Excavating theory in teacher evaluation: Evaluation frameworks as Wengerian boundary objects Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ Manuscript received: 9/2/2019 Facebook: /EPAAA Revisions received: 12/16/2019 Twitter: @epaa_aape Accepted: 2/20/2020 SPECIAL ISSUE Policies and Practices of Promise in Teacher Evaluation education policy analysis archives A peer-reviewed, independent, open access, multilingual journal Arizona State University Volume 28 Number 57 April 13, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Excavating Theory in Teacher Evaluation: Evaluation Frameworks as Wengerian Boundary Objects Kelley M. King University of North Texas United States & Noelle A. Paufler Clemson University United States Citation: King, K. M., & Paufler, N. A. (2020). Excavating theory in teacher evaluation: Evaluation frameworks as Wengerian boundary objects. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(57). https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5020 This article is part of the special issue, Policies and Practices of Promise in Teacher Evaluation, guest edited by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley. Abstract: The purpose of this paper is to begin to excavate the unstated theoretical underpinnings of teacher evaluation systems as they exist in policy and practice and to explicitly consider how these evaluation systems might intersect theoretically with social learning theory. Research suggests that organizational leaders believe growth -based evaluation practices have yet-untapped potential to support teacher learning within teacher communities. However, models of teacher evaluation, as defined in federal and state policy and developed and implemented in practice, rarely make explicit the theoretica l and conceptual frameworks upon which they are based. Further, evaluation models do not http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/ https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.5020 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 57 SPECIAL ISSUE 2 explicitly intersect with the conceptual frameworks for such learning, e.g., communities of practice (CoPs) and social learning theory. Rather, the role of teacher eva luation in social learning within and across educational organizations remains under -theorized. We argue for research examining potential connections in theory and practice between two existing conceptual frameworks: 1) social learning theory and 2) teache r evaluation systems (understood as policy, models, and practices). Keywords: education policy; teacher evaluation; teacher effectiveness; social learning theory; communities of practice Para excavar la teoría en la evaluación docente: Marcos de evaluación como objetos límite de Wenger Resumen: El propósito de este trabajo es comenzar a excavar los fundamentos teóricos no declarados de los sistemas de evaluación docentes tal como existen en la política y la práctica, y considerar explícitamente cómo estos sistemas de evaluación podrían cruzarse teóricamente con la teoría del aprendizaje social. La investigación sugiere que los líderes de las organizaciones creen que las prácticas de evaluación basadas en el crecimiento tienen un potencial aún sin explotar para apoyar el aprendizaje de los docentes dentro de las comunidades de docentes. Sin embargo, los modelos de evaluación docente, tal como se definen en las políticas federales y estatales y se desarrollan e implementan en la práctica, rara vez hacen explícitos los marcos teóricos y conceptuales en los que se basan. Además, los modelos de evaluación no se cruzan explícitamente con los marcos conceptuales para dicho aprendizaje, por ejemplo, las comunidades de práctica (CoP) y la teoría del aprendizaje social. Más bien, el papel de la evaluación docente en el aprendizaje social dentro y entre las organizaciones educativas sigue siendo poco teorizado. Argumentamos a favor de la investigación que examina las conexiones potenciales en teoría y práctica entre dos marcos conceptuales existentes: 1) teoría del aprendizaje social y 2) sistemas de evaluación docente (entendidos como políticas, modelos y prácticas). Palabras clave: política educativa; evaluación docente; efectividad del maestro; teoria de aprendizaje social; comunidades de practica Para escavar a teoria na avaliação de professores: Estruturas de avaliação como objetos de fronteira wengerianos Resumo: O objetivo deste artigo é começar a escavar os fundamentos teóricos não declarados dos sistemas de avaliação de professores, como existem na política e na prática, e considerar explicitamente como esses sistemas de avaliação podem se cruzar teoricamente com a teoria da aprendizagem social. Pesquisas sugerem que os líderes organizacionais acreditam que práticas de avaliação baseadas em crescimento ainda têm um potencial inexplorado para apoiar o aprendizado de professores nas comunidades de professores. No entanto, modelos de avaliação de professores, conforme definidos nas políticas federal e estadual e desenvolvidos e implementados na prática, raramente explicitam os marcos teóricos e conceituais nos quais se baseiam. Além disso, os modelos de avaliação não se cruzam explicitamente com as estruturas conceituais de tal aprendizado, por exemplo, comunidades de prática (CoPs) e teoria da aprendizagem social. Em vez disso, o papel da avaliação de professores na aprendizagem social dentro e entre organizações