15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
The Participants´ Perspective on Challenges, Disappointments, Success Factors and Informal Learnings in Research-Practice Partnerships in Teacher Education
Sandra Fischer-Schöneborn, Timo Ehmke
Leuphana University Lüneburg, Germany
Presenting Author: Fischer-Schöneborn, Sandra
Collaborative formats between schools and university, also integrating other partners “with varied backgrounds, roles and functions” (Lillejord & Børte, 2016, p. 556), are regarded as having the potential to enable further development of teacher education by improving the link between theory and practice (Author(s) et al., 2022; Lillejord & Børte, 2016; Villiger, 2015). Associated benefits of those collaborative formats range from didactic innovations (Barth & Bürgener, 2022; Gräsel, 2011) to professional development of (preservice) teachers (Korthagen, 2016; Postholm, 2016) to collective capacity building and educational change (Farrell et al., 2022; Gorodetsky & Barak, 2008).
Research-Practice Partnerships (RPPs) are one of those collaborative formats, originated in the USA, which aimed at educational improvement through engagement with research. They are intentionally organized to connect diverse forms of expertise and shift power relations in research endeavor to ensure that all partners have voice in the joint work (Farrell et al., 2021). However, in case of RPPs, the underlying processes of this collaboration format and outcomes beyond the particular innovation produced remain unexplored (Coburn & Penuel, 2016). Evaluation studies especially in Europe are scarce (Cooper et al., 2021).
Therefore, in the project of the Quality Initiative Teacher Training, "ZZL-Netzwerk" (Future Center for Teacher Education - Network) of Leuphana University Lüneburg, nine cross-institutional so called Development Teams (DTs) have been established since 2016, comprising representatives from university, schools, extracurricular partner organizations and teacher students. The design of these DTs combines all principles of RPPs (Farrell et al., 2022). The teams are to further develop university teaching and improve school teaching practice in co-constructive cooperation, for example (e.g.) by designing learning modules or developing teaching materials. In this way, they are to contribute to a successful interlinking of theory and practice in teacher training (Author(s) et al., 2022).
Findings of a previous study of DT members revealed, among others, collaboration ‘on equal footing’ among actor groups and professional development for participants in the competence areas teaching, assessing, and innovation (Author(s), under review). The present study, which is based on the same survey conducted in May and June 2021 as the one just described (contacted n=105; response rate 74%: n=78), aims to provide further insights into participants´ view of this collaboration and additional learning outcomes, the latter particularly in light of the openness of the RPP concept. Therefore, qualitative research questions (open response format) will be analyzed to address the following research questions:
1) Assessment of this RPP:
1a) What are the challenges, disappointments and success factors of collaboration as well as the greatest personal benefits that participants perceive?
1b) Do differences exist between the respective actor groups with regard to challenges, disappointments and success factors for collaboration as well as concerning the greatest personal benefits?
1c) What effects occur for the work place of the participants due to their participation in this RPP?
2) Informal learnings from participation in RPPs:
Based on this data, do participants realize informal learnings during participation in RPPs?
The data has been analyzed based on structuring qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022). Results are expected in spring 2023. The findings will contribute to close the mentioned research gaps and shall provide practical implications to improve future collaborations in RPPs and therefore the link between theory and practice. For theory, results are e.g. expected to further strengthen the importance of RPPs for professional and personal development and also to give insights into the effects for the related organizations. For practice, especially results on research questions 1a) and 1b) could e.g. further improve the collaboration being 'on equal footing' as well as the communication channels and structures depending on the actor group.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedA first survey of DT members on epistemic, social and organizational integration in 2017 (n=62) was followed by a second online questionnaire in May and June 2021 with n=105 participants (full survey) of the following actor groups: teachers, preservice teachers, principals, teacher educators, teacher students, representatives from extracurricular partner organizations, and researchers from university (professors and scientific staff). This second questionnaire integrated the following questions (in German) with an open response format:
1) Tell us the three most important aspects for collaboration that have been particularly successful in your Development Team.
2) Tell us the three most important aspects that are particularly challenging for collaboration in your Development Team.
3) If you now think of your organization where you work full-time: From your point of view, what effects do you see for this organization as a result of your participation in the Development Team?
