Contents

Theoretical Framework.................................................................................................................................2 Supporting Learning through Relationships.............................................................................................4 Practitioners Pedagogical Content Knowledge........................................................................................5 Adult Learning: Constructivist-Developmental Theory...........................................................................6 Constructivist-Developmental Theory Stages......................................................................................8 Principles for Learning and Developing Expertise.................................................................................11 Learning: A Dyad...............................................................................................................................11 Becoming Expert, Self-Authoring, and Explorative...............................................................................13 References...................................................................................................................................................17

Theoretical Framework Teachers are among the most important factors, if not the single most important factor, in educational change, (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2009, p. 152). The complexity inherent to educational change is also reflected in individual practitioners development from novices to experts. There are several factors that compound and stress the challenge of growing as a practitioner. Culture, disciplinary compartmentalization, personal autonomy, reward structures and overall school climate influence both system-wide changes and individual teachers conceptualization and enactment of pedagogy (Fullan, 2005). Cochran-Smith & Lytle (1993) describe: Teachers are not encouraged to talk about classroom failures, ask critical questions, or openly express frustrations. In short, the occupational culture perpetuates the myth that good teachers rarely have questions they cannot answer about their own practices, (p. 87). This complexity deepens when applied to mathematics disciplinary literacy. Not only is there reluctance about discussing instructional practices, math teachers may view literacy professional development as an anomaly, unrelated to their daily work with students or as an extra instructional responsibility to be fulfilled in addition to teaching content (Moje, 2008; Moore, Readance, & Rickelman, 1983; O'Brien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995; Readance, Bean, & Baldwin, 2001). As such, the opportunity to question pedagogical approaches and conceptualize the ways in which literacies inform mathematics teaching and learning are stifled. Whats more, todays students are expected to have an integrated understanding of mathematics concepts and an ability to critically analyze and solve problems. It no longer suffices to guarantee computational and procedural fluencies in mathematics; rather, "if today's students are to compete successfully in the world of tomorrow, they must be able to learn new concepts and skills...[and] need to view mathematics as a tool they can use every day" (NRC, 2002, p. 3). In other words, students are

expected to develop adaptive expertise within mathematics, demonstrating their ability to apply mathematics to novel contexts (see Hatano & Inagaki, 1986). Currently, the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics advocate for eight, interrelated habits of mind which students practice to develop adaptive expertise and deep conceptual understanding. These mathematical practices include the following student behaviors: 1. Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them. 2. Reason abstractly and quantitatively. 3. Construct viable arguments and critique the reasoning of others. 4. Model with mathematics. 5. Use appropriate tools strategically. 6. Attend to precision. 7. Look for and make use of structure. 8. Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning. (CCSSI, 2010) How can teachers be supported and continue to develop as professionals capable of realizing these goals? In what ways can teachers craft instruction, infusing disciplinary literacy, to ensure students engage in these mathematical practices? In this section, I will discuss the theoretical framework for this study. The following graphic depicts the theoretical framework for this narrative case study. Central to this study are teachers descriptions of mathematics literacy professional development. These descriptions are first supported through a pedagogy of relation and shaped by general principles for learning as well as each practitioners pedagogical content knowledge, stage of Kegans (1982, 1994) Constructivist-Developmental theory, and experiences teaching

mathematics incorporating disciplinary literacy pedagogies. Although these are interrelated, I will describe each separately below. AdultLearning: Constructivist Developmental Theory
Progressionthrough "WaysofKnowing"Stages

Principlesfor Learning& Developing Expertise

Acclimation,Competence, Expertise

Practitioners' PedagogicalContent Knowledge

Teachers' Descriptionsof Mathematics Literacy Professional Development

Mathematics Teaching Incorporating DisciplinaryLiteracy

PedagogyofRelation

Supporting Learning through Relationships According to my model, the relationship between learners, facilitators, and content is of utmost importance and influences practitioners learning and narratives. Sidorkin (2002) argues educational reform has missed the mark because the quality of human relationships, the quality of communal experiences in schools, and the power of relationships have been largely ignored. He writes, "once we can perceive relations as a text actions as a context, we can see a very different picture of education. What we do with students is not that important; what sort of relations we build with and among them becomes very important" (p.85). It is through these relations that learning and motivation for learning occurs. Adults require the same quality and depth of relationships that children do, as "the pedagogy of relation begins with the postulate that