educacionais permanece sub-teorizado. Argumentamos pela pesquisa que examina possíveis conexões na teoria e na prática entre duas estruturas conceituais existentes: 1) teoria da aprendizagem social e 2) sistemas de avaliação de professores (entendidos como política, modelos e práticas). Evaluation Frameworks as Wengerian Boundary Objects 3 Palavras-chave: política educacional; avaliação de professores; eficácia do professor; Teoria da aprendizagem social; comunidades de prática Introduction In response to an educational accountability movement focused on educator quality, policy focus has shifted to high-stakes teacher evaluation, often based on students’ standardized test scores. Focusing on ensuring teacher competence and providing experiences for professional learning, federal and state policy makers have supported teacher evaluation systems posited to (a) measure teacher effectiveness and (b) support teacher professional learning and growth. Since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015), some states have prescribed a standard view of individual teacher quality across public EC-12 schools and educator preparation programs (EPPs) (Brandon & Derrington, 2019; Burns & Badiali, 2015). The purpose of this paper is to begin to excavate the unstated theoretical underpinnings of teacher evaluation systems as they exist in policy and practice and, specifically to consider how these evaluation systems might intersect theoretically with social learning theory. Social learning theory and associated empirical research support the idea of professional learning broadly as participation in the practices of social communities within and across organizations. This means, as Wenger (2000) notes, “[Organizations] must learn to manage themselves as social learning systems” (p. 244). In current teacher evaluation frameworks, support takes the form of a coaching relationship between individual evaluators and their evaluated. Research suggests organizational leaders believe that these growth-based evaluation practices have yet-untapped potential to support teacher learning within teacher communities (Danielson, 2016; Paufler et al., in press-b. However, the role of teacher evaluation in social learning within and across educational organizations remains under-theorized. Models of teacher evaluation, as defined in federal and state policy and developed and implemented in practice, rarely make explicit the theoretical and conceptual frameworks upon which they are based. Further, evaluation models do not explicitly intersect with the conceptual frameworks for such learning (e.g., communities of practice [CoPs], social learning theory). We argue for research examining potential connections in theory and practice between two existing conceptual frameworks: 1) social learning theory and 2) teacher evaluation systems (understood as policy, models, and practices). Because learning within social relationships is embedded within the recent growth-based models of teacher evaluation and support, a better understanding of the role of evaluation systems in social learning across multiple educational settings (EC-12 and higher education) is needed. Evaluation and Embedded Theory Teacher evaluation frameworks are theory laden. Prior to accountability through evaluation, support via supervision had a long history in schools in the United States, with early literature defining supervision and its practices emerging in the 1920s and 1930s (Ingle & Lindle, 2019; see also Kyte, 1930, 1931). Over time, educational leaders have sought to define and refine practices in supervision (Ingle & Lindle, 2019). More recently developed teacher evaluation systems are organized around an observation rubric (a framework for quality teaching) and a system of practices and activities for evaluators and teachers (the supervision cycle). States vary in terms of how explicitly they denote the theoretical underpinnings of “quality teaching” embedded within their evaluation models (see Grossman, 2011 for historical understanding of the concept of frameworks for teaching). For example, some systems are based upon but do not explicitly cite Danielson’s Framework for Teaching (FFT, 2013; see, for example, the Texas Teacher Evaluation and Support Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 57 SPECIAL ISSUE 4 System, 2019). The systems of practices which comprise evaluation in many states draw on historical models of supervision cycles. For example, Goldhammer’s (1969) five stages of supervision, which include 1) pre-observation conference, 2) observation, 3) analysis and strategy, 4) supervision conference, and 5) post-conference analysis, are used in many states. More recently, as policy has shifted toward teacher evaluation tied to accountability, researchers and policy makers have explored the distinction between supervision and evaluation. Current research documents the tensions inherent in combining supervision and evaluation and raises questions about the possibility of learning in social situations focused on evaluation (Burns & Badiali, 2015; Hazi, 2019). Some research suggests that implementation of evaluation policy in practice (i.e., the use of accountability mechanisms with rewards and sanctions for individual teachers) may actually disincentivize teacher development. For example, the heavy emphasis on technical accuracy needed to measure teacher competence can overshadow the efforts of evaluators