Equity in K-12 STEM Education: Framing Decisions for the Future (2024)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

9 DEVELOPING TEACHING PRACTICES TOWARD EQUITY Chapters 7 and 8 describe new insights about learning and learners, which, coupled with new approaches to teaching in STEM, can lead to transformed classrooms where equity and justice are centered. However, these new insights and approaches require teachers to become adept at an additional array of instructional practices and to potentially rethink some of their assumptions about learning in the STEM disciplines. To make this shift, teachers themselves will need new kinds of learning opportunities. In this chapter, we describe some of the key competencies that teachers need to develop in order to transform their instruction to be more equitable. We then describe the kinds of learning experiences teachers need across their careers in order to develop these competencies and shift to more equitable teaching practice. We end the chapter with a discussion of systemic issues that also must be addressed in order to advance more equitable instruction and to support teachers learning. We begin with a discussion of some of the specific competencies that teachers need for advancing equity in their classrooms. COMPETENCIES FOR TEACHING TOWARD EQUITY IN STEM The insights about learning reviewed in Chapter 7 and the instructional models described in Chapter 8 represent a departure from traditional conceptions of learning, of learners, and of effective STEM instruction. These shifts mean that teachers will need opportunities to: develop new understandings of how children and youth develop and learn in social and cultural contexts; become familiar with and proficient in new approaches to STEM instruction that center equity; and learn how to create classroom environments that support students’ identity, agency and sense of belonging in STEM. Some specific competencies that are important for teachers to learn include: noticing, critical reflection, and discipline-specific instructional practices that can advance equity and justice. Noticing “Noticing” refers here to the connections between what teachers attend to in the classroom, how they interpret it, and how it informs their instruction. Teachers’ noticing has received significant research attention in the last decade (Jacobs et al., 2010; Mason, 2016; Schack et al., 2017; Sherin et al., 2011). Much of this work has focused on teachers’ noticing of students’ mathematical thinking (Jacobs et al., 2010; van Es & Sherin, 2008). Recently, however, there is a growing body of scholarship on noticing for equity (Erickson, 2011; Louie, 2018; Williams et al., 2020). Scholars studying this form of noticing have highlighted several aspects of classroom interaction that are important to attend to when teaching for equity. For one, teachers who notice for equity attend to the ways that students’ engagement in disciplinary learning is shaped by and shapes how students relate to one another and to the teacher (van Es et al., 2017). For example, teachers “creat[e] individual and collective safety and support by attending and responding to equitable distribution of talk” in the classroom (Williams Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-1 

et al., 2020, p. 509). In addition to paying attention to whole class interactions, noticing for equity demands paying attention to participation patterns in small groupwork that shape access to disciplinary learning (Langer-Osuna, 2011; Patterson, 2019). Louie (2018) argues that a key dimension of noticing for equity involves managing the ways that an emphasis on dominant ideologies (such as canonical, Western ideas in STEM) can position students from non-dominant communities or with low status in the classroom to be seen through a deficit lens, rather than as knowledge builders. Emphasis on dominant ideologies, Louie maintains, can help maintain unequal relationships and reproduce inequalities, often time through use of labels such as “smart” and “talented.” It is not easy, she notes, to notice for equity, because these labels are reinforced by social and cultural processes that shape teachers’ professional vision, just as such processes shape professional in other fields (see Goodwin, 1994). Studies of efforts to promote noticing for equity point to some key conditions for its development. In Louie’s (2018) study, a key aspect of the protocol for reviewing video involved focusing teachers’ attention on finding evidence of what students can do, rather than on students’ problematic ideas or misconceptions. Other studies have shown that educators who paid more attention to inequitable patterns of classroom participation developed more sophisticated conceptions of equity in relation to students’ wider experiences of schooling (Hand, 2012; Wager, 2014). Building on studies that have explored noticing for equity, van Es et al. (2022) propose a framework for multidimensional noticing for equity that brings together research on noticing for equity and research on culturally sustaining mathematics teaching. The framework acknowledges that teachers attend to a wide range of events related to students, disciplinary content, and classrooms interactions, and they notice at different grain sizes—from close listening in a moment, to evaluation of a learner’s developing understanding, to how tracking how relationships among students are developing over time. The framework also includes two dimensions: Stretch and Expanse. Stretch refers to the idea that teachers’ noticing both draws on history and imagines into the future (what the authors call “stretch”). That is “teacher noticing can involve attending to how students’ patterns of individual classroom participation, interpersonal classroom interactions, and the relations of groups of people to mathematics and society change over time” (pg. 117). Stretch also involves imagining what students could become. Expanse refers to the broad range of things that teachers might notice. Using this framework as a lens, van Es et al. (2022) examine the practice of two teachers who were striving to advance equity in their mathematics classrooms. They found that for both teachers, noticing involved a close focus on students’ mathematical thinking as well as zooming out “to other aspects of social interaction taking place in that moment, in the classroom over time, in students’ homes and communities, and in relation to interactions that have taken place historically between different groups of people” (pg. 126). Critical Reflection Fostering reflection as a means to shift teachers’ attitudes, beliefs, and ideas about culture and diversity has often been used in preservice teacher education (Sleeter, 2008). Other strategies include engaging teachers in learning about the history and current experiences of different groups through films, books, and direct encounters (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Few of these approaches have been studied systematically, however, and some scholars have expressed Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-2 

skepticism as to whether they are sufficient to change white teachers’ understandings of culture and reduce deficit thinking about students (e.g., Grant & Agosto, 2008; Liu & Ball, 2019). Needed, argue such scholars, are opportunities for repeated reexamination of assumptions about students’ cultural backgrounds, particularly those that are widely held (Liu & Ball, 2019). Liu (2015) suggests a framework for critical reflection on teaching practice that moves systematically from examining assumptions about learners and learning through taking action to transform teaching in the classroom. This approach provides support for teachers to analyze and critique their assumptions about diverse learners, to examine practices and policies that may be contributing to inequities, and to imagine and implement more equitable practices. Both preservice and in-service educators may benefit from critical reflection (Liu & Ball, 2019). For in-service teachers, it might position them to become leaders of change within their own schools and districts. Disciplinary Instructional Practices Focused on Equity As described in Chapter 7, recognition that learning is social and cultural has shifted assumptions about what effective instruction in STEM looks like away from an emphasis on transmission of knowledge, memorization, and production of correct, canonical answers. As a result, STEM teachers have needed to develop a new repertoire of instructional practices. To help teachers make this shift, scholars in science and mathematics education have focused on identifying a small set of core or high leverage practices that novice teachers can employ to effectively support students’ learning in the discipline. While these core practices allow teachers to develop an effective repertoire of instructional strategies, they are not explicitly designed with a focus on equity and justice. Recognizing this limitation, researchers in both science and mathematics education, have developed frameworks that outline disciplinary specific instructional practices for advancing equity and justice. Leuhmann et al. (2023) undertook a study of preservice science educators to explore how a commitment to social justice (using culturally sustaining pedagogy) might call for a revision of the ambitious science teaching framework. Their analysis of the work of four preservice science educators led them to develop the justice-centered ambitious science teaching framework (JuST) consisting of four core practices that build on the practices in the AST framework (see Figure 9- 1). These include: 1. Planning toward a purpose that is meaningful for youth and centers justice 2. Eliciting local stories and using interpretive power for equity 3. Nurturing revisions of scientific thinking with local and diverse expertise 4. Using science to make a difference and advocate for justice Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-3 

FIGURE 9-1. Justice-centered ambitious science teaching. SOURCE: Luehmann et al., 2023. Similarly, Agarwal and Sengupta-Irving (2019) propose a framework of connective and productive disciplinary engagement (CPDE) that builds on the idea of productive disciplinary engagement advanced by Engle and Conant (2002) and expands it to integrate two themes related to power: epistemic diversity and historicity and identity (see Figure 9-2). Agarwal and Sengupta-Irving write: “Epistemic diversity refers to heterogeneity in knowing and doing a discipline— e.g., perspectives, meanings, practices, values—that are historically and culturally constituted…. Historicity and identity concern being and becoming—a recognition of learners as, simultaneously, persons in the moment and as shaped by social, cultural, and political history over time.” (pg. 3) While there is currently little empirical research using the framework, the authors argue that CDPE, by pressing on the importance of attending to the diversity of what children and youth know, do and express, amplifies the student voice. They suggest that it can be used as an interpretive tool for studies of learning as well as a design framework for learning environments. It may also help teachers who are committed to addressing injustice to refine and deepen their instructional practice. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-4 