learning motivation is mainly a function of relations" (p. 87). Thayer-Bacon (2004) ruminates on this thought: " Education is a studenting- teaching process that involves a teacher and a student (whose roles are fluid, flexible, and often interchangeable) and something that is taught ( the curriculum, the content) in some kind of setting in some manner (the form of instruction, the context)" (p. 165). Continuing, "a relational approach to knowing describes knowers as social beings-in-relation-with-others, not as isolated individuals. As social beings-in-relation-withothers, we must not only focus on relationships, but also ensure that these relationships are caring rather than harmful, oppressive ones" (p. 168). Professional development occurs in social situations, where teachers are engaged in problem-solving with other teachers and explore problems of practice. As a curriculum facilitator, the relationship that I build with teachers as adult learners is imperative to their development of pedagogical content knowledge, progression through Kegans stages, and evolving teaching expertise. Practitioners Pedagogical Content Knowledge Shulman's work (1986) provides a theoretical framework for understanding teacher knowledge with respect to epistemology and pedagogy. This framework involves several layers that include both subject knowledge and pedagogical knowledge. Subject or content knowledge comprises the series, principles, and concepts of a particular discipline. Mathematics teachers should understand the theories grounding algorithms, concepts, and proofs reflected in content standards and those used in the field. In addition to the subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, or knowledge about teaching itself, is an important aspect of teacher knowledge. How teachers construct learning environments and foster inquiry within students rests upon their pedagogical knowledge. This construct has been the focus of most of the research on teaching. What makes teachers effective? How do expert teachers promote active

engagement? Which skills manifest themselves in teachers' classrooms with high levels of academic achievement and interaction? These are some of the research questions surrounding the pedagogy of teaching. In this study, teachers development of pedagogical content knowledge surrounds the construct of mathematics disciplinary literacy. How do practitioners use oral explanations of subject matter knowledge alongside pedagogical approaches to mediate students understanding? What models do they use to make content comprehensible to learners? Often, teachers development of pedagogical content knowledge and conceptualization of teaching practices are cultivated through professional development. What follows is an exploration of Kegans Constructivist-Developmental theory, adapted by Drago-Severson (2009), serving as the linchpin of the theoretical framework. This theory demonstrates teacher development as practitioners progress from novices with little pedagogical content knowledge to experts who seek mastery and engage in deep reflection and self-exploration as they refine their practice. Adult Learning: Constructivist-Developmental Theory To understand how adults describe professional development, we need to understand how learning occurs and the epistemological foundation for learning. Constructivism is a theory of learning that emphasizes active construction of knowledge by individuals (Gunning, 2010), whereby learners integrate new knowledge with existing knowledge. From a constructivist stance, this entails how adults come to understand different concepts, interpret and build meaning as individual learners, and use resources to inform and shape their instructional behaviors. Constructivism, undergirded by individual orientations, resources, beliefs, and motivation, illustrates active meaning-making by adult learners (see Schoenfeld, 2011; Shell et al., 2010). When participating in professional development, teachers bring different beliefs and

experiences that shape how they construct understanding of the topic. Connections to prior knowledge vary and are unique to each individual. Kegan's (1982) Constructivist Developmental theory provides the overarching theoretical perspective and foundation for this research. In particular, this helps us to understand how differences in our behaviors, dispositions, beliefs, and thinking are often related to differences in how we construct our experience. In addition, it helps explain why even as adults we have different needs and capacities for growth. This theory is sensitive enough to uncover individual interpretations of professional development and provide a lens to better understand how teachers describe their learning. There are several distinguishing factors of this theory that support its use in this research. First of all, Constructivist-Developmental Theory focuses on an individual as an active meaning maker of experience, while considering cognitive, affective, interpersonal, and intrapersonal experiences. Mathematics teachers who describe their experiences bring unique backgrounds and actively make sense of professional development. It is important to consider the fit between peoples capacities and the demands made upon them, which may resonate in teachers descriptions and classroom practices. Secondly, this theory centers on adults as learners while providing a set of rich principles to support adult growth in the 21st-century. Models specific to adult learners are essential to understanding how teachers learn and integrate knowledge into classroom practices and existing beliefs, not necessarily what they learn. Finally, this theory asserts strongly that development is not intelligence, thereby approaching learning through a growth rather than fixed mindset (Dweck, 2006). Constructivist-Developmental Theory involves five orders of mind that are qualitatively different systems of thought (Kegan, 1982). Drago-Severson (2009) reconceptualizes these