to develop teachers’ professional expertise, for example, by leaving little time to effectively coach and mentor teachers (Paufler et al., in press-a), and/or by detracting from a culture of openness and trust (Tschannen-Moran, 2009, 2019). Policy that seeks to support individual and collective teacher growth requires deeper and more explicit consideration of the conditions required for their learning. Social Learning Theory The theoretical work of Senge and Wenger develops conceptions of social learning. Drawing from systems theory, Senge (1994) argues that a learning organization is “constituted by a deep learning cycle,” which involves “the development not just of new capacities, but of fundamental shifts of mind, individually and collectively” (p. 18). When this cycle begins to operate, the resulting changes are significant and enduring” (Senge, 1994, p. 18). Based on Senge’s conception, organizational learning, in this case among teachers in educational settings, can also be understood as a dynamic process. Like Senge, Wenger understands learning to be rooted in social learning systems, which he calls communities of practice (CoPs). For Wenger (2000), knowing “is a matter of displaying competencies defined in social communities” (p. 226). Wenger (1998) argues that conceptualizing learning as a social activity within CoPs has “broad implications for what it takes to understand and support learning” at the individual, community, and organizational levels (p. 7). In Wenger’s (1998) model, individual learning entails engaging in practices of a community, community learning requires refining practice and “ensuring new generations of members,” and organizational learning “is an issue of sustaining the interconnected communities of practice through which an organization knows what it knows and thus becomes effective and valuable as an organization” (pp. 7-8). CoPs are social structures that require varying degrees of organizational support. Communities of Practice What is a community of practice? Wenger’s CoP framework includes three concepts of particular relevance to teacher learning: community of practice, learning in community, and boundaries. Wenger (1998) understands shared practice to be “the source of coherence” (p. 72) with the three critical dimensions of mutual engagement, a joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire. Mutual engagement is a practice that “exists because people a re engaged in actions whose meanings they negotiate with one another” (Wenger, 1998, p. 73). Accordingly, a joint enterprise “is the result of a collective process of negotiation that reflects the full complexity of mutual engagement,” which is defined by participants and extends beyond just a stated goal to create mutual accountability (pp. 77-78). Explaining that CoPs are not self-contained but rather develop in context, Wenger (1998) notes that the CoP enterprise is defined by individual members based on their own position in the broader system. Jointly pursuing an enterprise Evaluation Frameworks as Wengerian Boundary Objects 5 fosters the development of a shared repertoire of resources for negotiating meaning, which “gives coherence for the medley of activities, relations, and objects involved” in the CoP (Wenger, 1998, p. 82). Learning in community. Describing the negotiation of meaning as a temporal process, Wenger (1998) argues that learning in community is a characteristic of practice that takes time to develop. He suggests that CoPs are “shared histories of learning” (p. 86) that combine participation and reification over time. Further, “mutual relationships, a carefully understood enterprise, and a well-honed repertoire are all investments” in which “participants have a stake...because it becomes part of who they are” (Wenger, 1998, p. 97). Accordingly, “practice is an investment in learning” around which a community “will tend to organize itself so that its investment can be brought to bear” (Wenger, 1998, p. 97). In this case, participation in educational processes (e.g., potentially, evaluation) are “effective in fostering learning not just because they are better pedagogical ideas, but more fundamentally because they are ‘epistemologically correct’...[meaning] there is a match between knowing and learning, between the nature of competence and the process by which it is acquired, shared, and extended” (pp. 101-102). Applied to teacher learning and professional development, social learning theory defines a teacher community of practice as “a group of teachers who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussion and decision making, and share and build knowledge with a group identity” (as quoted in Vangrieken et al., 2017, p. 49). Teacher communities (TCs) may be organized as top-down or bottom-up depending on major stakeholders. Supovitz and Christman (2005) argue that to have an impact on teachers, a CoP “has to be directed at teachers' experiences, instructional practice as well as teachers' evaluation [and]...should offer varied learning options for teachers to choose from so that ownership is fostered” (as cited in Vangrieken et al., 2017, p. 50)1. Official support of TCs is vital. Both “top down” influence and “from the side” support can be beneficial, although, top-down TCs are “less in line with the main idea of the community construct focused on the needs and experiences of TC members” (Vangrieken et al., 2017, p. 53). To be