Figure 9-2. The four principles of connective and productive disciplinary engagement. SOURCE: Agarwal and Sengupta-Irving (2019) TEACHER LEARNING OVER TIME AND ACROSS CONTEXTS Over the course of their careers, educators can learn continuously and across multiple contexts. Preservice education can provide teachers with a strong start (Davis & Haverly, 2022) and tools for promoting equity (Madkins & Morton, 2021), but these preparation experiences must be complemented by ongoing in-service learning opportunities that help teachers refine and deepen their practice. For educators outside schools, opportunities to learn may be less common and formal, but are nonetheless important for developing a repertoire of dispositions and approaches to teaching STEM that promote equitable instruction (Heimlich et al., 2021). In addition, teacher candidates and teachers in schools can benefit from opportunities to offer learning opportunities to children and youth outside school, for developing their own practice (Dani et al., 2018; Foster et al., 2003), as well as from opportunities to build connections with families and communities (Civil, 2007; Foster, 1993). In this section, we discuss learning opportunities for teachers across their careers that can support them in developing both a better Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-5 

understanding of equity issues related to STEM and competencies for implementing the kinds of pedagogical models described in the previous chapter. Preservice Education In STEM education, there is a growing body of research on practice-focused preservice education. This body of evidence points to the importance of developing multiple forms of knowledge linked to practice—related to subject matter content, to curriculum, and to subject matter knowledge specifically for teaching, sometimes referred to as pedagogical content knowledge (Hill et al., 2008; Mishra & Koehler, 2006; Schwarz & Gwekwerere, 2007; van Driel et al., 2002). Another strand of scholarship on preservice STEM education is focused on developing teachers’ familiarity with and proficiency using a set of “core practices” for supporting students’ disciplinary learning (see section above on disciplinary instructional practices). This teacher development typically happens through co-constructing representations and analyses of practice from classroom artifacts, such as video, instructional materials, and assessments, and using rehearsals to approximate teaching practices (Ball & Forzani, 2011; Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Kazemi et al., 2016; Lampert et al., 2013; Lyon, 2013; Resnick & Kazemi, 2019; Windschitl & Calabrese Barton, 2016; Windschitl et al., 2012). Still other scholarship in preservice education focuses on the importance of coordination between field placement sites and preservice coursework, where there is often a disconnect between what teacher candidates see and what is advocated for in classrooms (e.g., Braaten, 2019; Campbell et al., 2022; Davis & Haverly, 2022). Rehearsals and simulations of teaching practice can be particularly valuable ways for preservice teacher candidates to prepare for teaching. In a rehearsal, a new teacher chooses a part of a lesson or practice to enact in front of peers and teacher educators who are playing the role of students. There is an opportunity for the candidate leading the rehearsal in the teacher role to pause or go back and for any teacher educators to provide feedback to the candidate, helping them revision their goals, actions, and reasons for actions (Davis, Kloser, et al., 2017; Horn, 2010; Lampert et al., 2013). Rehearsals may be especially valuable in supporting teachers in learning to facilitate the kinds of academically productive discussions that are integral to ambitious teaching (Davis, Kloser, et al., 2017; Kloser et al., 2019). In a simulation of teaching, preservice educators prepare for and interact with others related to a specific teaching situation, and then debrief their encounters. Such simulations can focus on teacher-student interactions and adult-adult interactions, and either be face to face or supported by digital media of different kinds, such as video or even an immersive technology environment (Bradley & Kendall, 2014- 2015; Mikeska et al., 2019; Thompson et al., 2019). One challenge with much teacher education is that the role of culture in STEM learning is peripheral within most preservice contexts (Darling-Hammond & Ladson-Billings, 2020; Kozleski & Handy, 2017). Yet there is evidence that preservice teacher candidates’ knowledge and beliefs about culture matter for their abilities to view children through an asset-focused, rather than deficit-focused, lens (Saathoff, 2015) and to value the kinds of teaching depicted in the portraits in Chapter 8 (Johnson & Atwater, 2014). There is also evidence that teachers’ views about culture matter for achievement in STEM (Morrier et al., 2007), because they shape teachers’ expectations of students and their perceptions of the ways of knowing present within student sensemaking (as discussed in Chapter 6). Many student cultures are not represented in STEM preservice education. For example, teacher education has largely excluded Indigenous Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-6 

content from coursework and field experiences (Gorlewski & Tuck, 2018; Spring, 2016). There is a need for preservice educators to engage with the cultural aspects of disciplinary content (Boero & Guala, 2008). It is also critical, when emphasizing core practices, not to ignore that the practices themselves cultural and sociopolitical artifacts (Philip et al., 2019). Calabrese Barton and colleagues (2020) call for a focus on justice-oriented core practices in teacher education that is aimed at disrupting practices that exclude systemically marginalized students from participation in the disciplines, while also supporting social transformation. They illustrate what this means by calling attention to Hand’s (2012) work on teacher noticing in a high school mathematics classroom, where the teacher calls out students’ competence in ways that were aimed at helping shift power hierarchies in the classroom. In addition, they provide examples from their own work in middle school science, which draw on the perspectives of both educators and youth. As an example of how rehearsals can be transformed specifically to address the politics of teaching, Gutiérrez and colleagues (2017) developed and studied a rehearsal called “In My Shoes,” which involves eliciting situations of different kinds where educators were “stopped in their tracks” by something that happened in the classroom. In contrast to rehearsals that focus on providing immediate recommendations for practice or on the teaching of a specific concept, the protocol invites preservice educators to slow down and ask questions to better understand the context, to grapple with some of the tensions in the situation, and to consider how they might advocate for racially minoritized students in the situation. The group of participants in these activities encompassed researchers who identified as Chicana and Black, as well as multiracial cohorts of participants (“scholars”) who developed a sense of familia (family) committed to developing preservice educators’ skill in recognizing and navigating the political dimensions of teaching. Recent scholarship has also explored how rehearsals can support mathematics teacher educators in developing an antiracist pedagogy (Baker & Bitto, 2022). These emphases and corresponding practices in preservice teacher education provide a foundation for candidates to become the teachers who recognize and work to disrupt status quo power dynamics in STEM classrooms. Some research today is also exploring how simulations can be used in preservice education to prepare teacher candidates to become more culturally responsive and engage with ideas about anti-oppressive teaching. For example, Self and Stengel (2020) characterize the goal of one such effort, the SHIFT Project, as preparing “professionals for the relational aspects of their job and work against fundamentally inequitable systems (p. 15). In the simulations, actors play roles in situations that preservice educators do not yet know how to handle, and the focus is on making salient the sociopolitical impact of situations and to help teacher candidates confront their own biases, assumptions and how they might impact students. The “SHIFT Cycle” is embedded deeply within coursework and involves both preparation for and reflection on the simulation encounter, where students are invited to make visible their real thinking and beliefs up front, act authentically in the scenario, and reconsider their ideas in light of video-based reflection on how they interacted with the actor in the encounter. In addition to the previously described approaches, particular kinds of field placements may be valuable for promoting more equity-oriented teaching. For example, Bottoms and colleagues (2015) connected a preservice elementary science methods course to an afterschool program serving Spanish/English dual immersion students and worked to develop instructional practices in working in an environment that supported culturally and linguistically responsive teaching. Having opportunities to plan for instruction in culturally and linguistically diverse Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-7 

contexts can help preservice educators learn to contextualize teaching to such contexts (Tolbert et al., 2019). Models that integrate field placements in afterschool programs with courses on teaching and learning have also shown promise in technology-infused programs for refining preservice candidates’ commitments to and understandings of equity (Jurow & Freeman, 2020; Lizárraga, 2023; Rajala et al., 2022). One such program in a public bilingual program focused on early childhood preservice educators, who examined ways to connect everyday with school science in ways that were culturally relevant (Martínez-Álvarez, 2019). Other projects have explored how to build more equitable relationships with families, by having preservice candidates facilitate family science events (Harlow, 2012). Still others have shown promise in changing preservice teachers’ dispositions toward diversity by combining service learning opportunities with reflective activities (Cooper, 2009). Finally, programs exist that provide educators with a chance to engage in different ways with families in the context of museums (Adams & Gupta, 2017). These types of programs often leverage out-of-school spaces as “pedagogical laboratories” that allow teachers to experiment with pedagogies and invite teachers to adopt different kinds of relationships with students (DiGiacomo & Gutiérrez, 2016; Foster et al., 2003) as well as with lands and waters (Lees, 2016). Formal In-Service Professional Learning Opportunities Over the past two decades, research on in-service professional development in STEM education has grown. While initial studies of federally funded programs in the late 1990s focused on correlates of effective professional development and relied primarily on self-report outcomes (e.g., Desimone et al., 2002; Garet et al., 2001), there have been scores of studies of different program models that have examined impacts on teaching and learning outcomes, as well as richer theoretically-driven accounts of teacher learning in STEM (Horn & Garner, 2022). In a recent meta-analysis, Lynch and colleagues (Lynch et al., 2019) reviewed this body of research. They investigated what impact STEM professional learning interventions had on student achievement gains on both researcher-developed and standardized achievement measures in 95 studies, 77 of which included learning linked to curriculum materials (e.g., learning to teach with, adapt, or design materials). Programs saw stronger outcomes for students when they helped teachers learn to use curriculum materials; focused on improving teachers’ content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and/or understanding of how students learn; incorporated summer workshops; and included teacher meetings to troubleshoot and discuss classroom implementation. There have been significant innovations in pedagogies for professional learning, too, that parallel those in preservice education and, in many cases, have influenced one another’s development. These include the anchoring of professional learning in records and representations of practice, such as examinations of instructional materials, assessments, and examples of student work (Horn & Little, 2010; Little & Horn, 2006). In addition, studies have shown the successful application of cycles of inquiry involving the use of video records of teaching to aid in planning for, enacting, and reflecting on ambitious instruction (e.g., Borko et al., 2015; Sherin & van Es, 2005), which has given rise to a rich literature on teacher noticing and methodology for studying how teachers make sense of classroom interactions and their own teaching moves in disciplinary learning contexts (see Sherin et al., 2011). Studies have shown, too, the power of having teachers design and adapt instructional materials as a way to transform their practice and Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-8 

