from the middle: Mid-level district staff and instructional improvement. Chicago, IL: Cross City Campaign for Urban School Reform.Google Scholar
  12. Burkhardt, H., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better-funded enterprise. Educational Researcher, 32(9), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Callanan, M. A. (2012). Conducting cognitive developmental research in museums: Theoretical issues and practical considerations. Journal of Cognition and Development, 13(2), 137–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carpenter, D. P., Esterling, K. M., & Lazer, D. M. J. (2003). The strength of strong ties: A model of contact-making in policy networks with evidence from U.S. health politics. Rationality and Society, 15(4), 411–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cobb, P. A., Confrey, J., diSessa, A. A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cobb, P. A., & Jackson, K. (2012). Analyzing educational policies: A learning design perspective. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 487–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cobb, P. A., Jackson, K., Smith, T., Sorum, M., & Henrick, E. C. (2013). Design research with educational systems: Investigating and supporting improvements in the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (pp. 320–349). New York, NY: Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
  19. Coburn, C. E., Bae, S., & Turner, E. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider–outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coburn, C. E., Honig, M. I., & Stein, M. K. (2009). What’s the evidence on districts’ use of evidence? In J. D. Bransford, D. J. Stipek, N. J. Vye, L. M. Gomez, & D. Lam (Eds.), The role of research in educational improvement (pp. 67–87). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  21. Coburn, C. E., Penuel, W. R., & Geil, K. (2013). Research–practice partnerships at the district level: A new strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement. Berkeley, CA and Boulder, CO: University of California and University of Colorado.Google Scholar
  22. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Pedagogy and policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin, & J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  25. Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Contandriopoulos, D., Lemire, M., Denis, J.-L., & Tremblay, E. (2010). Knowledge exchange processes in organizations and policy arenas: A narrative systematic review of the literature. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(4), 444–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Corcoran, T., & Rouk, U. (1985). Using natural channels for school improvement: A report on four years of the urban development program. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools Inc.Google Scholar
  30. Daly, A. J., & Finnigan, K. S. (2012). Exploring the space between: Social networks, trust, and urban school leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 22(3), 493–530.Google Scholar
  31. Daly, A. J., Finnigan, K. S., Jordan, S., Moolenaar, N. M., & Che, J. (2014). Misalignment and perverse incentives: Examining the politics of district leaders as brokers in the use of research evidence. Educational Policy, 28(2), 145–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. D’Amico, L. (2010). The center for learning technologies in urban schools: Evolving relationships in design-based research. In C. E. Coburn & M. K. Stein (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 37–53). Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  33. Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 5–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Dolle, J. R., Gomez, L. M., Russell, J. L., & Bryk, A. S. (2013). More than a network: Building professional communities for educational improvement. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (pp. 443–463). New York, NY: Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
  35. Donovan, M. S., Snow, C. E., & Daro, P. (2013). The SERP approach to problem-solving research, development, and implementation. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds). Design-based implementation research. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(1), 400–425.Google Scholar
  36. Drolet, B. C., & Lorenzi, N. M. (2011). Translational research: Understanding the continuum from bench to bedside. Translational Research, 157(1), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Dynarski, M. (2008). Bringing answers to educators: Guiding principles for research syntheses. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Fang, R., Duffy, M. K., & Shaw, J. D. (2011). The organizational socialization process: Review and development of a social capital model. Journal of Management, 37(1), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Finnigan, K. S., Daly, A. J., & Che, J. (2013). Systemwide reform in districts under pressure: The role of social networks in defining, acquiring, using, and diffusing research evidence. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 476–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Fishman, B. J., Marx, R. W., Best, S., & Tal, R. (2003). Linking teacher and student learning to improve professional development in systemic reform. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19(6), 643–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Frank, K. A. (1998). Quantitative methods for studying social context in multilevels and through interpersonal relations. Review of Research in Education, 23, 171–216.Google Scholar
  42. Frank, K. A., & Zhao, Y. (2005). Subgroups as a meso-level entity in the social organization of schools. In L. V. Hedges & B. Schneider (Eds.), The social organization of schooling (pp. 200–224). New York: Sage.Google Scholar
