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

Journal of Educational Change

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 421-450

  Hopkins, Megan ^a   Spillane, James P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

^b NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

District reform; Instructional guidance infrastructure; New institutional theory; Teacher beliefs

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947869162     PISSN: 13892843     EISSN: 15731812     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10833-015-9257-1     Document Type: Article

References (67)

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.
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.
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.
4. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leader and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy,19(3), 476–509.
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.
6. Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,30(3), 203–235.
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.
8. Cohen, D. K., & Moffitt, S. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
13. Elmore, R. (1995). Teaching, learning, and school organization: Principles of practice and the regularities of schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly,31, 355–374.
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.
15. Fligstein, N. (2001). The architecture of markets: An economic sociology of twenty-first century capitalist societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
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.
17. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Los Angeles: University of California Press.
18. Glickman, C. D. (1985). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
19. Hallett, T., & Ventresca, M. J. (2006). How institutions form. American Behavioral Scientist,49(7), 908–924.
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.
21. Hopkins, M. (2014). Beliefs in context: Understanding language policy implementation at a systems level. Educational Policy,. doi:10.1177/0895904814550073.
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.
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.
24. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (2012). A research-based framework for Math Expressions. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.hmhco.com/~/media/sites/home/education/global/pdf/white-papers/mathematics/elementary/math-expressions/02_49823_mx_research_hr-130205.pdf?la=en.
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.
26. Hunt, K. (2014). Math Trailblazers. Dubuque, IA: Author.
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.
28. Kirst, M. W., & Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of American education. Richmond, CA: McCutchan.
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.
30. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ professional community in restructuring schools. American Educational Research Journal,33(4), 757–798.
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.
32. Mangin, M. M. (2007). The role of elementary principals in teacher leadership initiatives. Educational Administration Quarterly,43(3), 319–357.
33. Mangin, M. M. (2014). Capacity building and districts’ decision to implement coaching initiatives. Education Policy Analysis Archives,. doi:10.14507/epaa.v22n56.2014.
34. Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal,50(2), 285–324.
35. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36. Mitchell, D. E., Crowson, R. L., & Shipps, D. (2011). Shaping education policy: Power and process. New York: Routledge.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
42. Peurach, D. J. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and success for all. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
45. Rorrer, A., Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Administration Quarterly,44(3), 307–358.
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.
47. Scott, W. R. (2007). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
48. Slavin, R. E., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective programs in elementary mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research,78(3), 427–515.
49. Spillane, J. P. (1996). School districts matter: Local educational authorities and state instructional policy. Educational Policy,10(1), 63–87.
50. Spillane, J. P. (2004). Standards deviation: How local schools misunderstand policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
51. Spillane, J. P. (2012). Conceptualizing the data-based decision-making phenomena. American Journal of Education,118(2), 113–141.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
60. TERC. (2013). Overview ofInvestigations. Retrieved April 2, 2015, from https://investigations.terc.edu/overview.cfm.
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.
62. Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
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.
64. Wahlstrom, K., & Louis, K. S. (2008). How teachers perceive principal leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly,44(4), 445–498.
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.
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.
67. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.