beneficial, “the influence of policy makers needs to be perceived as support--enabling the TC’s activity and fostering participants’ initiative--rather than control (p. 53) or “teachers will not contribute to, or believe in, the collective learning” (Vangrieken et al., 2017, p. 59). This suggests that close attention to the perceptions of multiple stakeholders is important to understand the impacts and implications of evaluation policy and practice in specific contexts. Boundary relations. CoPs share both internal and external shared histories and explicit membership markers. Thus, Wenger (1998) suggests that “discontinuities [develop] between those who have been participating and those who have not” (p. 103). While participation and reification can contribute to discontinuities across boundaries, they can also create continuities such that, for example, products of reification (e.g., artifacts) can cross boundaries and enter the practices of other CoPs (Wenger, 1998). These connections occur in two forms: boundary objects and brokering. As defined by Wenger (1998), boundary objects are “artifacts, documents, terms, concepts, and other forms of reification around which communities or practice organize their interconnections” (p. 105). Boundary objects do not necessarily involve participation; they can enable coordination without actually creating a connection between the perspectives and meanings of different CoPs (Wenger, 1998, p. 107). In contrast, brokering refers to the “connections provided by people who can introduce elements of one practice into another” (p. 105). With regards to learning, brokering “also 1 Although CoPs differ from professional learning communities in their theoretical and conceptual origins, they are often indistinguishable in practice, specifically in their “aims, strategies, and concepts with respect to professional learning,” and thus, in practice the terms are used interchangeably (Vangrieken et al., 2017, p. 50). Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 57 SPECIAL ISSUE 6 requires the ability to link practices by facilitating transactions between them, and to cause learning by introducing into a practice elements of another,” which is reliant upon experiences as a member of and through negotiation in multiple CoPs (Wenger, 1998, p. 109). To broker successfully requires “processes of translation, coordination, and alignment between perspectives…[while maintaining] enough legitimacy to influence the development of a practice, mobilize attention, and address conflicting interests” (Wenger, 1998, p. 109). While complex, brokering and the use of boundary objects enables a CoP to relate to the outside such that brokers not only make new connections and enable coordination among communities, they also create possibilities for new meaning (Wenger, 1998). Theorizing Evaluation with Respect to Social Learning Presumably, states’ post-NCLB efforts to standardize teacher evaluation across K-12 and educator preparation aim to establish a common understanding of quality teaching. In this sense, evaluation models can be theorized as the boundary objects around which CoPs, in this case teachers, “can organize their interconnections” (Wenger, 1998, p. 105). Similarly, the concept of “brokering” can be applied to the work of policy makers and educational leaders to describe their attempts to develop systems of evaluation and support across the profession. To date, evaluation policies and practices focus on individual professional practice rather than structures for social learning. Theorizing evaluation with respect to research that maps structures and processes for social learning will enhance the ability of educational organizations to support teachers and their evaluators as individuals and members of CoPs. Research is needed that examines and critiques the ability and desirability of current teacher evaluation policies, models, and practices to function as boundary objects around which CoPs can or should build practitioner identities and common understandings of practice. Research that advances theory through the conceptualization of the relationship between evaluation and social learning should critically examine the potential for teacher evaluation models to coordinate meanings, identities, and practices. To offer a concrete example, we are conducting research that employs social learning theory to better understand what happens when states impose evaluation and support systems with a common definition of teacher quality across multiple settings. This work focuses on social learning in clinical (i.e., student teaching) and in-service (EC-12 school) settings at the individual, team/group, and organizational levels to provide a systems view of the impact of evaluation policy on professional preparation and development. Using a systems approach, empirical findings from this and other related research could enhance the ability of preparation programs or EC-12 schools to serve as learning organizations. Developing empirically supported, theoretical models of the role of evaluation in social learning could support recommendations regarding the kinds of policies and practices that are needed to support learning within and across educational organizations. References Brandon, J., & Derrington, M. L. (2019). Supporting teacher growth and assuring teacher quality. In M. L. Derrington & J. Brandon (Eds.), Differentiated teacher evaluation and professional learning: Policies and practices for promoting career growth (pp. 3-14). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16454-6 Burns, R., & Badiali, B. J. (2015). When supervision is conflated with evaluation: Teacher candidates’ perceptions of their novice supervisor. Action in Teacher Education, 37, 418- 437. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2015.1078757 Evaluation Frameworks as Wengerian Boundary Objects 7 Danielson, C. (2013). The Framework for Teaching Evaluation Instrument . The Danielson Group. Retrieved from http://danielsongroup.org/download/?download=448 Danielson, C. (2016). Creating communities of practice. Educational Leadership, 73(8), 18-23. Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-95, § 129 Stat. 1802. (2015). Goldhammer, R. (1969). Clinical supervision Special methods for the supervision of teachers. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grossman, P. (2011). Framework for teaching practice: A brief history of an idea. Teachers College Record, 113, 2836-2843. Hazi, H. (2019). Coming to understand the wicked problem of teacher evaluation. In S. J. Zepeda & J. A. Ponticell (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of educational supervision (pp. 183-207). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119128304.ch8 Ingle, W. K., & Lindle, J. C. (2019). A policy and politic al history of educational supervision. In S. J. Zepeda & J. A. Ponticell (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of educational supervision (pp. 17- 43). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119128304.ch2 Kyte, G. C. (1930). How to supervise. A guide to educational principles and progressive practices of educational supervision. The Riverside Press. Kyte, G. C. (1931). Problems in school supervision. The Riverside Press. Paufler, N. A., King, K. M., & Zhu, P. (in press-a). Delivering on the promise of support for growth? Evaluator perceptions of a new state teacher evaluation system. Journal of Educational Supervision. Paufler, N. A., King, K. M., & Zhu, P. (in press-b). Promoting professional growth in new teacher evaluation systems: Practitioners’ lived experiences in changing policy contexts. Studies in Educational Evaluation. Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook: Strategies and tools for building a learning organization. Doubleday. T-TESS. (2019). Texas Teacher Evaluation & Support System (T -TESS). Texas Education Agency. Retrieved from https://teachfortexas.org/ Tschannen-Moran, M. (2009). Fostering teacher professionalism in schools: The role of leadership orientation and trust. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(2), 217-247. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X08330501 Tschannen-Moran, M., & Gareis, C. R. (2019). Discretion and trust in professional supervisory practices. In S. J. Zepeda & J. A. Ponticell (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of educational supervision (pp. 209-228). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119128304.ch9 Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development: A systemic review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47- 59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.10.001 Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2000). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7, 225- 246. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F135050840072002 Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 57 SPECIAL ISSUE 8 About the Authors Kelley M. King University of North Texas kelley.king@unt.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1593-1812 Kelley M. King is an Associate Professor of Curriculum and Instruction and Assistant Department Chair for Initial Certification Programs at the University of North Texas. Her research interests include the history and politics of schooling and education reform, with particular focus on the lives of teachers and education for democratic citizenship. Prior to coming to UNT, she worked for ten years as a public school teacher in Texas. Noelle A. Paufler Clemson University npaufle@clemson.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2869-5495 Noelle A. Paufler is an Assistant Professor - P-12 and the Program Coordinator for the Ed.D. in Education Systems Improvement Science at Clemson University. She has experience as a high school social studies teacher, district administrator, and applied researcher in high-need districts and schools. Her research interests include K-12 educational policy, specifically how educational leaders enact accountability policy into practice and its impact on teachers and students. About the Guest Editor Audrey Amrein-Beardsley Arizona State University audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, PhD., is a Professor in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. Her research focuses on the use of value-added models (VAMs) in and across states before and since the passage of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). More specifically, she is conducting validation studies on multiple system components, as well as serving as an expert witness in many legal cases surrounding the (mis)use of VAM-based output. mailto:kelley.king@unt.