  43. Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: Application to the implementation of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Freedman, R., & Salmon, D. (2001). The dialectic nature of research collaborations: The relational literacy curriculum. In T. Ravid & M. G. Handler (Eds.), The many faces of school-university collaboration: Characteristics of successful partnerships (pp. 179–183). Englewood, CO: Teachers Ideas Press.Google Scholar
  45. Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Friedkin, N. E., & Marsden, P. V. (1994). Network studies of social influence. In S. Wasserman & J. Galaskiewicz (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis (pp. 1–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Garland, A. F., Plemmons, D., & Koontz, L. (2006). Research–practice partnership in mental health: Lessons from participants. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33, 517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006). Design research from a learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. E. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17–51). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Gutiérrez, K. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2014). Relevance to practice as a criterion for rigor. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 19–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Hanf, K., & O’Toole, L. J. (1992). Revisiting old friends: Networks, implementation structures, and the management of inter-organizational relations. European Journal of Political Research, 21(1–2), 163–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hansen, M. T. (1999). The search-transfer problem: The role of weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1), 82–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Harris, C. J., Phillips, R. S., & Penuel, W. R. (2012). Examining teachers’ instructional moves aimed at developing students’ ideas and questions in learner-centered science classrooms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(7), 768–788. doi: 10.1007/s10972-011-9237-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Herrenkohl, L. R. (2006). Intellectual role taking: Supporting discussion in heterogeneous elementary science classes. Theory into Practice, 45(1), 47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Honig, M. I. (2003). Building policy from practice: District central office administrators’ roles and capacity for implementing collaborative education policy. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 292–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Honig, M. I. (2006). Street-level bureaucracy revisited: Frontline district central-office administrators as boundary spanners in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(4), 357–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Honig, M. I., & Coburn, C. E. (2008). Evidence-based decision making in school district central offices: Toward a policy research agenda. Educational Policy, 22(4), 578–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers’ work? Power and accountability in America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Jackson, K., Cobb, P., Wilson, J., Webster, M., Dunlap, C., & Appelgate, M. (2015). Investigating the development of mathematics leaders’ capacity to support teachers’ learning on a large scale. ZDM, 47(1), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Johnson, R., Severance, S., Leary, H., & Miller, S. (2014). Mathematical tasks as boundary objects in design-based implementation research. In J. L. Polman, E. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, & W. R. Penuel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the learning sciences. Boulder, CO: ISLS.Google Scholar
  60. Johnson, R., Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., & Leary, H. A. (in press). Teachers, tasks, and tensions: Lessons from a research–practice partnership. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education.Google Scholar
  61. Kingdon, J. W. (2010). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  62. Krajcik, J. S., & Merritt, J. (2012). Engaging students in scientific practices: What does constructing and revising models look like in the science classroom? Understanding A Framework for K-12 Science Education. Science Teacher, 79, 38–41.Google Scholar
  63. Kwon, S. M., Wardrip, P. S., & Gomez, L. M. (2014). Co-design of interdisciplinary projects as a mechanism for school capacity a growth. Improving Schools, 17(1), 54–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Leifer, R., & Delbecq, A. (1978). Organizational/environmental interchange: A model of boundary spanning activity. Academy of Management Review, 3(1), 40–50.Google Scholar
  65. Levin, B. (2013). To know is not enough: Research knowledge and its use. Review of Education, 1(1), 2–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Lin, N. (2005). Building a network theory of social capital. In N. Lin, K. Cook, & R. S. Burt (Eds.), Social capital: Theory and research (pp. 3–30). New Brunswick, NJ: Aldine Transaction.Google Scholar
  68. Lindgren, R., Andersson, M., & Henfridsson, O. (2008). Multi-contextuality in boundary-spanning practices. Information Systems Journal, 18(6), 641–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Linn, M. C., Shear, L., Bell, P., & Slotta, J. D. (1999). Organizing principles for science education partnerships: Case studies of students’ learning about “Rats in Space” and “Deformed Frogs”. Educational Technology Research and Development, 47(2), 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Lubienski, C., Scott, J., & DeBray, E. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Massell, D., Goertz, M. E., & Barnes, C. A. (2012). State education agencies’ acquisition and use of research knowledge for school improvement. Peabody Journal of Education, 87(5), 609–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Mazzoni, T. L. (1991). Analyzing state school policymaking: An arena model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13(2), 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. McNeill, K. L., & Krajcik, J. S. (2012). Supporting grade 5–8 students in constructing explanations in science: The claim, evidence, reasoning framework for talk and writing. Boston, MA: Pearson Education Inc.Google Scholar