improve student learning outcomes (e.g., Penuel et al., 2011). Each of these approaches positions teachers as active learners who draw on their prior experiences to make sense of instructional materials, unpacking ideas, and reconstructing lines of activity for their students (Lobato, 2003, 2012; Penuel et al., 2014). As is the case with preservice education, however, there has been far less research examining how to prepare teachers for equity-oriented teaching in STEM (Civil & Andrade, 2002; Gonzalez, Andrade, et al., 2001). Some research with teachers who engaged in using funds of knowledge explored teachers’ own development of their understandings of how to elicit and use valued knowledge and skills from students’ home and communities to organize instruction (Civil & Andrade, 2002; González et al., 2001). More recently, scholars have begun to take up ideas about heterogeneity in learning within a historical perspective on schools, society, and STEM (Sengupta-Irving et al., 2021; Warren et al., 2020). Below, we review some of the examples of emerging work related to the use of video-based reflection, noticing for equity and deepening understanding of culture, curriculum-linked professional learning. Rosebery and colleagues (2016) designed the Practice-Based Inquiry in Science (PBI) project to cultivate early career educators’ own interpretive power (referring to a term in Ball & Cohen, 1999), that is, to help them attune to the ways student ideas could be intellectually generative and engage in practices to encourage, make visible, and intentionally build on students’ ideas. The project involved 28 teachers who participated in a 30-hour seminar co- designed by researchers at Chèche Konnen and the Boston Teacher Residency of the Boston Public Schools, a preparation and induction program for teachers in the district. The program engaged educators in four kinds of learning activities. First, educators got to experience science as learners, rather than as teachers, exploring plant growth by conducting and developing and discussing representations of plant growth and development. As part of that inquiry, teachers explored how different representations of plant life communicate certain assumptions about plants to help them reflect on how they may have encountered or taught such representations in the past. Second, the teachers analyzed videotapes and transcripts of four different cases from classrooms, following a protocol that invited them to notice and become curious about (rather than evaluate) the ideas students were sharing, the perspectives they represented, and the life experiences students appeared to be drawing from. Educators also videotaped and transcribed multiple “discussion experiments” where they tried out new strategies for eliciting, expanding, and building with students’ ideas in their own classrooms. In addition, teachers had a chance to discuss these short clips with other teachers following a protocol. The course also engaged teachers with readings and reflections about how structural inequalities show up in classroom interactions and in teachers’ own daily lives, to help them attune to how their own positionalities and experiences might differ from their students’ (see Box 9-1). Box 9-1 Developing Interpretive Power to See and Value Students’ Ideas in Elementary Science For many years, Ann Rosebery and Beth Warren headed up the Chèche Konnen Center for Science Education Reform for K–8 Language Minority Students. The Center was a laboratory for exploring and developing ideas in collaboration with teachers in science, primarily in Massachusetts. Their approach to the scholarship of teaching has been to engage in joint inquiry into the micro-moments of teaching, to develop a deeper sense of the power of Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-9 

children’s ideas in the context of science investigations and discussions, even when those ideas at first might not seem to the teacher to be productive, and might even seem irrelevant, off-topic, or in opposition to the learning goals the teacher has set. Their commitment to a heterogeneity frame for equity (Equity Frame 3) is grounded in their analyses of classroom discourse, which show time and again how different ideas and children’s different cultural repertoires for sensemaking are fundamental resources for learning science (Rosebery et al., 2010; Warren et al., 2001; Warren et al., 2003). In one example (Warren & Rosbery, 2011; Warren et al., 2020), they consider how a seventh-grade science class invited students to categorize a range of phenomena into “living and non-living.” Jonathan, a Black male student, questioned whether the sun belongs in the category of “non-living things” given its key role in producing life such as a flowering plant. Reasoning with a relational ecology, Jonathan shifted the ground of argument away from the settled binary logic of the activity to an ecological way of seeing the sun as a life-giving force within a complex system (Warren et al., 2020). Jonathan’s question led to vigorous discussion amongst students, and some expressed doubts about previously held certainties (e.g., the sun is not alive). Molly, a white female student, responded by making an analogy to water, suggesting that—like the sun—water is non-living but important to supporting human life. Their teacher, Ms. V., who identified as a foreign-born U.S. citizen of Filipino and European American descent, ratified Molly’s contribution as an explanation of the relationship between the sun and plants. Jonathan experienced Molly’s response and the teacher’s ratification as an attempt to shut down his line of reasoning, arguing that the water-human analogy was not an explanation but the same problem with the same logic he was exploring. Warren et. al. (2020) describe how Jonathan “was thinking from an arguably deeper place than the curriculum, one closer to contemporary scientific thinking (Pierotti, 2011) and one that refused and re-imagined the curriculum’s settled, implicit ontology (i.e., the sun as non-living object) and epistemology (i.e. binary logic)” (p. 288). They also highlight the racial and epistemic hierarchies that were reproduced through the exchange, where the more curricular-aligned thinking of a white female student was elevated over and above the more complex and intellectually generative inquiry of a Black male student. Warren and Roseberry go on to describe how Ms. V. reflected on this moment through engaging with a transcript of the exchange within a supportive community of professional practice. Ms. V came to see how Jonathan’s inquiry was situated within a larger context of meanings and encounters with the sun and its role across various school science experiences, and newly attuned to the ways Molly’s analogy extended rather than explained Jonathan’s concern. She also reflected aloud on her prior assumption that Jonathan was “just being argumentative.” Through such dialogue and shared reflection with classroom data, the “group came to understand how racialized hierarchies and ways of seeing students routinely come into contact with settled onto-epistemic namings and framings, with consequences for individuals and the class as a whole” (Warren et al., 2020, p. 288). Rosebery, Warren, and Tucker-Raymond (2016) define the relationships between expansive readings of learners’ sensemaking and the decisions they guide as interpretive power: “teachers’ attunement to (a) students’ diverse sensemaking repertoires as intellectually generative in science and (b) expansive pedagogical practices that encourage, make visible, and intentionally build on students’ ideas, experiences, and perspectives on scientific phenomena” (p. 1571). Importantly, building systems that cultivate interpretive power requires investing in the supports and time required for educator reflection, and for teachers themselves to engage in robust disciplinary activity in ways that generate resources for sensing the conceptual and ethical Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-10 