orders into six ways of knowing that will be the basis of this discussion. These ways of knowing include: incorporative, impulsive, imperial, interpersonal, institutional, and interindividual. The systems of thought rest on the relationship between the self and other or Subject and Object. In Kegan's theory, the self is the Subject as we are embedded in it; we cannot separate the subject from our selves. Kegan asserts that aspects of our meaning construction that are Subject are unseen because they are held internally and unquestioned. These include ones beliefs and assumptions about the world, which could include how a teacher perceives mathematics teaching and learning. The Object, however, can be organized and reflected upon by the self. Kegan (1994) writes, We have object; we are subject (p. 32, emphasis original). Object, in our lives, are those elements of our knowing or organizing that we can reflect on, handle, look at, be responsible for, relate to each other, take control of, internalize, assimilate, or otherwise operate upon (p. 32). In this study, the object is literacy professional development while the self is each teacher participant. How a person comes to know dictates how learning experiences will be taken in, interpreted, managed, implemented, and understood as Objects. It is within this process that Kegans orders of knowing come into focus. As mentioned before, I will utilize DragoSeversons nomenclature for each order as it best reflects practitioners development and the questions pertaining to this study. Constructivist-Developmental Theory Stages The first two stages, incorporative and impulsive, generally occur early on in a person's life. As such, I will focus on the final four stages relative to adults as learners.

Stage4: Stage1: Incorporative Stage2: Impulsive Stage3: Imperial Interpersonal/ Socializing

Stage5: Institutional/ Self Authoring

Stage6: Self Exploration

Stage 3: The imperial self is concerned with self-interests, purposes, and has a need for concrete examples. These adults often ask the question, what is in it for me? These rule-based individuals require learning experiences that offer multiple perspectives that go beyond right and wrong.

Stage 4: The interpersonal or socializing self is otheroriented, feeling responsible for others feelings and holds others responsible for their feelings. This learner centers on whether actions will be perceived positively and often involves seeking approval. This adult learner wants to be recognized as a good worker and feel valued. Drago-Severson (2009) suggests inviting these individuals into leadership roles, noting: As adults, we grow from being responsible for an ideas development or implementation, as well as from different opportunities to assume leadership" (p. 25).

Stage 5: In the institutional, or selfauthoring stage, learners are focused on their own values and seek to uphold their personal integrity, standards, and values. Adults in this stage are concerned with their own competence and performance and view conflict as natural and healthy. This often manifests itself in the form of deep reflection. Adult learners reflect on their multiple roles as instructional leaders, teachers, citizens, and parents and can construct a theory about the relationships.

Stage 6: In the final stage, adults are engaged in deep selfexploration. The learners want to gain insight from others and embrace others thinking to construct their own understanding of concepts.

Kegan's (1994) analysis of the rate of people demonstrating these stages demonstrated that most adult learners will construct meaning using at least two of the systems of thought. However, only 18% of adults in this study demonstrated an institutional or self-authoring system of thought. This seems to indicate that most adults fall within the imperial and interpersonal stages, while some engage in more complex systems of thought. According to Kegan (1994) people tend to engage in the same way of knowing within different roles and across different contexts. In short, teachers may engage in the same making-meaning patterns as adult learners in professional development as they do as parents. Kegan and Lahey's 2001 study, How the Way We Talk Can Change the Way We Work, offers support for Kegans assertion that individuals stay within the same stage. The study supports that change seldom occurs because we do not uncover the hidden assumptions that bolster our fear of change or resistance to change. These hidden assumptions work to sustain our present behaviors rather than embracing new behaviors. This study will investigate how secondary mathematics teachers learn disciplinary literacy practices and dispositions and how they appropriate and describe these practices. Furthermore, it will study the development of teaching expertise in mathematics disciplinary literacy. Do classroom practices change or evolve as a result of professional development? How do teachers describe their learning experiences? Do teachers demonstrate interest in developing new ways of knowing? How is this evidenced? As data are collected, I will investigate patterns in descriptions and ways in which Drago-Seversons adaptation of Kegans orders of mind are evidenced. Adult learning undergirds how teachers come to understand and then incorporate disciplinary literacy