  74. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  75. National Research Council. (2012a). A framework for K-12 science education: Practices, crosscutting concepts, and core ideas. Washington, DC: National Research Council.Google Scholar
  76. National Research Council. (2012b). Using science as evidence in public policy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  77. Nelson, S. R., Leffler, J. C., & Hansen, B. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.Google Scholar
  78. Nelson, I. A., London, R. A., & Strobel, K. R. (2015). Reinventing the role of the university researcher. Educational Researcher, 44(1), 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. NGSS Lead States. (2013). Next generation science standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  80. Nutley, S. M., Walter, I., & Davies, H. T. O. (2007). Using evidence: How research can inform public services. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  81. Obstfeld, D. (2005). Social networks, the tertius iungens orientation, and involvement in innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 50(1), 100–130.Google Scholar
  82. Page, S. (2008). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Farrell, C., & Coburn, C. E. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal for Education of Students at Risk (JESPAR), 20(1–2), 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., & Gallagher, D. (2013). Negotiating problems of practice in research–practice partnerships focused on design. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds.), Design-based implementation research: Theories, methods, and exemplars. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook (pp. 237–255). New York, NY: Teachers College Record.Google Scholar
  85. Penuel, W. R., & DeBarger, A. H. (in press). A research–practice partnership to improve formative assessment in science. In A. J. Daly & K. S. Finnigan (Eds.), Thinking systemically: Improving districts under pressure. Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  86. Penuel, W. R., Frank, K. A., & Krause, A. (2006). The distribution of resources and expertise and the implementation of schoolwide reform initiatives. In S. A. Barab, K. E. Hay, & D. T. Hickey (Eds.), Proceedings of the 7th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 1, pp. 522–528). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  87. Penuel, W. R., & McLaren, P. (2014). Developing assessments of three-dimensional science proficiency. Paper presented at the Council of State Science Supervisors Annual Conference, Boston, MA.Google Scholar
  88. Penuel, W. R., McWilliams, H., McAuliffe, C., Benbow, A., Mably, C., & Hayden, M. M. (2009). Teaching for understanding in Earth science: Comparing impacts on planning and instruction in three professional development designs for middle school science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 20(5), 415–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2(1), 51–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Penuel, W. R., Tatar, D., & Roschelle, J. (2004). The role of research on contexts of teaching practice in informing the design of handheld learning technologies. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 30(4), 331–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Penuel, W. R., & Yarnall, L. (2005). Designing handheld software to support classroom assessment: An analysis of conditions for teacher adoption. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(5).
  92. Reagans, R., & Zuckerman, E. W. (2001). Networks, diversity, and productivity: The social capital of corporate R&D teams. Organization Science, 12(4), 502–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Reiser, B. J., Spillane, J. P., Steinmuler, F., Sorsa, D., Carney, K., & Kyza, E. (2000). Investigating the mutual adaptation process in teachers’ design of technology-infused curricula. In B. Fishman & S. O’Connor-Divelbiss (Eds.), Fourth international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 342–349). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  94. Reiser, B. J., & Tabak, I. (2014). Scaffolding. In R. K. Sawyer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (2nd ed., pp. 44–62). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Resnick, L. B., Michaels, S., & O’Connor, M. C. (2010). How (well structured) talk builds the mind. In D. Preiss & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Innovations in educational psychology: Perspectives on learning, teaching, and human development (pp. 163–194). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
  96. Rohrbach, L. A., Grana, R., Sussman, S., & Valente, T. W. (2006). Type II translation: Transporting prevention interventions from research into real-world settings. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 29(3), 302–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Russell, J. L., Meredith, J., Childs, J., Stein, M. K., & Prine, D. W. (2015). Designing inter-organizational networks to implement education reform: A analysis of state Race to the Top applications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1), 92–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sabelli, N., & Dede, C. (2013). Empowering design-based implementation research: The need for infrastructure. In B. J. Fishman, W. R. Penuel, A.-R. Allen, & B. H. Cheng (Eds). Design-based implementation research. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(1), 464–480.Google Scholar