layers students may encounter (Gibbons & Cobb, 2017; Kang, 2022; Ko & Krist, 2019; Krist, 2024). The kind of nuanced perspective on white teachers’ identity development offered by Settlage (2011) and his students is similarly reflected in Philip’s (2011) analysis of sensemaking episodes of a teacher, Alan, who taught integrated, untracked mathematics courses for ninth and eleventh graders in a high school in the western United States. Alan was part of a group of teachers engaging in research efforts facilitated by Philip that involved regular reflection on teaching practices and discussions of the wider historical, social, political, and economic contexts of schooling. His identity trajectory became the focus of analysis because the focus of his teacher research showed the greatest change over time. He worked initially from a systemic focus (exploring the differential cost of the Iraq war on people of color communities); he then posed a question that presumed student deficits (why some students fail in school); and finally, he moved toward a focus on classroom and school practices. In each of the episodes Philip analyzes, Alan draws on different pieces of ideology—commonsense and widely-believed axioms about merit, student deficits, students’ obligations at home, as well as fairness and justice—to construct meaning with other teachers, alternately embracing ideologies that would reproduce inequalities and a deficit orientation, and those that offer more expansive possibilities for the Black and Latinx students he serves. In so doing, Philip’s analysis shows how, through interaction with other teachers, ideologies of merit and justice intermingle within a single teacher’s discourse. Several professional development opportunities currently exist that support this kind of self-reflection and learning, including exercises and toolkits that encourage people to explore their identities, examine power and privilege across intersectional lines of identity, uncover their implicit biases, learn about antiracism, and more. For example, the Alliance for Identity- Inclusive Computing Education—led by Nicki Washington and Shaundra Daily among others— provides a fellowship of professional learning for educators, computer scientists, researchers, and leaders nationwide to examine their own biases while learning to foster academic cultures that are more identity-inclusive for non-dominant communities (Daily et al., 2022). The Computer Science Teachers Association developed an Equity Fellows program for computer science teachers in which K–12 educators not only engage in professional development activities focused on examining personal biases and identity, but also lead projects (e.g., developing curricula, programs, etc. in their local contexts) around equity topics salient for their communities (https://csteachers.org/page/aiice). The Computer Science Teachers Association commitment is to provide resources and professional development on topics such as identity-inclusive pedagogical practices for the U.S. computer science education community. A pilot study of the program with 100 participants found that participants showed an increase in knowledge related to topics for identity-inclusive education, as well as an increase in effort and self-efficacy with respect to designing and implementing identity-inclusive initiatives (Daily et al., 2022). Curriculum-linked Professional Learning Research on curriculum-linked professional learning that focuses explicitly on equity and justice is just beginning to emerge within the field. In part, this is because such professional learning requires innovations in both curriculum and professional learning supports. The Learning in Places project, described in Chapter 6, for example, has developed professional learning workshops for educators that engage them with a set of frameworks that help educators Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-11 

understand key principles of the design and support their productive adaptation of the curriculum materials. These include frameworks for Power and Historicity and Nature-Culture Relations; Decision Making in Complex-Ecological Systems; Culture, Families, and Communities; and Field-Based Science Learning (see http://learninginplaces.org/storyline-frameworks/). A key challenge for much curriculum-related professional learning is that it may present contexts that are not compelling to students, because they cannot see connections to their own lives and the priorities of their communities; something raised by Gutstein (2006) in his discussion with students about the limitations of Math in Context. To be effective, professional learning that is justice-focused must allow for teacher agency to adapt and localize instructional materials (Adah Miller et al., 2022). Research suggests that support is productive adaptation requires explicit teaching of models and frameworks such as those in the Learning in Places framework (Learning in Places Collaborative, 2021), or requires opportunities to co-design or co-adapt materials with external partners (Ko & Krist, 2019; Penuel et al., 2017). One curriculum-based professional learning program, Promoting Science among English Language Learners (P-SELL), has been well researched and focused on supporting teachers’ capacities to promote the learning of their emergent multilingual students in science. It is a professional learning program that combined materials with extensive workshops for teachers (Lee et al., 2016). The fifth-grade instructional materials employed several strategies designed to support emergent multilingual learners’ connections to and participation in science; for example, each chapter of the year-long curriculum introduced concepts by connecting them to students’ prior knowledge or to experiences in their home and community contexts, and the science content was presented in multiple modes for students. The materials also embedded educative curriculum supports (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Davis, Palincsar, et al., 2017) throughout to help teachers understand the relationship of activities to standards, support their understanding of the science in lessons, and engage emergent multilingual students in ambitious science learning. The professional learning workshops were of an extended duration—a week in the summer, plus follow up workshops during the year—and signaled to teachers how the goals of the curriculum meshed with local standards. In addition, the workshops engaged teachers as participants in each of the activities of the curriculum, and it provided them with strategies for engaging emergent multilingual learners, including learning science terms in students’ home languages. P-SELL has shown some evidence of success. A cluster-randomized trial found a positive impact of the program on teachers’ knowledge and their practice (Lee et al., 2016). The study also found positive impacts for emergent multilingual learners on a researcher-designed assessment, but not on the state science test (Llosa et al., 2016). Another program, the Exploring Computer Science (ECS) curriculum, involves a minimum of two consecutive summers and quarterly professional developments throughout the school year with cohorts of mixed experience and ability coming together to make sense of the three pillars of the curriculum: equity, inquiry, and computer science. Led by facilitators who are current ECS teachers, the professional development week begins with a deep exploration of the structural inequalities impacting students’ experiences (or lack thereof) with computer science through tracking, racist/sexist stereotypes, socioeconomic differences in access to tools, programs, and educators, etc. that are highlighted in Stuck in the Shallow End (Margolis et al., 2008) and Power On! (Ryoo & Margolis, 2022). At the same time that educators explore these topics and consider how they have seen these issues impact their own communities, they work in collaborative groups to prepare and teach ECS lessons to their colleagues who experience each lesson as a student, followed by reflections on the experience in relation to issues of equity (e.g., Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-12 

how can they adapt the lesson to meet the interests and needs of their Black girls or Latinx boys?), inquiry (e.g., how can the lesson support students in asking their own questions, exploring new topics based on personal interest and curiosity, and support critical thinking?), and CS practices and ideas (e.g., what CS practices or ideas are students learning through this activity?) provided by educators from the more experienced cohort (who have had at least one year’s experience of teaching ECS). These sessions themselves are led by a cohort of facilitators who have had multiple years’ experience teaching ECS and other CS courses. In this way, educators have a community of colleagues with whom they can engage in short-term lesson study, while delving deeper into their own perceptions of equity, project-based learning, and CS content (Ryoo et al., 2015). However, such an approach does not immediately lead to equitable teaching practice. Despite educators’ commitments to wanting to bring equitable computer science to their students in ECS professional developments as well as the course’s explicit attention to issues of race, there are moments in which educators engage in color-evasive language that prioritizes (1) individualistic choice as a cause of inequity while dismissing race as a factor, (2) deflective framing that focuses on gender or socioeconomic status over race, or (3) evasive framing where teachers refuse to acknowledge race, and silence or refusal to engage in conversations focused on race (Goode et al., 2021; Goode et al., 2020). Despite color-evasive discourse and denying of issues of race, educators returning for a second summer of professional development exhibited growth in their views on equity and a greater commitment to speaking directly about issues of race even when newer teachers might resist (Goode et al., 2020). These efforts emphasize the importance of having a community of practice to which educators can return to, with whom they can regularly reflect on experiences seeking to center equity in STEM teaching. They underscore the extended timescales needed to influence ideological and identity-related shifts within educator learning. Collaboration, Participatory Design, and Partnerships As implied in the descriptions and discussions thus far in this chapter, collaborative and participatory design activities can be powerful contexts for preparing educators for equity- oriented teaching in STEM. Participatory design brings together purposefully diverse actors— which may include teachers, youth, family members, community members, researchers, and elders—and carefully facilitated processes that surface and develop participants’ expertise to imagine new possibilities for teaching and learning, as well as more ethical ways that people can relate to one another and to the human and non-human world of lands, waters, air, and non- human organisms (Bang & Vossoughi, 2016; Booker & Goldman, 2016; Gomez et al., 2018; Tzou et al., 2019). In practice, this process of co-design involves educators serving as contributing members of the research team, and researchers participating as co-designers of curriculum and pedagogy (Vossoughi et al., 2013). Supported curriculum design can help develop a broader repertoire of culturally responsive teaching strategies (Brown & Crippen, 2016). Co-design can also work to establish solidarity with families and communities (see Box 9-2), disrupting power dynamics that contribute to their marginalization in efforts to transform schools to be more equitable and just (Ishimaru & Bang, 2022; Philip et al., 2022). In addition, it can help to develop practical design knowledge for creating units that link disciplinary learning goals to interests of students owed an education debt (Penuel et al., 2022) and to help develop Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-13 