4) What is the greatest benefit for you personally that you gain from being part of the Development Team?
5) Are there any disappointments you have experienced while working in the Development Team?
For question 3) to 5), participants were also to name a maximal of three aspects each.
Additionally, two questions with open response format addressed informal learning processes in this RPP. One question was designed in relation to perceived competence enhancements in teaching, assessing, and innovation (KMK, 2019; Author(s), under review), while the other question did not focus on specified learnings:
6) Concerning self-reported competence enhancement in teaching, assessing, innovation:
a) If you think for a moment, is/was one (or are/were several) of these learning outcomes just mentioned rather surprising to you? If so, enter those learning outcomes here.
b) Is there an additional learning outcome that you are surprised about and did not expect when you became part of the Development Team?
The response rate for the whole survey was 74% (n=78), composed as followed: 35.9% teacher students (n=28), 41% school representatives (n=32) including teachers, principals, teacher educators and preservice teachers, 21.8% researchers (n=17) including professors and scientific staff, and 1.3% representatives of extracurricular partner organizations (n=1).
The data has been analyzed based on structuring qualitative content analysis (Kuckartz & Rädiker, 2022) using MAXQDA 2020.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsResults contribute closing the mentioned research gaps and shall provide further practical implications to improve future collaborations in RPPs and therefore the link between theory and practice.
Theoretical implications:
Results on the effects on the related organizations (e.g., schools, study seminars, or the university) expand the analytical framework to effects beyond the direct participants. Therefore, they especially address research gaps that criticize the lack of studies on RPPs beyond the particular innovation produced. Findings on informal learning processes could provide insight into potential unintended learning effects and further promote the use of more open formats such as RPPs as a learning opportunity. Also, findings on participants' greatest personal benefits, combined with the results on reported competence enhancements in teaching, assessing, and innovation (Author(s), under review) would strengthen the importance of RPPs for professional and personal development of the participants.
Practical implications:
Results on disappointments, major challenges and successes in collaboration could be an impulse for improvements in cooperation 'on equal footing'. They could also impact the composition of the actor groups and, for example, communication channels and structures. Findings on the greatest personal benefits of the participants could reveal actor group-specific differences, which in turn could be useful for the acquisition of new members and for participants' satisfaction.
ReferencesAuthor(s) (Under Review)
Author(s) et al. (2022)
Barth, M., & Bürgener, L. (2022). Der Erwerb professioneller Handlungskompetenz von Sachunterrichtsstudierenden im Kontext von Bildung für nachhaltige Entwicklung - Kompetenzerwerb durch transdisziplinäre Projektarbeit [The Acquisition of Professional Competence of Students in Social Studies in the Context of Education for Sustainable Development - Acquiring Competence through Transdisciplinary Project Work]. In Author(s) et al. (Ed.).
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research–Practice Partnerships in Education: Outcomes, Dynamics, and Open Questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
Cooper, A., MacGregor, S., & Shewchuk, S. (2021). A research model to study research-practice partnerships in education. Journal of Professional Capital and Community, 6(1), 44–63.
Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A., Anderson, E. R., Bohannon, A. X., Coburn, C. E., & Brown, S. L. (2022). Learning at the Boundaries of Research and Practice: A Framework for Understanding Research–Practice Partnerships. Educational Researcher, 51(3), 197–208. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211069073
Farrell, C. C., Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., Daniel, J., & Steup, L. (2021). Research Practice Partnerships in Education: The State of the Field. William T. Grant Foundation.
Gorodetsky, M., & Barak, J. (2008). The educational-cultural edge: A participative learning environment for co-emergence of personal and institutional growth.: Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(24), 1907–1918.
Gräsel, C. (2011). Die Kooperation von Forschung und Lehrer/innen bei der Realisierung didaktischer Innovationen. [The Cooperation between Researchers and Teachers in the Realisation of Didactical Innovations]. In W. Einsiedler (Ed.), Unterrichtsentwicklung und didaktische Entwicklungsforschung, (pp. 88–101). Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.
