A core function of district leadership is providing instructional vision and support for school leaders and teachers. In this article, a Research–Practice Partnership focused on the improvement of elementary mathematics teaching and learning provides the context to study leadership development. We examine the process of one design team within the Research–Practice Partnership consisting of district leaders and university researchers using organizational learning. We found that as the team iteratively negotiated the design and implementation of a practical measure aimed at assessing and improving elementary mathematics instruction system-wide, the team’s learning transformed the tools and routines of its work.
AkkermanS.BruiningT. (2016). Multi-level boundary crossing in a professional development school partnership. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 25, 240-284.
2.
ArmstrongD.GoslingA.WeinmanJ.MarteauT. (1997). The Place of Inter-Rater Reliability in Qualitative Research: An Empirical Study. Sociology, 31(3), 597-606.
3.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389-407.
4.
BerwickD. M. (2008). The science of improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association, 299, 1182-1184.
5.
BorkoH. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
6.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA.LeMahieuP. G. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
7.
BurchP.SpillaneJ. P. (2005). How subjects matter in district office practice: Instructionally relevant policy in urban school district redesign. Journal of Educational Change, 6(1), 51-76.
8.
CazdenC. B. (2001). Traditional and nontraditional lessons. In Classroom Discourse: The Language of Teaching and Learning (2nd ed., pp. 30-59). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
9.
CobbP.JacksonK. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics Teacher Education & Development, 13(2), 6-33.
10.
CobbP.JacksonK. (2012). Analyzing educational policies: A learning design perspective. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 21, 487-521.
11.
CoburnC. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.
12.
CoburnC. E.PenuelW. R. (2016). Research-Practice Partnerships in education. Educational Researcher, 45, 48-54.
13.
CoburnC. E.PenuelW. R.GeilK. E. (2013). Research-Practice Partnerships: A strategy for leveraging research for educational improvement in school districts. New York, NY: W. T. Grant Foundation.
14.
CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (2010). Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (CoburnC. E.SteinM. K., Eds.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
15.
Cochran-SmithM.LytleS. L. (1999). Relationships of knowledge and practice: Teacher learning in communities. Review of Research in Education, 24(1), 249-305.
16.
CyertR. M.MarchJ. G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17.
D’AmicoL. (2010). The center for learning technologies in urban schools: Evolving relationships in design-based research. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education (pp. 19-39). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
18.
Darling-HammondL.SykesG. (Eds.). (1999). Teaching as a learning profession: Handbook for policy and practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
19.
Darling-HammondL.RichardsonN. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters?Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
20.
EngleR. A. (2010). The middle-school mathematics through applications project. In CoburnC. E.SteinM. K. (Eds.), Research and practice in education: Building alliances, bridging the divide (pp. 19-35). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
21.
FarrellC. C.CoburnC. E. (2017). Absorptive capacity: A conceptual framework for understanding district central office learning. Journal of Educational Change, 18, 135-159. doi:10.1007/s10833-016-9291-7
22.
FishmanB. J.PenuelW. R.AllenA.ChengB. H.SabelliN. (2013). Design-Based Implementation Research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. National Society for the Study of Education, 112, 136-156.
23.
GoodwinC. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96, 606-633.
24.
GoodwinC.HeritageJ. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 283-307.
25.
GrossmanP.WineburgS.WoolworthS. (2001). Toward a theory of teacher community. Teachers College Record, 103, 942-1012.
26.
HiebertJ.GallimoreR.GarnierH.GivvinK.HollingsworthH.JacobsJ.. . . StiglerJ. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study (NCES Report No. 2003-013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
27.
HubbardL.MehanH.SteinM. K. (2006). Reform as learning: School reform, organizational culture, and community politics in San Diego. New York: Routledge.
28.
KazemiE.GibbonsL.LewisR.FoxA.HintzA.B.Kelley-PetersenM.. . . BalfR. (2018). Math Labs: Teachers, teacher educators and school leaders learning together with and from their own students. NCSM Journal, 19, 1.
29.
LampertM.BeasleyH.GhousseiniH.KazemiE.FrankeM. L. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious mathematics teaching. In SteinM. K.KucanL. (Eds.), Instructional Explanations in the Disciplines (pp. 129-141). New York: Springer Publishing.
30.
LevittB.MarchJ. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319-338.
31.
McDonaldM.KazemiE.KavanaghS. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378-386.
32.
MunterC. (2014). Developing visions of high-quality mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(5), 584-635.
33.
NelsonS. R.LefflerJ. C.HansenB. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understanding and improving the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
34.
PentlandB. T.FeldmanM. S. (2005). Organizational routines as a unit of analysis. Industrial and Corporate Change, 14(5), 793-815. doi:10.1093/icc/dth070
35.
PenuelW. R.AllenA.-R.CoburnC. E.FarrellC. (2015). Conceptualizing research–practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20, 182-197.
36.
PenuelW. R.CoburnC. E.GallagherD. J. (2013). Negotiating problems of practice in research–practice design partnerships. National Society for the Study of Education, 112, 237-255.
37.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J. (2012). Large-scale science education intervention research we can use. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 49, 281-304.
38.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.ChengB. H.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40, 331-337.
39.
RigbyJ.LengesA.KazemiE.GibbonsL.FormanS.LewisR. (2016/2017). A Developmental School Learning Trajectory: a conceptual framework to support a coherent system of support for organizational learning. Paper presented at the University Council for Educational Administration, Detroit, November 2016 + American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, April 2017.
40.
RigbyJ.FormanS.LewisR. (under review). Integrating Improvements: How principals leverage professional learning to reshape school culture.
41.
RombergT. A.KaputJ. J. (1999). Mathematics worth teaching, mathematics worth understanding. In FennemaE.RombergT. A. (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 3-18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
RoseberyA.PutickG. M. (1998). Teacher professional development as situated sense-making: A case study in science education. Science Education, 82, 649-677.
43.
RosenquistB.HenrickE.SmithT. (2015). Research-Practice Partnerships to support the development of high quality mathematics instruction for all students. Journal for Education of Students Placed at Risk, 20, 42-57.
44.
SimonH. A. (1955). A behavioral model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 66, 99-118.
45.
SolbergL. I.MosserG.McDonaldS. (1997). The three faces of performance measurement: Improvement, accountability, and research. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality Improvement, 23, 135-147.
46.
SpillaneJ. P.CallahanK. A. (2000). Implementing state standards for science education: What district policy makers make out of the hoopla. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 401-425.
47.
SpillaneJ. P.PariseL. M.ShererJ. Z. (2011). Organizational Routines as Coupling Mechanisms: Policy, School Administration, and the Technical Core. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 586-619. doi:10.3102/0002831210385102
48.
SteinbrunerJ. D. (1974). The cybernetic theory of decision. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
SupovitzJ. A. (2013). Situated research design and methodological choices in formative program evaluation. National Society for the Study of Education, 112, 372-399.
50.
WengerE. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. The Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2-3.
51.
WilsonS. M.BerneJ. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in Education, 24, 173-209.
52.
YeagerD.BrykA.MuhichJ.HausmanH.MoralesL. (2013). Practical measurement. Palo Alto, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