habits of mind in their instruction. These experiences, learning mathematics disciplinary literacy and classroom instruction, flavor the descriptions that teachers provide for literacy professional development. Principles for Learning and Developing Expertise Congruent to Kegans Constructivist-Developmental Theory, the National Research Council's study, How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience and School (2000) highlights three key activities that must occur to ensure a deep understanding of content. These include: (1) identifying preconceptions, (2) relating new factual information to a conceptual framework, and (3) monitoring and assessing learning. The first activity involves bringing to the surface any preconceptions and deals with how an individual's past experiences and prior knowledge influence current learning. It is this understanding from which systems of thought are built. Each developmental movement from one stage to the next rests on some form of philosophical crisis or re-thinking of what has taken place previously to shape that stage of thinking. This is crucial when considering extant research documenting mathematics practitioners resistance to integrating literacy practices (see Dupuis, Askov, & Lee, 1979; OBrien, Stewart, & Moje, 1995). In addition, the six systems of thought are hierarchical, meaning one builds or leads into the next. It does not mean that one is better than another, but the cognitive capacities required at each level increase as complexity increases. Movement between each system or order requires learning, which has can be distinguished as being either informational or transformational. Learning: A Dyad Ravitch (2010) writes, Our current systems of growing teacher professionals are incongruent with the demands of todays classrooms, continued professional development must be at the epicenter of educational reform. Most important, teachers must be well educated and

know their subjects. To impart a love of learning, they should love learning and love teaching what they know, (p. 811). To conceptualize disciplinary literacy, teachers need to continue learning and envision new ways of thinking about their classroom practice and teaching what they know. In this vein, it is important to distinguish between training programs and authentic professional development. Training carries a connotation of "passive assimilation of knowledge and compliance with experts' recommendations" with little ability for teachers to own information or adapt strategies to fit their unique instructional contexts (Duffy, 2005, p. 300). It is informational in nature. In contrast to training models, metacognitive, or transformational, professional development fosters an environment in which teachers actively seek solutions to problems and instructional growth and "mediate the recommendations of experts" (p. 305). Metacognitive professional development practices emphasize conscious, reflective, mindful teaching rather than technical compliance and focuses on how a person comes to understand. DragoSeverson (2009) writes, "with transformational learning, a qualitative shift occurs in how a person actively interprets organizes understands and make sense of his or her experience" (p.11). How do teachers understand and interpret the disciplinary approaches from professional development? How do they describe these approaches over time? What is their efficacy for such approaches relative to their current understanding? Drago-Severson states it is imperative to understand an adults current way of knowing so facilitators can meet learners where they are and ultimately change the structure of a person's meaning-making system. In other words, professional development facilitators should identify whether a teacher is working in an imperial stage or interpersonal stage and adjust instruction to develop teaching expertise. What is expert teaching and how does it align with constructivist-developmental theory? That will be the focus of the following section.

Becoming Expert, Self-Authoring, and Explorative Teaching expertise rests on what teachers believe, know, do, and reflect upon. Caine and Caine (1998) established the concept of mental models, which refers to deeply held beliefs, images, and assumptions about teaching and learning that guide our decision making in the classroom. These models are shaped subconsciously by what Lortie (1975) describes as the apprenticeship of observation, during which students formulate views of how teaching looks and how one carries out a lesson. As Loughran (2006) notes, It is not difficult to see how their understanding of teaching may well be caught up in a search for familiar routines and strategies that they [teachers] experienced as students and howlearning to teach involves simply learning those routines and strategies and applying them to practice (p. 105). In mathematics, teachers must break away from didactic instruction whereby a teacher models a problem, students engage in guided practice of these problems, and then complete independent practice, often in isolation (see Stigler & Hiebert, 2004). Disciplinary literacy and its associated instructional implications, including the Common Core Standards for Mathematical Practice, counter the observed pedagogies many practicing teachers experienced as math students. To transform and reify this pedagogical paradigmatic shift, teachers must engage as adult learners and seekers of expert mathematics teaching. Alexander and Fives (2000) describe the progression of teacher development through the Model of Domain Learning (MDL). The MDL includes three stages, each marked by particular challenges that must be negotiated in myriad ways based on the synergy among cognitive components. During acclimation, teachers are orienting themselves to new, unfamiliar domains. For many, mathematics disciplinary literacy fits within this stage as teachers begin to conceptualize text and literacy in ways that counter existing understandings. Consider the notion