KMK. (2019). Standards für die Lehrerbildung: Bildungswissenschaften: Beschluss der Kultusministerkonferenz vom 16.12.2014 [Standards for Teacher Education]. http://www.kmk.org/fileadmin/veroeffentlichungen_beschluesse/2004/2004_12_16-Standards-Lehrerbildung.pdf
Korthagen, F. (2016). Inconvenient truths about teacher learning: Towards professional development 3.0. Teachers and Teaching, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2016.1211523
Kuckartz, U., & Rädiker, S. (2022). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse - Methoden, Praxis, Computerunterstützung [Qualitative content analysis - methods, practice, computer support] (5th ed.). Beltz Juventa.
Lillejord, S. & Børte, K. (2016). Partnership in teacher education – a research mapping. European Journal of Teacher Education 39 (5): 550–63. https://doi:10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911.
Postholm, M. B. (2016). Collaboration between teacher educators and schools to enhance development. European Journal of Teacher Education 39 (4): 452–70. https://doi:10.1080/02619768.2016.1225717.
Villiger, C. (2015). Teacher education between theory and practice: discussions on an unresolved issue. In C. Villiger, U. Trautwein (Eds.), Between theory and practice. Demands and possibilities in teacher education; Festschrift for the 65th birthday of Alois Niggli (pp. 9-18). Münster: Waxmann.
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Partnerships As ‘Third Spaces’: Analyzing a Teacher Education Policy Initiative
Andreas Lund, Henning Fjørtoft, Siw Skrøvset, Tine Sophie Prøitz, Tove Margrethe Thommesen
Advisory Council for Teacher Education, Norway
Presenting Author: Lund, Andreas;
Fjørtoft, Henning
Collaborative efforts between higher education institutions and schools/kindergartens have been dominated by academic discourse (Daza, Gudmundsdottir & Lund, 2021). Establishing partnerships between stakeholders in education (see e.g., Coburn & Penuel, 2016; Munthe & Rogne, 2015) is therefore considered an important approach in education. In teacher education for example, the scholarly literature on partnerships is rich; however, some partnership models are less functional in practice (Lillejord & Børte, 2016). Still, how partnerships are constructed and organized is rarely discussed in the literature on partnerships (Daza et al., 2021), and little is currently known about the strategies employed by researchers and practitioners to address problems faced in partnerships (Coburn & Penuel, 2016).
This study explores a Norwegian policy initiative aiming to establish partnerships between teacher education institutions and schools and kindergartens. In 2018, Norwegian policymakers released a national strategy for teacher education and professional development in schools, aiming to improve cooperation between teacher education institutions, school and kindergarten owners, and so-called teacher education schools and teacher education kindergartens (Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research, 2018). The strategy called for research informed partnerships and highlighted the need to conceptualize, operationalize, and maintain such partnerships.
To enact the strategy, the Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research (MoER) appointed two multi-party groups: 1) the National Forum for Teacher Education and Professional Development, consisting of stakeholders from trade unions, teacher education institutions and The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities, and 2) an Advisory Council for Teacher Education 2025 (ACTE 2025). The role of ACTE was to provide the National Forum with a research and experience informed knowledge basis. ACTE functioned as an expert body, providing analyses and recommendations for use in the implementation of the strategy. ACTE’s members represent students, teacher educators, researchers, administrators, and local authorities, as well as policymakers. ACTE 2025’s empirical and analytical work is documented in two reports; one detailing how the knowledge basis for partnerships evolved and one communicating recommendations (Aarre et al., 2020a, 2020b).
Here, we present the ACTE2025’s work on conceptualizing and developing the notion of partnership in teacher education towards recommendations to be implemented. Our study builds on a multi-level approach that involves policy level, institutional and leadership level, and individual perceptions and experiences as they unfold among participants (including agentic students) in partnerships. Drawing on socio-cultural perspectives on epistemic practices and educational development (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978; Wells, 1999; Wertsch, 1998), our study is guided by three research questions:
- How can we conceptualize educational partnerships that go beyond everyday collaboration and address problem areas, dilemmas and transformation in a longitudinal perspective?
- What would such partnerships require from participants and their working contexts?
- What recommendations can be made to operationalize this aspect of teacher education policy?