  99. Sandoval, W. A. (2004). Developing learning theory by refining conjectures embodied in educational designs. Educational Psychologist, 39(4), 213–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Sandoval, W. A. (2014). Conjecture mapping: An approach to systematic educational design research. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 23(1), 18–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Scott, J., Lubienski, C., DeBray, E., & Jabbar, H. (2014). The intermediary function in evidence production, promotion, and utilization: The case of educational incentives. In K. S. Finnigan & A. J. Daly (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 69–92). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Severance, S., Leary, H., & Johnson, R. (2014). Tensions in a multi-tiered research partnership. In J. L. Polman, E. Kyza, D. K. O’Neill, I. Tabak, A. S. Jurow, K. O’Connor, & W. R. Penuel (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th international conference of the learning sciences (Vol. 2, pp. 1171–1175). Boulder, CO: ISLS.Google Scholar
  103. Spillane, J. P. (1998). State policy and the non-monolithic nature of the local school district: Organizational and professional considerations. American Educational Research Journal, 35(1), 33–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Spillane, J. P. (2000). Cognition and policy implementation: District policymakers and the reform of mathematics education. Cognition and Instruction, 18(2), 141–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  106. Spillane, J. P., & Coldren, A. F. (2010). Diagnosis and design for school improvement: Using a distributed perspective to lead and manage change. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  107. Spillane, J. P., Diamond, J. B., Walker, L. J., Halverson, R., & Jita, L. (2001). Urban school leadership for elementary science instruction: Identifying and activating resources in an undervalued school subject. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(8), 918–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Spillane, J. P., & Jennings, N. E. (1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449–481.Google Scholar
  109. Spillane, J. P., Kim, C. M., & Frank, K. A. (2012). Instructional advice and information providing and receiving behavior in elementary schools: Exploring tie formation as a building block in social capital development. American Educational Research Journal, 49(6), 1112–1145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. St. John, M. (2007). Building the foundation for raising student achievement: Investing in an improvement infrastructure. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.Google Scholar
  111. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional ecology, “translations” and boundary objects: Amateurs and professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907–1939. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Suchman, L. A. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2(1), 21–39.Google Scholar
  113. Sun, M., Frank, K. A., Penuel, W. R., & Kim, C. (2013a). How external institutions penetrate schools through formal and informal leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(4), 610–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Sun, M., Penuel, W. R., Frank, K. A., Gallagher, H. A., & Youngs, P. (2013b). Shaping professional development to promote the diffusion of instructional expertise among teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 344–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Sun, M., Wilhelm, A. G., Larson, C. J., & Frank, K. A. (2014). Exploring colleagues’ professional influences on mathematics teachers’ learning. Teachers College Record, 116(4), 1–30.Google Scholar
  116. Tsai, W. (2000). Social capital strategic relatedness and the formation of intraorganizational linkages. Strategic Management Journal, 21(9), 925–939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Tseng, V. (2012). The uses of research in policy and practice. Washington, DC: Society for Research in Child Development.Google Scholar
  118. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981a). Characteristics and external orientations of boundary spanning individuals. Academy of Management Journal, 24(1), 83–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. Tushman, M. L., & Scanlan, T. J. (1981b). Boundary spanning individuals: Their role in information transfer and their antecedents. Academy of Management Journal, 24(2), 289–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  121. Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42, 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. Voogt, J. M., Laferrière, T., Breuleux, A., Itow, R. C., Hickey, D. T., & McKenney, S. E. (2015). Collaborative design as a form of professional development. Instructional Science, 43(2), 259–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Weinbaum, E. H., Cole, R. P., Weiss, M. J., & Supovitz, J. A. (2008). Going with the flow: Communication and reform in high schools. In J. A. Supovitz & E. H. Weinbaum (Eds.), The implementation gap (pp. 68–101). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  124. Weiss, C. H. (1980). Knowledge creep and decision accretion. Knowledge: Creation, Diffusion, Utilization, 1(3), 381–404.Google Scholar
  125. Windschitl, M., & Thompson, J. J. (2013). The modeling toolkit: Making student thinking visible with public representations. The Science Teacher, 80(6), 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  2. 2.University of WashingtonSeattleUSA
  3. 3.ExploratoriumSan FranciscoUSA
  4. 4.EDCWalthamUSA
  5. 5.TERCCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations