scalemsp.org

Students’ performance on annual math and science assessments improved in almost every age group when their schools were involved in a program that partners K-12 teachers with their colleagues in higher education. While an earlier study tracked schools that began work in the first year of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) Math and Science Partnership program (MSP), the most recent study followed more than 300 schools participating in partnerships that began to be funded during the program’s second year.

Press Release for NSF

The Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program at the National Science Foundation (NSF) promotes the development, implementation, and sustainability of exemplary partnerships to advance high-quality math and science education. The MSP Program anticipates that the partnerships will be instrumental in improving K-12 student achievement, as well as reducing achievement gaps among diverse student populations differentiated by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender, or disability, a strategy advocated by Haycock et al. (1992). The importance of being partnership driven with science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) faculty engagement is apparent not only from the name of the program, but also in the National Science Foundation’s (NSF’s) decision to include it as one of the five “key features” of the program.” To prepare for an assessment of MSP partnerships and to examine the start-up and implementation phase, this report provides “an overview of the relevant literature on partnerships, beginning with the basic and most noted definitions of partnerships, integrated with a discussion about the development of an evaluation framework.

Scherer, J. July 2006. Cosmos Corporation.

System-wide Change for All Learners and Educators (SCALE) is a National Science Foundation project dedicated to improving K-12 mathematics and science teaching and learning for all. This series illustrates key concepts derived from the research conducted by the SCALE research team that are organized under the major themes of the National Science Foundation’s Math and Science Partnership (MSP) Program: Partnerships Across Institutions; Challenging Courses and Curricula; Evidence-based Design and Outcomes; Teacher Quality, Quantity and Diversity; and Institutional Change and Sustainability.

For more information on the SCALE Theory of Action, the following bibliography, taken from the original SCALE proposal to the National Science Foundation, provides readings on background and research closely related to SCALE work.

---

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley.

Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Alexander, B. B., Burda, A. C., & Millar, S. B. (1997). A community approach to learning calculus: Fostering success for underrepresented ethnic minorities in an emerging scholars program. Journal of Women and Minorities in Science and Engineering, 3(2), 145-159.

Alexander, B. B., Foertsch, J. A., & Daffinrud, S. M. (1998). The Spend a Summer with a Scientist program: An evaluation of program outcomes and essential elements for success. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, LEAD Center. Visit the LEAD Center’s page for a full-text PDF version of this document.

Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as a learning profession (pp. 3-31). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Ball, D.L., Lubienski, S.T., & Mewborn, D.S. (2001). Mathematics. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 4th ed. (pp. 433-456). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Berends, M., Chun, J., Schuyler, G., Stockly, S., & Briggs, R.J. (2002). Challenges of conflicting school reforms: Effects of New American Schools in a high-poverty district. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

Blank, R. K., & Langesen, D. (2001). State indicators of science and mathematics education: 2001. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Bill, V. L., Leer, M. N., Reams, L. E., & Resnick, L. B. (1992). From cupcakes to equations: The structure of discourse in a primary mathematics classroom. Verbum, 15(1), 63-85.

Briars, D. J., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Standards, assessment – and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, UCLA. Visit the CSE page at UCLA for a full-text PDF version of this document.

Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178. Visit the Journal of Learning Sciences online to read the abstract.

Brown, A. & Greeno, J. (1999). Recommendations regarding research priorities: An advisory report to the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board. New York: National Academy of Education.

Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499-531.

Clune, W. H. (2001). Toward a Theory of Standards-Based Reform: The Case of Nine NSF Statewide Systemic Initiatives. In Susan Fuhrman. (Ed.). From the Capitol to the Classroom: Standards-Based Reform in the States, 100th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education. University of Chicago.

Clune, W. H., Mason, S., Pohs, C., Thiel, C. & White, P. A. (2002). The Milwaukee Middle School Proficiencies: Systemic school reform through high stakes assessments and a network of schools. Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, April 2, 2002

Cohen, P., Kulik, J., & Kulik, C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta-analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal 19, 237-248.

Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H.C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cohen, E. G., & Lotan, R. A. (Eds.). (1997). Working for equity in heterogeneous classrooms: Sociological theory in practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Connecticut Academy for Education in Mathematics, Science & Technology. (2001). Systemic Improvement Protocol, Participant’s Packet.

Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (1994). Cognitive coaching: a foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc.

Crowley, K., Schunn, D. C., & Okada, T. (Eds.). (2001). Designing for science: Implications from everyday, classroom, and professional settings. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Daffinrud, S., & Connolly, M. (2001). K through Infinity Professional Development Partnership: Mid-year Report on KTI Teams – Findings from Surveys of Participating Fellows and Teachers. The LEAD Center, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Derry, S. J., DuRussel, L. A., & O’Donnell, A. M. (1998). Individual and distributed cognitions in interdisciplinary teamwork: A developing case study and emerging theory. Educational Psychology Review 10, 25-56. Visit Kluwer’s online journal archive to read the abstract.

Derry, S. J., & DuRussel, L. A. (1999). Assessing knowledge construction processes in on-line learning communities. In S. Lajoie & M. Vivet (Eds.), Artificial intelligence in education (pp. 431-438). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

Derry, S. J., Gance, S. P., Gance, L. L., & Schlager, M. (2000). Toward assessment of knowledge building practices in technology-mediated work group interactions. In S. Lajoie (Ed.), Computers as cognitive tools II. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Devin-Sheehan, L., Feldman, R., & Allen, V. (1976). Research on children tutoring children: A critical review. Review of Educational Research 46, 355-385. Dweck, C.S. (1999). Self-Theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality and development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building and new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.

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. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Elmore, R. F., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1988). Steady work: Policy, practice, and the reform of American education. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.

Foley, E. (2001). Contradictions and control in systemic reform: The ascendancy of the central office in Philadelphia schools. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education. Visit CPRE’s Publications site for a full-text PDF version of this document.

Freeman, D. T., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal 26(3), 403-421.

Fuhrman, S. (Ed.). (2001). From the Capitol to the Classroom: Standards-Based Reform in the States, 100th Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, University of Chicago.

Gamoran, A. (2000). High standards: A strategy for equalizing opportunities for learning?” In R. D. Kahlenberg (Ed.), A notion at risk: Preserving public education as an engine for social mobility (pp. 93-126). New York: The Century Foundation.

Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19(4), 325-338.

Garet, M. S., Birman, B. F., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Herman, R., & Yoon, K. S. (1999). Designing effective professional development: Lessons from the Eisenhower Program (Report). Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Visit the US Department of Education online for the complete article.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). “What Makes Professional Development Effective: Results From a National Sample of Teachers.” American Educational Research Journal 38(4), 915-945.

Garet, M. S., & Delany, B. (1988). Students, courses and stratification. Sociology of Education 61, 61-77.

Hill, P.T., & Celio, M.B. (1988). Fixing urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Visit the Brookings Institute online for a full-text version of this document.

Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524-549.

Howard, J. (1995). You can’t get there from here: The need for a new logic in education reform. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (Fall).

Kahle, J. B. (1998). Reaching equity in systemic reform: How do we assess progress and problems (Research Monograph No. 9). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.

Kahlenberg, R. D. (2000). All together now: Creating middle-class schools through public school choice. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution. Visit the Brookings Institute online to read more about this document.

Keeney, L. (1998). Using data for school improvement: Report on the Second Practitioners’ Conference for Annenberg Challenge Sites–Houston, May 1998. Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.

Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher education (Research Monograph No. 13). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.

Knapp, M. S. (1997). Between systemic reforms in the mathematics and science classroom: The dynamics of innovation, implementation, and professional review. Review of Educational Research 67(2), 227-266. Visit AERA’s online journal archive to read the abstract.

Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Lee, O., & Fradd, S. H. (1988). Science for all, including students from non-English-language backgrounds. Educational Researcher 17(4), 12-21.

Lee, O. (1999). Equity implications based on the conceptions of science achievement in major reform documents. Review of Educational Research 69(1), 83-115. Visit AERA’s online journal archive to read the abstract.

Lee, V. E., Smith, J., & Croninger, R. (1995). Another look at high school restructuring. Issues in restructuring schools, No. 9. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of Schools, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin.

Lee, V. E., Smith, J., & Croninger, R. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70 (April), 128-150.

Lewis, C., & Tsuchida, I. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The shift to student-centered elementary science. Journal of Educational Policy 12, 313-331.

Loveless, T. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington, DC: Brookings. Visit the Brookings Institute online for a full-text version of this document.

Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing Professional Development for Teachers of Science and Mathematics. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Corwin Press, Inc.

Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Lynch, S. (2000). Equity and science education reform. Mahway, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, Inc.

Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Michaels, S. & O’Conner, M. C., with Resnick, L. B. (2002). Accountable talk: Classroom conversation that works [CD-ROM, version 1.0]. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, Institute for Learning. (www.instituteforlearning.org)

Millar, S. B. (2000). The role of formative evaluation in the development of an interdisciplinary academic center (Occasional Paper No. 8). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.

Millar, S. B., Alexander, B. B., & Lewis, H. A. (1995). Final evaluation report on the pilot Wisconsin Emerging Scholars Program, 1993-4. ( Vol. 1). Madison: University of Wisconsin- Madison, LEAD Center.

Mintzes, J. J., Wandersee, J. H., & Novak, J. D. (Eds.).(1998). Teaching science for understanding: A human constructivist view. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Moses, R. P., & Cobb, C. E., Jr. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston: Beacon Press.

Musca, T. (Writer/Producer), & Menendez, R. (Writer/Director). (1988). Stand and deliver [Motion picture]. United States: Warner Bros.

National Commission on Mathematics and Science (2000a). Before It’s Too Late: A Report to the Nation from the National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. Visit NCTM to read more.

National Research Council. (1996). The National Science Education Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Visit National Academies Press online for a full-text version of this document.

National Research Council. (2000a). Educating teachers of science, mathematics, and technology: New practices for the new millennium. Committee on Science and Mathematics Teacher Preparation Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Visit National Academies Press online for a full-text version of this document.

National Research Council. (2000b). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. J. D. Bransford, A. L. Brown, & R. R. Cocking (Eds.). Committee on Learning Research and Educational Practice, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Visit National Academies Press online for a full-text version of this document.

National Research Council. (2002). Adding it up: Helping Children learn mathematics. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.). Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Visit National Academies Press online for a full-text version of this document.

National Research Council. (2001b). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Committee on the Foundations of Assessment. Pelligrino, J., Chudowsky, N., & Glaser, R., editors. Board on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education. Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Visit National Academies Press online for a full-text version of this document.

National Science Board. (2000). Science & Engineering Indicators–2000. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Visit NSF online to access full-text (HTML or PDF) versions of this document.

Newmann, F. M., Bryk, A. S., & Nagaoka, J. K. (2001). Authentic intellectual work and standardized tests: Conflict or coexistence. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.

Newmann, F. , Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk. A. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 23 (4), 297-321.

Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin. Visit WCER online to read the Executive Summary and obtain ordering information.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Public Law 107-110. (2001). Visit the US Department of Education online to read the full-text of this document.

Oakes, J., Welner, K. G., & Yonezawa, S. (1998). Mandating Equity: A Case Study of Court-Ordered Detracking in San Jose Schools. Berkeley, CA: CPS Publications.

Paolitto, D. (1976). The effect of cross-age tutoring on adolescence: An inquiry into theoretical assumptions. Review of Educational Research 46, 215-238.

Pechman, E., Fiester, L., & Reisner, E. (2000). Data tracking and analysis project: Summary report. Washington, DC: Policy Studies Associates.

Porter, A. C. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher 18(5), 9-15.

Resnick, L. B. (1987). Constructing knowledge in school. In L. S. Liben (Ed.). Development and learning: Conflict or congruence? (pp. 19-50). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Resnick, L. B. (1992). From protoquantities to operators: Building mathematical competence on a foundation of everyday knowledge. In G. Leinhardt, R. T. Putnam, & R. Hattrup (Eds.), Analysis of arithmetic for mathematics teaching (pp. 373-429). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Resnick, L. B., Bill, V., Lesgold, S., & Leer, M. (1991). Thinking in arithmetic class. In B. Means, C. Chelemer, & M. S. Knapp (Eds.), Teaching advanced skills to at-risk students: Views from research and practice (pp. 27-53). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Resnick, L. B., & Glennan, T. (in press). Leadership for learning: A theory of action for urban school districts. In A. M. Hightower, M. S. Knapp, J. A. Marsh, & M. W. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal: Opening the conversation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (1998). Learning organizations for sustainable education reform. Daedalus: Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences 127, 89-118.

Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2001). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators. [CD-ROM, version 2.0]. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center, Institute for Learning. (www.instituteforlearning.org)

Rodriguez, A. J. (1997). Counting the runners who don’t have shoes: Trends in student achievement in science by socioeconomic status and gender within ethnic groups (Research Monograph No. 3). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of Innovation, 4^th Edition. New York: Free Press.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., & Houang, R.T. (Eds.). (1999). Facing the Consequences: Using TIMSS for a Closer Look at U.S. Mathematics and Science Education, Hingham, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Schmoker, M. (1997). Setting Goals in Turbulent Times. In Hargreaves, A., Rethinking Educational Change with Heart and Mind (pp. 128-148). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Visit ASCD online for a full-text version of this document.

Scribner, J. P., Cockrell, K. S., Cockrell, D. H., & Valentine, J. W. (1999). Creating professional communities in schools through organizational learning: An evaluation of a school improvement process. Educational Administration Quarterly, 35(1), 130-160.

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York: Basic Books.

Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity, Educational Researcher, 31(1), pp. 13-25 (January-February 2002). Visit AERA’s online journal archive for a full-text PDF version of this document.

Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday/Currency.

Sharpley, A. M., Irvine, J. W., & Sharpley, C. F. (1983). An examination of the effectiveness of a cross-age tutoring program in mathematics for elementary school children. American Educational Research Journal 20, 103-111.

Shimahara, N. K. (1998). The Japanese model of professional development: Teaching as a craft. Teaching and Teacher Education 14, 451-462. Visit Science Direct for a full-text PDF version of this document.

Shimahara, N. K., & Sakai, A. (1995). Learning to teach in two cultures: Japan and the United States.New York: Garland.Silver, E. A., & Stein, M. K. (1996). The QUASAR Project: The “revolution of the possible” in mathematics instructional reform in urban middle schools. Urban Education, 30(4), 476-521.Spillane, J., & Zeuli, J. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 21(1): 1-27. Visit AERA’s online journal archive to read the abstract.

Stein, M. K., & D’Amico, L. (in press-a.). District as professional educator: Teacher learning in District #2′s literacy initiative. In M. Knapp & M. McLaughlin (Eds.), School districts and instructional renewal: Opening the conversation. New York, Teachers College Press.

Stein, M. K., & D’Amico, L. (in press-b). Inquiry at the crossroads of policy and learning. Teachers College Record.

Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455-488.

Stein, M. K., Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. S. (1998). Mathematics reform and teacher development: A community of practice perspective. In J. Greeno & S. Goldman (Eds.), Thinking practices in mathematics and science learning (pp. 17-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.

Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., & Silver, E. A. (1999). The development of professional developers: Learning to assist teachers in new settings in new ways. Harvard Educational Review, 69(3), 237-269. Visit the Harvard Educational Review online to read the abstract.

Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.

Tate, W. (1997). Race, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathematics achievement: An update (Research Monograph No. 4). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education.

Treisman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of minority mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal, 23(5), 362-372.

Treisman, U. (1995). Routes to mathematics for African-American, Latino and Native American students in the 1990s: The eductional trajectories of summer mathematics institute participants. In N. Fisher, H. Keynes, & P. Wagreich (Eds.), Changing the culture: mathematics in the research community. American Mathematical Society with the Mathematical Association of America.

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequences in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). The condition of education 2001 (NCES 2001-072). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Webb, N. L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 6). Madison, WI: Council of Chief State School Officers, National Institute for Science Education.

Webb, N. L. (2002). The impact of the Interactive Mathematics Program on student learning. In Senk, S. & Thompson, D. (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Fairfax, VA: TechBooks.

Webb, N. L., Century, J. R., Davila, N. Heck, D. J., & Osthoff, E. (2001). Evaluation of systemic reform in mathematics and science. Madison: National Institute for Science Education, Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Webb, N. L., Clune, W. H., Bolt, D., Gamoran, A., Meyer, R. H., Osthoff, E., & Thorn, C. (2002). Models for analysis of the impact of Systemic Initiative Programs-The impact of urban systemic initiatives on student achievement in Texas, 1994 to 2000: Technical report to the National Science Foundation. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Webb, N. L., Kane, J., Kaufman, D., & Yang, J. (2001). Study of the impact of Statewide Systemic Initiatives Program: Technical report to the National Science Foundation on the use of state NAEP data to assess the impact of the Statewide Systemic Initiatives. Madison: University of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

Weick, K. E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21(1), 1-19.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

West, L. K., & Staub, F. C., with Bickel, D. (in press). Content-focused coaching in mathematics teaching. Westport, CT: Heinemann.

White, R. (2001). The revolution in research on science teaching. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching, 4th ed. (pp. 457-471). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.