more expansive conceptions of what it means to assess disciplinary knowledge (Kang & Furtak, 2021). Box 9-2 The Family Leadership Design Collaborative Family Leadership Design Collaborative (FDLC; https://familydesigncollab.org) created by Ishimaru and Bang is a nationwide network of educators, leaders, family, community members, and scholars that engage in participatory design research through “solidary-driven co-design.” Their process involves ensuring a diverse group of people are brought together to collaboratively identify problems of practice and develop equity-oriented solutions. In a report on lessons learned thus far, the group reflects on leading with “emancipatory relationships” that include “faith and dignity in our relationships with others, social responsibility for our world, participation in the co-construction of knowledge and solidarity across our differences” (Darder, 2015, cited in Alcantara & Geller, 2017). They describe the ways they had to shift usual approaches to research and work to let parents/caregivers guide the conversation around issues of language, and power and think about what it means to address different families’ linguistic support needs across diverse communities (Alcantara & Geller, 2017). Across the nation, the collective has been working on projects such as strengthening Native early childhood education by leveraging family and community expertise (https://familydesigncollab.org/2020/04/23/leveraging-family-and-community-expertise-to- strengthen-native-early-childhood-education/), working with a community group in Greenville, Mississippi to improve early childhood experiences in public education (https://familydesigncollab.org/2019/10/31/accepting-the-challenge-supporting-early-childhood- education-in-greenville-ms/), etc. Efforts such as these can bring educators into larger collaborations that not only afford them opportunities to get to know student families and communities, but also actively collaborate with them to better support youths’ experiences in education while informing their STEM teaching practice. In the physics portrait described in Box 8-2 in Chapter 8, the teachers who gave the assessments to students had been involved in a sustained curriculum co-design effort. Teachers had a chance to first teach a “model unit” that reflected key principles of the team’s approach and commitments to culturally responsive pedagogy (Kang & Nation, 2022). The research team then led a professional development workshop with teachers, in which they scaffolded the development of a unit outline and drafts of the assessment. Teachers worked over several months to collaboratively refine the unit and the assessments, with input and feedback from members of the research team (Kang et al., 2022). More formal collaborations among different kinds of institutions—such as those that occur within research-practice partnerships or social design experiments—afford opportunities for sustained professional learning of educators. In addition to providing contexts for co-design, such collaborations enable mutual learning among partners (including educators) by surfacing multiple points of view, engaging with organizational tensions connected with implementation, building necessary infrastructures to support equity-oriented teaching, and re-mediating relations among different groups and institutions (Manz et al., 2022). Such partnerships can be structured in a way, too, to promote goals like educational sovereignty for Indigenous peoples (Bang et al., 2010). Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-14 

One example of such a partnership in mathematics education was organized around repairing relationships of families and teachers in the context of mathematics. The Parents Rediscovering and Interacting with Math and Engaging Schools (PRIMES) project aimed to bridge out-of-school learning within school math and restore a sense of “epistemic authority” as a basis for supporting parents’ sense of mathematical agency (Goldman & Booker, 2009). This community-based design research project produced “all-way” learning for parents, researchers, and educators. Parents, who co-designed and facilitated workshops on making connections between mathematics and everyday activities in the community, developed a greater sense of authority over mathematics and created an atmosphere for other parents to feel as though they could engage with mathematical ideas taught to their students. Researchers invented strategies that were taken up in subsequent scholarship on families’ mathematical practices (e.g., Esmonde et al., 2012). Teachers, for their part, learned how to connect with parents as co-learners by giving up their authority in the room as “experts” in mathematics and participating alongside families in making connections between everyday activities and mathematics. For another example of educators working alongside parents and caregivers to shift relations of authority for learning and knowing mathematics, see Civil and Bernier (2006). In another partnership in computing, Lachney and colleagues (2019) brought together Black cosmetologists and cosmetology students to design and implement educational computing activities as a form of “generative computing” that depended on educators collaborating closely with community members to link STEM learning with community cultural practices, leading to more meaningful engagement with computer science. Through this project, educators, cosmetologists, and students alike gained an understanding of how they could challenge Eurocentric histories of math and computing, while opening educators’ perceptions of what can and should be done in STEM learning contexts through connections between 3-D modeling, computational thinking, and cornrow braiding. Calderon et al. (2021) describe the value of a partnership focused on land education teacher professional development (LETPD) workshop focused on introducing educators to an Indigenized framework of relationality (Davidson & Davidson, 2018; Smith, 2013) that challenges settler traditions of place or European American notions of place (Seawright, 2014). Educators were invited by a local Coast Salish community leader in Washington state to challenge settler notions of a nature/human divide and learn how non-human relatives (land, water, animals, plants, etc.) are part of communities. This requires beginning from Indigenous starting points in biology, chemistry, ecology, etc. that, in turn, can reframe the motivations and practices of learning itself, with a focus on relationships, responsibility, perpetuation, and resurgence (Calderon et al., 2021). The process in the LETPD workshop required moving beyond simply incorporating an Indigenous ideas or practices “kit” into the current Western curricula. It encouraged teachers to build authentic relationships with land and water beyond the nature/human divide, as well as with tribal partners that involved deep commitment and not simply “getting” something from a professional development and moving on the next day. These relationships were facilitated through interactions with tribal members, as well as opportunities to be on lands where Indigenous peoples are able to exercise their sovereignty. Through professional development programs such as these that support educators in developing a commitment and sense of responsibility to Indigenous peoples, lands, waters, and other relatives, a “bridge” that can be “crossed” can be built and strengthened (Calderon et al., 2021). Specifically, the researchers found that there were instances where the program humanized Indigenous peoples for teachers, Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-15 

helping them better see their Indigenous students and the need for building good relationships with them. For some, it created an ethical imperative to serve their students. Other teachers reported that it broadened their ideas about who, beyond disciplinary experts, can hold knowledge. Learning to Teach in Informal STEM Education There is less systematic attention and investment in equity-focused professional development and learning in informal settings, and even less so with an explicit focus on pedagogy as tied to racial equity (Baldridge, 2020; Vossoughi et al., 2021). Most studies investigating educator learning within informal settings (such as museums) have focused on museums as sites for school teacher learning rather than on professional learning for the museum educators who work there (for examples, see Adams, 2020; Heredia & Yu, 2017). What research does exist suggests that professional learning offerings for educators in afterschool and museum settings related specifically to STEM are limited (Lundh et al., 2013) and not particularly well aligned to what is known about how people learn (Allen & Crowley, 2017; Bevan & Xanthoudaki, 2008). One program for professional learning for afterschool educators that has been studied is the Build IT program, an equity-oriented curriculum co-designed by researchers at SRI International and staff of the Girls Incorporated of Alameda County (Koch et al., 2012). This curriculum’s aim was to foster girls’ interest and skills in design and communication using technology, using an expansive definition of engineering and technology. It was offered to dozens of Girls Inc. clubs around the United States in the late 2000s. To support educators’ growth, initial staff participants were integral members of a co-design process; once the program was fully developed, educators received professional development on how to use the curriculum from staff and researchers who had been involved in the co-design. In addition, educative supports were built into the materials (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Davis, Palincsar, et al., 2017) to help educators learn more about the key concepts about design and information technology. Facilitators from Girls Inc. of Alameda County would go on to provide professional development to staff across the country. Importantly, most of these facilitators were not familiar with computer science concepts when they began the program. An evaluation study found that the staff who implemented the program became more confident in their abilities to troubleshoot technical issues related to programming and in their understanding of key concepts in the curriculum. They began to integrate and teach engineering design processes of defining a problem, brainstorming, sketching, researching, developing, testing, and using a new technology. Many of the teachers took on new leadership roles within their organization beyond preparing other affiliates to implement the program, as well. Bevan and colleagues (2015) developed a set of recommendations for professional learning for out-of-school STEM educators. Their recommendations reflected conversations at a meeting that brought together a wide range of educators and researchers focused on promoting equity in informal learning settings. Among their recommendations were that staff needed opportunities to engage as learners themselves in activities that allowed for a wide range of ways to participate; to reflect on cases to uncover and reflect on deficit- and asset-based views of children; to learn to reframe difficult moments as learning moments; and to lead with story as a pedagogical tool for building learning communities. The group also recommended that staff be given regular opportunities to reflect on teaching, learning, and equity; that professional learning Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-16 

opportunities take an asset view of staff; and that equity should be foregrounded within professional learning opportunities. These recommendations have not been put into place and then studied to examine their feasibility or efficacy, however. STRUCTURES THAT SUPPORT TEACHERS’ LEARNING IN SCHOOLS Nearly fifty years ago, sociologist Dan Lortie (1975) described schools as bearing a historical legacy of being like “egg crates,” with each teacher isolated from the next, and with little opportunity or need to collaborate with other teachers. In fact, teaching can be an isolating profession, with responsibility for what goes on in classrooms borne by individual teachers (Cohen, 2011; Ingersoll, 2003). In addition, in many schools, there is a strong culture of autonomy among teachers, which leads to a reluctance to make public many aspects of teaching that are consequential for student learning (Little, 1990). Yet, studies of schools show teaching is a profoundly social practice that is in part influenced by interactions with peers (Daly, 2010; Hedges & Schneider, 2005; Quintero, 2017). Studies in mathematics education have documented the role that access to expertise—in the form of mentoring and coaching, especially, but also in the context of collaborating with peers— influences teachers’ practice (Horn et al., 2020; Wilhelm et al., 2018) and supports sustainability of reforms after formal professional development activities have concluded (Coburn et al., 2012). Allocation of resources to coaching in mathematics at the district can, in some instances, improve equity of students’ access to ambitious instruction, by creating support resources for teachers who need them (Hopkins et al., 2022). In science education, intentionally designed networks of teachers have proven effective in supporting curriculum implementation and adaptation (Anderson et al., 2018; Penuel et al., 2018), with associated student learning gains (Lin et al., 2022). Informal professional learning networks online (e.g., through Twitter) have been an influential source of advice for teachers in science, as well (Rosenberg et al., 2020). And in computer science education, there have been a number of efforts to establish professional learning networks (Ni et al., 2021), and research has documented how leadership can emerge within them (Reding et al., 2016). Despite their promise, collegial networks do not always contribute to improvements in teaching and learning outcomes. For example, it matters what kinds of representations of practice are available, as well as the representations of learning within workgroups. Horn and colleagues (2015), for example, found that in a large district they studied, many teacher workgroups in mathematics were focused on looking at student achievement data, absent of rich representations of practice that offered few opportunities for teachers to learn from one another’s practice. In addition, other studies have found that looking at student achievement data can actually reinforce teachers’ deficit conceptions of students of color and emergent multilingual learners (Bertrand & Marsh, 2015, 2021). For teacher collaborative work groups and inquiry to support equity, explicit goals for equity are key, as are supports for examining evidence related to how students themselves participate in and perceive the learning environment (Christensen et al., 2022; Raza et al., 2021). Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-17 