of calculator graphs constituting mathematics text. Teachers acclimate themselves in this new domain of what is text as they begin to shift from novices to experts. The competence stage begins once learners have acquired a foundational basis of knowledge in a domain. Learners knowledge is more cohesive and based on disciplinary principles in this stage. As mentioned previously, developing expertise in a discipline requires a keen understanding of the norms, practices, dispositions, and epistemologies that frame work within that area. This is reflected in a learners progression from acclimation to competence. Once competent, learners engage in deepprocessing strategies to identify problem areas and develop new knowledge relative to what is being learned. It is during this transition that proficiency and growing expertise are evident. Research suggests that experts knowledge is organized around central ideas, allowing conceptual understanding to evolve. This knowledge is conditionalized according to cognitive scientists (Bransford et al., 2000), which manifests itself when experts can specify the contexts under which particular knowledge is useful (Simon, 1980; Glaser, 1992). For example, calculus teachers are able to articulate how to approach problems and the simplest ways of solving them whereas novices may arrive at a correct answer, but utilize copious strategies without recognizing the most efficient methods. Applied to mathematics disciplinary literacy teaching, this involves practitioners being able to recognize how to expertly address the literacies of mathematics without overwhelming the working memory of their students. Math educators must see themselves as disciplinary experts, well-positioned to assist students in negotiating authentic texts, completing challenging problems, and developing patterns of discourse that align with mathematics norms (Draper, 2010). Historically, teachers who attempt to infuse literacy in mathematics grapple with inappropriate strategies that counter disciplinary norms or maligning instruction to meet external

mandates (see OBrien et al., 1995). Because many literacy educators and/or researchers come from a traditional text background (narrative, expository, etc.), literacy strategies have been derived from written text without consideration of alternate texts such as calculator graphs, oral explanations, symbolic representations, and charts (Draper, 2002). As such math teachers have been left to adapt these strategies, with limited understanding and the ability to generate pedagogies to do so (Dynak, 1997). Specific to this study, expertise would manifest itself as teachers would begin to own disciplinary literacy by constructing instructional strategies and models that integrate mathematical communication and pinpointing incongruences between the professional development and mathematics norms. Alexander and Fives (2000) stages of expertise (acclimation, competence, and proficiency) are undergirded by strategic processing. "Strategic processing entails teachers' capacity to respond to an array of instructional problems, to reason critically and creatively about existing social and contextual circumstances," (p. 291). This connects to Shulmans pedagogical content knowledge (1986) and Drago-Seversons adapted self-authoring and self-explorative stages (2009) because of the emphasis on transformational learning and a constructivist lean toward understanding. In summary, teacher development and becoming expert are multifaceted, continuous processes focused on enhancing teaching practices and increasing student achievement relative to teachers beliefs and self-efficacy (e.g. Bandura, 1977; Killion, 2011; Reeves, 2008; Guskey, 2002). Immersing teachers in tasks that require self-regulation and transformation, whereby teachers transform knowledge to fit the local context, are ways in which teachers develop and begin to reach strategic processing (Alexander & Fives, 2000; Duffy, 2005). Collectively,

teachers continue to deepen pedagogical content knowledge, shift toward self-exploration in Kegans stages, and develop expertise.