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1593-1812 mailto:npaufle@clemson.edu https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2869-5495 mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Evaluation Frameworks as Wengerian Boundary Objects 9 SPECIAL ISSUE Policies and Practices of Promise in Teacher Evaluation education policy analysis archives Volume 28 Number 57 April 13, 2020 ISSN 1068-2341 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton Institute and Graduate School of Education at Arizon a State University Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). Please send errata notes to Audrey Amrein-Beardsley at audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Join EPAA’s Facebook community at https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE and Twitter feed @epaa_aape. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ http://www.doaj.org/ mailto:audrey.beardsley@asu.edu https://www.facebook.com/EPAAAAPE Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 57 SPECIAL ISSUE 10 education policy analysis archives editorial board Lead Editor: Audrey Amrein-Beardsley (Arizona State University) Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Associate Editors: Melanie Bertrand, David Carlson, Lauren Harris, Eugene Judson, Mirka Koro-Ljungberg, Daniel Liou, Scott Marley, Molly Ott, Iveta Silova (Arizona State University) Cristina Alfaro San Diego State University Amy Garrett Dikkers University of North Carolina, Wilmington Gloria M. Rodriguez University of California, Davis Gary Anderson New York University Gene V Glass Arizona State University R. Anthony Rolle University of Houston Michael W. Apple University of Wisconsin, Madison Ronald Glass University of California, Santa Cruz A. G. Rud Washington State University Jeff Bale University of Toronto, Canada Jacob P. K. Gross University of Louisville Patricia Sánchez University of University of Texas, San Antonio Aaron Bevenot SUNY Albany Eric M. Haas WestEd Janelle Scott University of California, Berkeley David C. Berliner Arizona State University Julian Vasquez Heilig California State University, Sacramento Jack Schneider University of Massachusetts Lowell Henry Braun Boston College Kimberly Kappler Hewitt University of North Carolina Greensboro Noah Sobe Loyola University Casey Cobb University of Connecticut Aimee Howley Ohio University Nelly P. Stromquist University of Maryland Arnold Danzig San Jose State University Steve Klees University of Maryland Jaekyung Lee SUNY Buffalo Benjamin Superfine University of Illinois, Chicago Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Jessica Nina Lester Indiana University Adai Tefera Virginia Commonwealth University Elizabeth H. DeBray University of Georgia Amanda E. Lewis University of Illinois, Chicago A. Chris Torres Michigan State University David E. DeMatthews University of Texas at Austin Chad R. Lochmiller Indiana University Tina Trujillo University of California, Berkeley Chad d'Entremont Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Federico R. Waitoller University of Illinois, Chicago John Diamond University of Wisconsin, Madison Sarah Lubienski Indiana University Larisa Warhol University of Connecticut Matthew Di Carlo Albert Shanker Institute William J. Mathis University of Colorado, Boulder John Weathers University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Sherman Dorn Arizona State University Michele S. Moses University of Colorado, Boulder Kevin Welner University of Colorado, Boulder Michael J. Dumas University of California, Berkeley Julianne Moss Deakin University, Australia Terrence G. Wiley Center for Applied Linguistics Kathy Escamilla University of Colorado, Boulder Sharon Nichols University of Texas, San Antonio John Willinsky Stanford University Yariv Feniger Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Eric Parsons University of Missouri-Columbia Jennifer R. Wolgemuth University of South Florida Melissa Lynn Freeman Adams State College Amanda U. Potterton University of Kentucky Kyo Yamashiro Claremont Graduate University Rachael Gabriel University of Connecticut Susan L. Robertson Bristol University Miri Yemini Tel Aviv University, Israel Evaluation Frameworks as Wengerian Boundary Objects 11 archivos analíticos de políticas educativas consejo editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editores Asociados: Felicitas Acosta (Universidad Nacional de General Sarmiento), Armando Alcántara Santuario (Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México), Ignacio Barrenechea, Jason Beech ( Universidad de San Andrés), Angelica Buendia, (Metropolitan Autonomous University), Alejandra Falabella (Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile), Carmuca Gómez-Bueno (Universidad de Granada), Veronica Gottau (Universidad Torcuato Di Tella), Carolina Guzmán-Valenzuela (Universidade de Chile), Antonia Lozano-Díaz (University of Almería), Antonio Luzon, (Universidad de Granada), María Teresa Martín Palomo (University of Almería), María Fernández Mellizo- Soto (Universidad Complutense de Madrid), Tiburcio Moreno (Autonomous Metropolitan University-Cuajimalpa Unit), José Luis Ramírez, (Universidad de Sonora), Axel Rivas (Universidad de San Andrés), César Lorenzo Rodríguez Uribe (Universidad Marista de Guadalajara), Maria Veronica Santelices (Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile) Claudio Almonacid Universidad Metropolitana de Ciencias de la Educación, Chile Ana María García de Fanelli Centro de Estudios de Estado y Sociedad (CEDES) CONICET, Argentina Miriam Rodríguez