Experiences of Educators of Color Another line of scholarship focuses on the experiences of educators from Black, Indigenous, Latinx and other people of color communities. A characteristic of this scholarship is its focus on the conditions such teachers face. For example, drawing on interviews with women of color veteran teachers, Kohli (2019) highlights how teacher education programs fall short in preparing teachers of color for the hostile racial climates of schools, including everyday micro- aggressions, stereotypes and expectations of serving as racial experts (Amos, 2016; Woodson & Pabon, 2016), as well as racially biased definitions and evaluations of teacher quality (Rogers- Ard et al., 2012). A recent review (Young et al., 2022) of the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program, a program designed to prepare people for STEM teaching that includes opportunities for research on pedagogy as part of preservice education, explored its effects on prospective teachers of color. The review found that teachers of color were appreciative of the opportunities the program provided for developing their content knowledge, but students still felt underprepared for their eventual teaching placements. Relevant to teacher identity development, the review found that the program contributed to more positive STEM identity development for candidates of color. Outside STEM education, some scholarship has begun to focus on the importance of creating supportive spaces for BIPOC teachers. This work argues for the need for racial affinity spaces (Pour-Khorshid, 2018; Romero et al., 2022) and critical professional development in supporting the needs of BIPOC teachers (Kohli et al., 2015; Kohli et al., 2021; Martinez et al., 2016). Kohli (2018) defines critical professional development as collectivized teacher-led spaces for racial literacy development that help prepare teachers of color for long, effective and transformative careers. She elaborates: “CPD offers educators agency in their own development and affords space for complex reflections on their role in the reproduction or resistance of inequality, as well as tools to respond to intersectional oppression embedded within institutional policies and practices” (p. 41). An example of such professional development in elementary science is described and investigated in a study by Chen and Mensah (2022). The professional learning within a single school was organized collaboratively with the fourth-grade teachers at the school, the majority of whom were teachers of color. The school served primarily Latinx and Black students. Because of the pressure teachers reported to increase scores on the state science test, the team decided to focus on science investigations that were aligned with the test. The professional learning focused on co-planning sessions with one teacher leader, who also co-facilitated each session. Through a dialogical process, the researchers and the teacher leader iteratively developed materials needed to teach the investigations: lesson plans, slide decks, lab guidelines, and student handouts. During the professional development sessions, teachers got to try out the laboratory investigations, and they also suggested modifications and supplementary materials for the labs. Next, teachers tried out the activities in their classrooms, with coaching and feedback from the research team. The team emphasized teachers were free to adapt the materials to meet their goals for science learning and the needs of their students. After teaching the lessons, the team met together to debrief the implementation and reflect on how it went. One of the focal teacher participants in the study of the professional learning series was Ayanna, who identified as a Black woman and said her love of science and commitment to social justice grew as she participated in the program. She began to see herself as a role model for students of color and could work to foster their interest in science. She began to post images throughout slides in the unit of scientists of color, to help her students see scientists as people Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-18 

who looked like them. The partnership with researchers helped her balance the tensions she felt being positioned as “the science teacher” in the building with her desire to do the best she could for her students of color, who showed a strong interest in science. Over time, she came to embrace the recognition both students and colleagues gave her as the science teacher. She also actively resisted attempts to marginalize science within the school curriculum, finding time to teach science, even when the scheduled time was canceled to help prepare for standardized testing. Ayanna’s trajectory illustrates the possibility of critical professional development to support the development of science teacher identity, as well as to enact forms of teaching they valued for their students of color within a discipline that was not valued within the school. The Challenge of Teacher Turnover As noted in Chapter 4, there are high rates of teacher turnover in the STEM subjects. Turnover adversely impacts efforts to promote equity in STEM in multiple ways. For one, poor working conditions adversely affect continuity in the STEM disciplines. Ingersoll and May (2012) found that annual turnover rates for teachers of mathematics were 2.8 percent in the schools with the best organizational conditions versus nearly 42 percent in schools with the worst organizational conditions. Second, high levels of turnover also make it less likely that investments in professional development will result in consistent learning gains for students, because teachers who leave the profession or change jobs may not be able to apply what they learned in their new roles (Shear & Penuel, 2010). Third, turnover matters for helping diversify the profession of teaching, because in schools with poor working conditions, teachers of color are more likely to leave. Another study by Ingersoll and May (2011) found that turnover rates were 12 percent for teachers of color in the best organizational conditions versus nearly 21 percent in the schools with the worst organizational conditions. On the other hand, white teachers also had annual turnover rates of 12 percent in the best organizational conditions, yet only 15 percent in the worst organizational conditions. Observed processes of racialization in organizations (Ray, 2019) may help explain these differential patterns of turnover. For example, Brown (2019) reported multiple forms of microaggression experienced by Black teachers in schools: the need to prove themselves as capable to fellow colleagues and administrators; the pathologizing of their cultural norms of communication and cultural values, for example, being seen as aggressive rather than assertive; cultural insensitivity that diminished Black teachers’ and students’ heritage; ascription of intelligence, or the persistent devaluation of Black teachers’ intelligence and capacities for teaching to colleagues and parents; and feelings of second-class citizenship in their school communities. Black mathematics teachers report frequent microaggressions toward them, in which their academic ability or intelligence is minimized at their school because of their race; these microaggressions partly explain those teachers’ thoughts of leaving the profession (Frank et al., 2021). Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-19 

TEACHING PRACTICE DEVELOPS WITHIN COMPLEX SYSTEMS Teaching takes place in classrooms, afterschool programs, and other designed settings in ways that are shaped by larger societal projects, political currents and policies, and contests over the purposes of education (Chazan et al., 2016). Teaching practices about what and how to teach are informed by the complex, politicized contexts where teachers do their work (Johnson et al., 2012; Ladd, 2011). Moreover, as discussed in Chapter 3, these contexts are nested within other contexts: classrooms live in schools, which live in districts, which live in states, all of which have their own policies and cultural norms. In short, the normative, cognitive, and regulative dimensions of the institutional environments of educational organizations have a significant impact on teaching, with consequences for the realizing the potential of equity-oriented teaching. In this section, we consider how different components of the education system matter for supporting the work of teachers, focusing specifically on his policy created at the federal and state levels inform teacher preparation and learning. Constraints Created by Standards and Accountability One of the most significant influences on teaching in the past two decades has been the adoption of standards and accountability testing in schools (see Chapter 4 for an in-depth look at the current data on student assessment). Studies consistently show that teachers align the focus of their instruction to address standards, but especially to those standards that appear on standardized tests used for accountability (Au, 2007). However, studies show only modest and widely variable effects on the quality of teaching (Coburn et al., 2016), and only small impacts of such policies on achievement (National Research Council, 2011). There appear to be also several negative, unintended consequences of these policies on teaching practice, including a narrowing of the curriculum (including reduced time for science), increased test preparation, and efforts that focus on “bubble kids” at the middle of the achievement distribution to the exclusion of others (Booher-Jennings, 2005; Diamond & Spillane, 2004; Heiling & Darling-Hammond, 2008; Jacob, 2005; Mintrop & Sunderman, 2009; Neal & Schanzenbach, 2010; Valenzuela, 2004). For equity-oriented teaching, official standards may pose additional challenges. For one, the content of some standards and the motivation behind them may contradict the goals of justice-oriented teaching (Gutstein, 2003; Morales-Doyle et al., 2019). Martin (2015), for instance, has criticized mathematics standards for marginalizing the kinds of critical mathematical literacies that would enable students to understand and change systems designed to advantage white students and marginalize students of color. In another example, critics of the Next Generation Science Standards have pointed out that the standards may name harms caused to the planet by human activity, but they leave corporate and policy actors responsible for those harms unnamed, and that the kinds of engineering solutions envisioned for many problems are technocentric, without considering ethics or human and nonhuman actors’ needs, interests, and rights explicitly (Gunckel & Tolbert, 2018; Morales-Doyle et al., 2019). Because many sets of standards are siloed by discipline and linked to tests that test only by subject, it may be difficult for teachers to take up interdisciplinary phenomena and problems to investigate (Nagle, 2017). Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-20 