We conceptualize partnerships as requiring participants to perform acts of boundary crossing (Akkerman & Bakker, 2011) and to co-construct “third spaces” (Daza et al., 2021). Boundary crossing involves overcoming discontinuities in objectives, practices, and perspectives. In partnerships in education, this may involve reaching shared understandings, achieving common goals, or developing more robust communities (Fjørtoft & Sandvik, 2021). A third space perspective acknowledges tensions and multiple perspectives as constitutive of less hegemonic and asymmetric partnerships. We argue that this theoretical perspective has explanatory power when understanding and developing educational partnerships.
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedWe adopted a mixed methods approach (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998) consisting of three phases. This methodological approach made it possible to study both etic and emic dimension of partnerships. The mixed methods approach avoided too severe reduction. The unit of analysis was primarily relational and not the complete and multiple activity systems involved (Lund & Vestøl, 2020).
First, to map the status of partnerships, all 21 teacher education institutions in Norway were contacted by e-mail to respond to a questionnaire with 46 closed and open questions. We also asked for local policy documents describing the organization of the partnerships. 18 institutions responded. Responses reflected a diversity of despatchers, both administrative and academic staff and with a variety of positions, from Dean via practice coordinators to mid-level administrators. Responses also included existing or planned partnership agreements. ACTE 2025 received 22 documents from 12 institutions.
Second, we conducted five dialogue seminars involving 17 representatives from local authorities and 25 leaders from kindergartens and schools. A shared procedure including semi-structured questions for the seminars was developed. The Council was represented by one or two members at each of the five locations. The three-hour seminars partly covered general issues such as experiences concerning rationale for partnerships, equity between partners, and affordances of the partnership, partly more focused issues such as collaboration regarding practice periods for students, R&D, and organizing principles. Thus, the dialogue seminars provided opportunities to pursue findings from the survey as well as resembling focus group interviews providing in-depth and emic data to produce thick descriptions of participant perspectives.
Third, drawing on thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and guided by our research questions, we analyzed the data. We focused on constructing themes related to the conceptualization, operationalization, and maintenance of teacher education partnerships. Based on the themes constructed, we outlined six prototypes reflecting partnerships between teacher education institutions and schools/kindergartens. The prototypes represented different stages in partnership development and different types of teacher education (e.g., vocationally oriented teacher education, teacher education for kindergartens, comprehensive schools).
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsThe findings documented great variety in how partnerships were conceptualized, operationalized, and maintained. Several examples served as models of relevant practice, but remained “pearls without a string”: components without sufficient integration.
Three models amounted to shared perceptions of how partnerships brought about school/kindergarten development; both student mentors, teachers and the institution experienced a boost to professional development and increased educational quality. Students were often integrated in partnerships, not merely as representatives but also as agentic participants influencing teacher education practices. However, collaboration on study designs or programs remained the privilege of teacher education institutions. Also, collaboration on supervising students in the process of writing their bachelor or master’s thesis emerged as a field in need of partnership efforts.
Conceptualizing partnerships in education as third spaces can be used to analyze existing partnerships but also to construct new ones, to examine how participants enact hybrid identities, and how participants may have to part with (perceived) privileges and status. Thus, a third space is no idealized or romantic vision but a framework, a space or an arena for transformation and development. The study questions whether it is possible to create specialized teacher education schools and kindergartens, and discusses how insights and practices from single institutions can be scaled up.
Finally, the project on partnerships resulted in a series of recommendations from the ACTE. These addressed the need for long-term financing, establishing joint arenas for sharing experiences, disseminating and advancing knowledge, and developing supporting material to aid the initiatives and efforts from agents engaging in establishing partnerships.
ReferencesAkkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (2011). Boundary Crossing and Boundary Objects. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 132-169.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Coburn, C. E., & Penuel, W. R. (2016). Research - Practice Partnerships in Education: Outcomes, Dynamics, and Open Questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54. doi:10.3102/0013189X16631750
Daza, V., Gudmundsdottir, G. B., & Lund, A. (2021). Partnerships as third spaces for professional practice in initial teacher education: A scoping review. Teaching and Teacher Education(102). doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103338
Fjørtoft, H., & Sandvik, L. V. (2021). Leveraging situated strategies in research–practice partnerships: Participatory dialogue in a Norwegian school. Studies in Educational Evaluation(70), 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2021-101063
Lillejord, S., & Børte, K. (2016). Partnership in teacher education – a research mapping. European Journal of Teacher Education 39(5), 550-563. doi:doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2016.1252911
Lund, A., & Vestøl, J. M. (2020). An analytical unit of transformative agency: Dynamics and dialectics. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 25, 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lcsi.2020.100390
Munthe, E., & Rogne, M. (2015). Research based teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education, 46, 17-24.
Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research. (2018). Teacher Education 2025. National Strategy for Quality and Cooperation in Teacher Education. Oslo, NO: Norwegian Ministry of Education and Research Retrieved from https://www.regjeringen.no/en/dokumenter/larerutdanningene-2025.-nasjonal-strategi-for-kvalitet-og-samarbeid-i-larerutdanningene/id2555622/
Tashakkori, A., & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed Methodology. Combining Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: the development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic Inquiry. Towards a Sociocultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1998). Mind As Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Aarre, A. K., Bjerkestrand, M., Bjørklund, B. H., Engelsen, K. S., Fjørtoft, H., Larsen, M., . . . Tollefsrud, M. (2020a). Partnerskap for kvalitet i lærerutdanningene: Anbefalinger fra Faglig råd for lærerutdanning 2025. Delrapport 2. [Partnerships for Qality in Teacher Education: Recommendations from the Advisory Board for Teacher Education 2025. Partial report 2.]. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet [Ministry of Education and Research]
Aarre, A. K., Bjerkestrand, M., Bjørklund, B. H., Engelsen, K. S., Fjørtoft, H., Larsen, M., . . . Tollefsrud, M. (2020b). Partnerskap i lærerutdanningene – et kunnskapsgrunnlag. Delrapport 1. [Partnerships in Teacher Education - a knowledge basis. Partial report 1. Oslo: Kunnskapsdepartementet [Ministry of Education and Research]
15. Research Partnerships in Education
Paper
Supporting Elementary Science Teachers for Linguistic Diversity in Luxembourg
Maiza de Albuquerque Trigo
University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg
Presenting Author: de Albuquerque Trigo, Maiza
Multiculturalism and multilingualism enable the co-existence of several ethnolinguistic communities in Luxembourg, due in part to the country’s migration history and trilingual status. However, the resulting multilingual learning contexts do not reflect inclusion yet, as it is still to be perceived that not speaking the language of instruction at home can pose challenges to schooling (Siry, 2017; Loureiro, Hadjar, Scharf, & Grecu, 2019; Wilmes, Siry, Fernández, & Gorges, 2018).
In pre-primary and primary school, Luxembourgish, German and French are introduced in different stages within the system. In pre-primary school (ISCED 0), children are mainly exposed to Luxembourgish, as they are before the stage of knowing how to read and write. However, when children enter primary education (ISCED 1) and start to be alphabetized in German, they already have to learn science in German, highlighting diversity aspects to teachers and students.
As part of an ongoing PhD study, focused elementary teacher Continuous Professional Development for science education, this contribution aims to present data from the development of a workshop focusing on Science and Language as an example of the work done within the SciTeach Center at the University of Luxembourg, an umbrella school-university partnership (consisting of researchers and primary teachers), that aims to support primary science teacher professional development in Luxembourg.
Examining video recordings from team meetings, zooming in (Roth, 2005) into the topic of the Science & Language workshop development, we explore the data to answer these research questions:
- What themes emerge? What unfoldings are bserved?
- What are the inputs for the development of this workshop?
- What challenges emerge? Which ones sustain?
By exploring how the team's existing collaborative structure of reflect-dialogue-act (Wilmes, Heesen, Siry, Kneip, & Heinericy, 2018), we are able to see patterns on the team's dynamics that unfolds different perspectives from the different members of the partnership (see also the work of Guerrero & Reiss, 2020).