Vargas Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, México Miguel Ángel Arias Ortega Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de México Juan Carlos González Faraco Universidad de Huelva, España José Gregorio Rodríguez Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Colombia Xavier Besalú Costa Universitat de Girona, España María Clemente Linuesa Universidad de Salamanca, España Mario Rueda Beltrán Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Xavier Bonal Sarro Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Jaume Martínez Bonafé Universitat de València, España José Luis San Fabián Maroto Universidad de Oviedo, España Antonio Bolívar Boitia Universidad de Granada, España Alejandro Márquez Jiménez Instituto de Investigaciones sobre la Universidad y la Educación, UNAM, México Jurjo Torres Santomé, Universidad de la Coruña, España José Joaquín Brunner Universidad Diego Portales, Chile María Guadalupe Olivier Tellez, Universidad Pedagógica Nacional, México Yengny Marisol Silva Laya Universidad Iberoamericana, México Damián Canales Sánchez Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación, México Miguel Pereyra Universidad de Granada, España Ernesto Treviño Ronzón Universidad Veracruzana, México Gabriela de la Cruz Flores Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Mónica Pini Universidad Nacional de San Martín, Argentina Ernesto Treviño Villarreal Universidad Diego Portales Santiago, Chile Marco Antonio Delgado Fuentes Universidad Iberoamericana, México Omar Orlando Pulido Chaves Instituto para la Investigación Educativa y el Desarrollo Pedagógico (IDEP) Antoni Verger Planells Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, España Inés Dussel, DIE-CINVESTAV, México José Ignacio Rivas Flores Universidad de Málaga, España Catalina Wainerman Universidad de San Andrés, Argentina Pedro Flores Crespo Universidad Iberoamericana, México Juan Carlos Yáñez Velazco Universidad de Colima, México javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/819') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/820') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/4276') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/1609') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/825') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/797') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/823') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/798') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/555') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/814') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/2703') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/801') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/826') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/802') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/3264') javascript:openRTWindow('http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/about/editorialTeamBio/804') Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 28 No. 57 SPECIAL ISSUE 12 arquivos analíticos de políticas educativas conselho editorial Editor Consultor: Gustavo E. Fischman (Arizona State University) Editoras Associadas: Andréa Barbosa Gouveia (Universidade Federal do Paraná), Kaizo Iwakami Beltrao, (Brazilian School of Public and Private Management - EBAPE/FGVl), Sheizi Calheira de Freitas (Federal University of Bahia), Maria Margarida Machado, (Federal University of Goiás / Universidade Federal de Goiás), Gilberto José Miranda, (Universidade Federal de Uberlândia, Brazil), Marcia Pletsch (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro), Maria Lúcia Rodrigues Muller (Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso e Science), Sandra Regina Sales (Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro) Almerindo Afonso Universidade do Minho Portugal Alexandre Fernandez Vaz Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brasil José Augusto Pacheco Universidade do Minho, Portugal Rosanna Maria Barros Sá Universidade do Algarve Portugal Regina Célia Linhares Hostins Universidade do Vale do Itajaí, Brasil Jane Paiva Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Maria Helena Bonilla Universidade Federal da Bahia Brasil Alfredo Macedo Gomes Universidade Federal de Pernambuco Brasil Paulo Alberto Santos Vieira Universidade do Estado de Mato Grosso, Brasil Rosa Maria Bueno Fischer Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Jefferson Mainardes Universidade Estadual de Ponta Grossa, Brasil Fabiany de Cássia Tavares Silva Universidade Federal do Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil Alice Casimiro Lopes Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Jader Janer Moreira Lopes Universidade Federal Fluminense e Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Brasil António Teodoro Universidade Lusófona Portugal Suzana Feldens Schwertner Centro Universitário Univates Brasil Debora Nunes Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte, Brasil Lílian do Valle Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Geovana Mendonça Lunardi Mendes Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina Alda Junqueira Marin Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, Brasil Alfredo Veiga-Neto Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil Flávia Miller Naethe Motta Universidade Federal Rural do Rio de Janeiro, Brasil Dalila Andrade Oliveira Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, Brasil