In addition, the sheer number of standards that teachers must address likely limits their opportunities to take up local topics related to social justice. Gregson (2013) describes the tension between preparing students for consequential assessments and devoting time to social justice projects. Penuel and colleagues (2022) describe a co-design effort that left a compelling environmental justice problem on the cutting room floor due to poor alignment with standards. In reflecting on their decision and process for developing NGSS-aligned materials, co-design team participants expressed that unless there were more latitude to skip standards, a good balance between the team’s goal of addressing standards and the goal of centering curriculum on students’ interests and their community priorities could not be achieved. In principle, federal, state, or local policies can either support or hinder efforts to promote more equity-oriented teaching (see Chapter 3 for a more in-depth discussion surrounding the impact of policy in STEM education). In some cases, state agencies have built teams and created infrastructures that support a vision for equitable STEM teaching (Wingert et al., 2020). In such instances, organizational contexts of state agencies have become levers to support teacher learning (Allen & Heredia, 2020). What appears to matter most in such instances is a committed, diverse group of leaders who hold a vision for equity, as well as an infrastructure that supports spreading and sustaining change to practice (Wingert et al., 2020). The Role of External Partners Many kinds of partnerships with intermediary organizations and researchers that can potentially support the development of equity-oriented teachers and teaching. For example, collaborations among preservice institutions, K–12 schools, and community organizations are critical in so-called “grow your own” programs designed to help diversify the teaching profession by cultivating pathways from being a K–12 student in a system to a teacher in that system (Villegas & Lucas, 2002). Such collaborations are also integral to efforts to promote right relationships in the context of Indigenous STEM education. In the example presented above by Lees (2016), Lees herself offered curriculum design and granting as a service to her partnering organization. She shared ceremony and engaged in cultural practices with community members and sought multiple forms of guidance from members of the community, as well, in developing her program. The intensity of such collaborations, as well as access to partners, can be challenges for educators and education leaders, but also present a potential benefit for being able to take on ambitious projects to promote equity. Even robust partnerships must contend with tensions that exist within and across levels of organization in educational systems. The inquiryHub, a long-term research-practice partnership for STEM education between the University of Colorado Boulder and the Denver Public Schools, took up variety of projects to support broad and high-quality enactment of new secondary science curriculum materials that were being co-designed by researchers and teachers (Penuel, Allen, Manz, & Heredia, 2022). Some of these efforts involved creating new professional development opportunities for teachers to learn about the curriculum, both in formal workshops and in informal mentoring opportunities led by the district secondary science coordinator. Other efforts were aimed at reducing incoherence in guidance regarding assessment: the team helped build the capacity of teachers and leaders in the district assessment office to develop new kinds of assessments that would signal to teachers the importance of organizing learning around phenomena and problems that were compelling to students and important to Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-21 

their communities. As part of this effort around expanding assessment approaches, the district not only invested its own funds in building the curriculum materials; it invested in teachers’ time and paid them to support these efforts at building and redesigning infrastructure. Organizing the school day differently so that teachers can participate in such activities may be especially important for teaching for equity. Such time can allow teachers to engage in crucial exploration of novel connections between disciplinary learning goals and students’ potential involvement in local justice initiatives, can facilitate justice-focused teaching (Gregson, 2013). Additionally, the inquiryHub partnership also worked to support implementation of the Common Core State Standards in mathematics. As part of this researchers, teachers, and district administrators found their goals differed somewhat, particularly related to how to support teacher agency and emergent bilingual learners (Johnson et al., 2016). Educators, for their part, wanted more scaffolding for such learners, while both researchers and leaders were concerned that some forms of scaffolding might lead to the lowering of the cognitive demands of academic tasks. In their research-practice partnership focused on the design of curriculum, Marshall and colleagues (Marshall et al., 2021) found teachers’ constrained autonomy limited their engagement with materials. They supported collective, productive sensemaking activities to help navigate those tensions. CONCLUSIONS This chapter discusses the importance of the space and time that educators need to implement more equity focused instructional approaches in their classrooms and programs. When educators have the time to think about how their own identities and cultures impact the way they teach, they also can begin to explore how they can change their methods to engage in practices (such as noticing or critical reflection) that can support teaching toward equity. We also discuss how teachers can learn to teach toward equity throughout the course of their career, and how specific approaches to professional development (such as curriculum-linked professional development, or co-designed professional learning opportunities) can be structured, organized, and implemented to support teachers in their efforts. Just as teachers do the work of teaching in a nested system, so too do teachers learn in those same complex environments. Teachers may learn about the work of teaching in different environments or programs, and those environments and programs are regulated and resourced by the schools, districts, and states they are in. Those contexts shape what kinds of teaching is valued, and what kinds of resources are available to support professional learning. As with all other elements of the education system, an actor’s equity frame (or frames) informs the decisions they make in the course of their work. CONCLUSION 9-1: Educators are more likely to implement instructional approaches that advance equity in STEM when they are given the space, time, and support to reflect on culture and their own identities and gain practice with new models of equity-oriented teaching and instructional materials. High-quality professional development can support the development of these practices. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-22 

CONCLUSION 9-2: Educators’ interactions with their colleagues, administrators, mentors, teacher-educators, and the families they serve are a key context where inequities can be reproduced or disrupted and transformed. These patterns can affect the wellbeing and retention of educators of color. CONCLUSION 9-3: There is limited research beyond individual cases to provide evidence of the efficacy of approaches to equity-focused preservice education and in-service professional learning. Very little research focuses on equity-oriented teaching in community settings, as compared to teaching in schools. As demonstrated above, when educators are given the resources, they will work to implement better practices and approaches in their teaching to benefit their students. In the next chapter, we discuss how the curriculum materials used by educators can also move toward more equitable learning in STEM education. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-23 

REFERENCES Adah Miller, E., Makori, H., Akgun, S., Miller, C., Li, T., & Codere, S. (2022). Including teachers in the social justice equation of project‐based learning: A response to Lee & Grapin. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(9), 1726-1732. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21805 Adams, J. D. (2020). Designing frameworks for authentic equity in science teaching and learning: Informal learning environments and teacher education for STEM. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 6(2), 456-479. https://doi.org/10.1163/23641177-bja10016 Adams, J. D., & Gupta, P. (2017). Informal science institutions and learning to teach: An examination of identity, agency, and affordances. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 54(1), 121-138. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21270 Agarwal, P. & Sengupta-Irving, T. (2019) Integrating Power to Advance the Study of Connective and Productive Disciplinary Engagement in Mathematics and Science, Cognition and Instruction, 37:3, 349-366 Alcantara, V., & Geller, J. (2017). Moving from “This Is How It’s Always Been” to “This Is How It Must Be”. Allen, C. D., & Heredia, S. C. (2020). Reframing organizational contexts from barriers to levers for teacher learning in science education reform. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 32(2), 148-166. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2020.1794292 Allen, L. B., & Crowley, K. (2017). From acquisition to inquiry: Supporting informal educators through iterative implementation of practice. In P. Patrick (Ed.), Preparing informal science educators (pp. 87-104). Springer International Publishing. Amos, Y. T. (2016). Voices of teacher candidates of color on white race evasion: ‘I worried about my safety!’. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(8), 1002- 1015. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2016.1174900 Anderson, C. W., de Los Santos, E. X., Bodbyl, S., Covitt, B. A., Edwards, K., Hancock, B., Lin, Q., Penuel, W. R., Thomas, C. M., & Welch, M. (2018). Designing educational systems to support enactment of the Next Generation Science Standards. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 1026-1052. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21484 Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258-267. Baker, C. K., & Bitto, L. E. (2022). Interrogating the tensions of becoming antiracist mathematics teacher educators via critical friendship and rehearsals. Studying Teacher Education, 18(1), 80-97. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425964.2021.1997737 Baldridge, B. J. (2020). The youthwork paradox: A case for studying the complexity of community-based youth work in education research. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 618- 625. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X20937300 Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession (pp. 3-31). Jossey-Bass. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. (2011). Building a common core for learning to teach, and connecting professional learning to practice. American Educator, 35(2), 17-21, 38-39. Ball, A. F., & Ladson-Billings, G. (2020). Educating teachers for the 21st century: Culture, reflection, and learning. In Handbook of the cultural foundations of learning (pp. 387- 403). Routledge. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-24 