References Alexander, P.A. (2003).The development of expertise: The journey from accilimation to proficiency. Educational Researcher, 32 (8), 10-14. Alexander, P.A. & Fives, H. (2000). Achieving expertise in teaching reading. In Baker, L., Dreher, M.J., & Guthrie, J.T. (Eds.), Engaging Young Readers: Promoting Achievement through Motivation (pp. 285-308). New York: Guilford Press. Bandura, A. (1977). Social Learning Theory. New York: General Learning Press. Barth, R.S. (2006). Improving relationships within the schoolhouse. Educational Leadership, 63 (6), 8-13. Bransford, J., National Research Council (U.S.)., & National Research Council (U.S.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press. Caine, R., & Caine, G. (1998). Building a bridge between the neurosciences and education: Cautions and possibilities. NAASP Bulletin, 82(598), 1-8. Cochran-Smith, M. and S. Lytle (2009). Inquiry as stance: Practitioner research for the next generation. New York: Teachers College Press. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved August 2, 2012 from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf Drago Severson, E. (2009). Leading adult learning: Supporting adult development in our schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Draper, R. J. (2010). (Re)Imagining Content-Area Literacy Instruction. New York: Teachers College Press. Duffy, G. (2005). Developing metacognitive teachers: Visioning and the experts changing role in teacher education and professional development. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Dupuis, M. M., Askov, E. N., & Lee, J. W. (1979). Changing attitudes toward content area reading: The content area reading project. Journal of Educational Research, 73(2), 66-74. Dweck, C.S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold and R. Glaser,(Eds.), Foundation for a Psychology of Education, (pp. 87-136). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Dynak, J. (1997). Structuring literacy course tasks to foster deliberate use of strategy instruction by preservice math teachers. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,40, 208-286. Fullan, M. (2005). Leadership and sustainability: Systems thinkers in action. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Fullan, M. (2007). Leadership to the fore. In R. Ackerman & S. Mackenzie (Eds.), Uncovering teacher leadership: Essays and voices from the field (pp. 93-106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Glaser, R.(1992) Expert knowledge and processes of thinking. In D.F. Halpern (Ed.) Enhancing Thinking Skills in the Sciences and Mathematics (pp. 63-75). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Gunning, T.G. (2010). Creating literacy instruction for all children (7th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and teaching: Theory and Practice, 18, , 381-391.

Hatano, G. & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two courses of expertise. In H. A. H. Stevenson, & K. Hakuta (Ed.), Child development and education in Japan, New York: Freeman. 262-272. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self: Problems and process in human development. Cambridge, MA: Havard University Press. Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Kegan, R. and Lahey, L. (2001). How the way we talk can change the way we work: Seven languages for transformation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Killion, J. (2011). The changing face of professional development. Phi Delta Kappa International, 6 (5). Loughran, J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching and learning about teaching. London & New York City: Routledge. Moje, E. (2008). Foregrounding the disciplines in secondary literacy teaching and learning: A call for change. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy,52 (2), 96-107. Moore, D.W., Readence, J.E., & Rickelman, R.J. (1983). An historical exploration of content area reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 18(4), 419-438. National Research Council (2002). Helping children learn mathematics. Mathematics Learning Study Committee, J.l Kilpatrick and J. Swafford, Editors, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press

O'Brien, D. G., Stewart, R. A., & Moje, E. B. (1995). Why content literacy is difficult to infuse into the secondary school: Complexities of curriculum, pedagogy, and school culture. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(3), pp. 442-463. Readance, J.E., Bean, T.W. & Baldwin, R.S. (2001). Content area literacy: An integrated approach (7th ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company. Reeves, D.B. (2008). The 90/90/90 schools: A case study. In Accountability in action: A blueprint for learning organizations (pp. 185-208). Advanced Learning Press. Retrieved 8/31/11 from: http://cusd.capousd.org/edusupport/Deptservices/Education%20Division/PLC/90-9090%20school%20research.professional developmentf Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge. Shell, D. F. et al. (2010). The unified learning model: How motivational, cognitive, and neurobiological sciences inform best teaching practices. Dordrecht: Springer. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. Sidorkin, A.M. (2002). Learning relations. New York: Peter Lang. Stigler, J. & J. Hiebert (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the worlds teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press. Thayer-Bacon, B. (2004). Personal and social relations in education. In C. Bingham & A.M. Sidorkin (Eds.) No education without relation. New York: Peter Lang. 165-179.