Methodology, Methods, Research Instruments or Sources UsedConsidering sociocultural perspectives and using qualitative research approaches to inquiry (Creswell & Poth, 2018), we use participatory research approaches (e.g., Bang & Vossoughi, 2016), as participants of the research include both researchers and collaborating teachers, and critical ethnography (Carspecken, 1996), considering the researcher's notes. By analyzing 11 video recording of team meetings (recorded from January 25th until Aug. 23rd, 2022), focusing on the team's discussion to support the development of the workshop about Science & Language, the analytic memos (Saldaña, 2015) outline several topics (such as school system structures, teamwork, collaboration elements, organization and distribution of the work, translanguaging, interdisciplinarity) that highlight the team collaborative structure reflect-dialogue-act. Layering this data onto the researcher's notes and the team's reflection pieces we use bricolage (Kincheloe, 2001) to retrace and unfold that collaborative structure.
Conclusions, Expected Outcomes or FindingsRecommended by the European Commission (Rocard, 2007) and advocated by the members of the school-university partnership, data unveils the teamwork to support teacher professional development toward inquiry-base primary science education (Bybee, 2014). The work within the partnership unpacks the dimensions of a community of practice (Wenger, 1998/2005), the elements of distributed leadership (Woods, Bennett, Harvey, & Wise, 2004), the use of co- structures and multi- perspectives (based on the work of co-generative dialogues – Tobin, 2006; Tobin & Roth, 2005) and the ways the voices are heard (Tobin, 2007).
We expect to collect more data directly with the workshop participants to note evidence the transfer of skills (Caffarella, 2002; Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006) and claim how school-university partnership can support sustainable teacher professional development.
ReferencesBang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173–193.
Bybee, R. W. (2014). The BSCS 5E instructional model. Science and Children, 51(8), 10-13.
Carspecken, P. F. (1996). Critical ethnography in educational research. Routledge.
Creswell, J., & Poth, C. (2018). Qualitative Inquiry & Research Design (4th Edition). Sage.
Guerrero, G. R., & Reiss, M. J. (2020). Science outside the classroom: exploring opportunities from interdisciplinarity and research–practice partnerships. International Journal of Science Education, 42(9), 1522–1543.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2001). Describing the Bricolage: Conceptualizing a New Rigor in Qualitative Research. Qualitative Inquiry, 7(6), 679–692.
Kirkpatrick, D., & Kirkpatrick, J. (2006). Evaluating training programs: the four levels (3rd ed.). Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Loureiro, K. S., Hadjar, A., Scharf, J., & Grecu, A. (2019). Do students’ language backgrounds explain achievement differences in the Luxembourgish education system? Ethnicities, 19(6), 1202–1228.
Rocard, M. (Chair) (2007). Science Education NOW: A Renewed Pedagogy for the Future of Europe. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
Roth, W-M. (2005). Doing qualitative research: Praxis of method. Sense Publishers.
Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.
Siry, C. (2017). The science curriculum at the elementary level: What are the basics, and are we teaching them? In L. Bryan & K. Tobin (Eds.), 13 Questions: Reframing Education's Conversation: Science (253–266). Peter Lang Publishing.
Tobin, K. (2006). Learning to Teach Through Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialogue. Teaching Education, 17(2), 133–142.
Tobin, K. (2007). Creating and sustaining productive research squads. In S. Ritchie (Ed.), Research collaboration: Relationships and praxis (43–58). Sense Publisher.
Tobin, K., & Roth, W.-M. (2005). Implementing Coteaching and Cogenerative Dialoguing in Urban Science Education. School Science and Mathematics, 105(6), 313–322.
Wenger, E. (1998/2005). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (13th printing). Cambridge University Press.
Wilmes, S. E. D., Heesen, K. te, Siry, C., Kneip, N., & Heinericy, S. (2018). The Role of Critical Reflexivity in the Professional Development of Professional Developers: a Co-Autoethnographic Exploration. Educação, 7(1), 13–24.
Wilmes, S.E.D., Siry, C., Fernández, R. G., & Gorges, A. M. (2018b). Reconstructing Science Education within the Language| Science Relationship: Reflections from Multilingual Contexts. In L. Bryan and K. Tobin (Eds.), 13 Questions: Reframing Education's Conversation: Science (253–266). Peter Lang Publishing.
Woods P., Bennett N., Harvey J., & Wise C. (2004). Variables and dualities in distributed leadership: Findings from a systematic literature review. Educational Management Administration and Leadership, 32(4), 439–457.
|