Bang, M., Medin, D., Washinawatok, K., & Chapman, S. (2010). Innovations in culturally based science education through partnerships and community. In M. S. Khine & M. I. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers, and collaboration in education (pp. 569-592). Springer. Bang, M., & Vossoughi, S. (2016). Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 173-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1181879 Bertrand, M., & Marsh, J. A. (2015). Teachers’ sensemaking of data and implications for equity. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 861-893. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215599251 Bertrand, M., & Marsh, J. A. (2021). How data-driven reform can drive deficit thinking. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(8), 35-39. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217211013936 Bevan, B., Ryoo, J., & Shea, M. V. (2015). Equity in STEM learning: Professional development needs and strategies. Exploratorium. Bevan, B., & Xanthoudaki, M. (2008). Professional development for museum educators: Unpinning the underpinnings. The Journal of Museum Education, 33(2), 107-119. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40479636 Boero, P., & Guala, E. (2008). Development of mathematical knowledge and beliefs of teacher: The role of cultural analysis of the content to be taught. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), The Handbook of Mathematics Teacher Education (Vol. 1, pp. 223-246). Sense. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231-268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231 Booker, A., & Goldman, S. V. (2016). Participatory design research as a practice for systemic repair: Doing hand-in-hand math research with families. Cognition and Instruction, 34(3), 223-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2016.1179535 Borko, H., Jacobs, J., Koellner, K., & Swackhamer, L. E. (2015). Mathematics professional development: Improving teaching using the problem-solving cycle and leadership preparation models. Teachers College Press. Bottoms, S. I., Ciechanowski, K. M., & Hartman, B. (2015). Learning to teach elementary science through iterative cycles of enactment in culturally and linguistically diverse contexts. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(8), 715-742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-016-9447-6 Braaten, M. (2019). Persistence of the two‐worlds pitfall: Learning to teach within and across settings. Science Education, 103(1), 61-91. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21460 Bradley, E. G., & Kendall, B. (2014-2015). A review of computer simulations in teacher education. Journal of Technology Systems, 43(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.2190/ET.43.1.b Brown, E. (2019). African American teachers’ experiences with racial micro-aggressions. Educational Studies, 55(2), 180-196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2018.1500914 Brown, J. C., & Crippen, K. J. (2016). Designing for culturally responsive science education through professional development. International Journal of Science Education, 38(3), 470-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1136756 Calabrese Barton, A., Tan, E., & Birmingham, D. J. (2020). Rethinking high-leverage practice in justice-oriented ways. Journal of Teacher Education, 7(4), 477-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487119900209 Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-25 

Calderon, D., Lees, A., Swan Waite, R., & Wilson, C. (2021). ‘Crossing the bridge’: land education teacher professional development. Professional Development in Education, 47(2-3), 348-362. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2021.1891957 Campbell, T., Gray, R., Fazio, X., & van Driel, J. H. (2022). Research on secondary science teacher preparation. In J. A. Luft & M. G. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teacher Education (pp. 97-118). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324_9781003098478-1 Chazan, D., Herbst, P., & Clark, L. M. (2016). Research on the teaching of mathematics: A call to theorize the role of society and schooling in mathematics instruction. In C. Bell & D. H. Gitomer (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 1039-1097). American Educational Research Association. Chen, J. L., & Mensah, F. (2022). Toward socially just science teaching through professional development: The science teacher identity development and agency of two elementary Teachers of Color. Science Education, 106(2), 385-411. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21699 Christensen, J., Shah, N., Ortiz, N. A., Stroupe, D., & Reinholz, D. L. (2022). Tracking inequity: An actionable approach to addressing inequities in physics classrooms. The Physics Teacher, 60(6), 414-418. https://doi.org/10.1119/5.0044392 Civil, M. (2007). Building on community knowledge: An avenue to equity in mathematics education. In N. i. S. Nasir & P. Cobb (Eds.), Improving access to mathematics: Diversity and equity in the classroom (pp. 105-117). Teachers College Press. Civil, M., & Andrade, R. (2002). Transitions between home and school mathematics: Rays of hope amidst passing clouds. In G. Abreu & N. C. Presmeg (Eds.), Transitions between contexts of mathematics practices (pp. 149-169). Kluwer. Civil, M., & Bernier, E. (2006). Exploring images of parental participation in mathematics education: Challenges and possibilities. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 8(3), 309- 330. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327833mtl0803_6 Coburn, C. E., Hill, H. C., & Spillane, J. P. (2016). Alignment and accountability in policy design and implementation: The Common Core State Standards and implementation research. Educational Researcher, 45(4), 243-251. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16651080 Coburn, C. E., Russell, J. L., Kaufman, J. H., & Stein, M. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers' advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137-182. https://doi.org/10.1086/667699 Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Harvard University Press. Cooper, C. W. (2009). Performing cultural work in demographically changing schools: Implications for expanding transformative leadership frameworks. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 694-724. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X09341639 Daily, S., Sadler, C., & Washington, A. N. (2022). Work in progress: A novel professional development program for addressing systemic barriers to computing participation. In Proceedings of the ASEE 2022 Annual Conference (pp. 1-13). American Society for Engineering Education. https://peer.asee.org/41414.pdf Daly, A. J. (Ed.). (2010). Social network theory and educational change. Harvard University Press. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-26 

Dani, D. E., Hartman, S. L., & Helfrich, S. R. (2018). Learning to teach science: Elementary teacher candidates facilitate informal STEM events. The New Educator, 14(4), 363-380. https://doi.org/10.1080/1547688x.2017.1356413 Darder, A. (2015). Freire and Education. New York City, NY: Routledge Davidson, S., & Davidson, R. (2018). Potlatch as pedagogy: Learning through ceremony. Portage & Main. Davis, E. A., & Haverly, C. (2022). Well-started beginners: Preparing elementary teachers for rigorous, consequential, just & equitable teaching. In J. A. Luft & M. G. Jones (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Science Teacher Education (pp. 83-96). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324_9781003098478-9 Davis, E. A., Kloser, M., Wells, A., Windschitl, M., Carlson, J., & Marino, J.C. (2017). Teaching the practice of leading sense-making discussions in science: Science teacher educators using rehearsals. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(3), 275-293. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2017.1302729 Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034003003 Davis, E. A., Palincsar, A. S., Smith, P. S., Arias, A. M., & Kademian, S. M. (2017). Educative curriculum materials: Uptake, impact, and implications for research and design. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 293-304. https://doi.org/0.3102/0013189X17727502 Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Garet, M. S., Yoon, K. S., & Birman, B. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers' instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 81-112. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024002081 Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145-1176. DiGiacomo, D., & Gutiérrez, K. D. (2016). Relational equity as a design tool within making and tinkering activities. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 23(2), 141-153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1058398 Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483. Erickson, F. (2011). On noticing teacher noticing. In M. G. Sherin, R. Phillip, & V. R. Jacobs (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes (pp. 17-34). Routledge. Esmonde, I., Blair, K., Goldman, S. V., Martin, L., Jimenez, O., & Pea, R. D. (2012). Math I Am: What we learn from stories that people tell about math in their lives. In B. Bevan, P. Bell, R. Stevens, & A. Razfar (Eds.), LOST opportunities: Learning in out-of-school time (pp. 7-28). Springer. Foster, M. (1993). Educating for competence in community and culture: Exploring the views of exemplary African American teachers. Urban Education, 27(4), 370-394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085993027004004 Foster, M., Lewis, J., & Onafowora, L. (2003). Anthropology, culture, and research on teaching and learning: Applying what we have learned to improve practice. Teachers College Record, 105(2), 261-277. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-27 

Frank, T. J., Powell, M. G., View, J. L., Lee, C., Bradley, J. A., & Williams, A. (2021). Exploring racialized factors to understand why Black mathematics teachers consider leaving the profession. Educational Researcher, 50(6), 381-391. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X21994498 Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L. M., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945. Goldman, S. V., & Booker, A. (2009). Making math a definition of the situation: Families as sites for mathematical practices. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 40(4), 369-387. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1492.2009.01057.x Gomez, K., Kyza, E. A., & Mancevice, N. (2018). Participatory design and the learning sciences. In F. Fischer, C. E. Hmelo-Silver, S. R. Goldman, & P. Reimann (Eds.), International Handbook of the Learning Sciences (pp. 401-409). Routledge. González, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., & Moll, L. (2001). Bridging funds of distributed knowledge: Creating zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 6(1-2), 115-132. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327671espr0601- 2_7 Goode, J., Ivey, A., Johnson, S. R., Ryoo, J. J., & Ong, C. (2021). Rac(e)ing to computer science for all: how teachers talk and learn about equity in professional development. Computer Science Education, 31(3), 374-399. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2020.1804772 Goode, J., Johnson, S. R., & Sundstrom, K. (2020). Disrupting colorblind teacher education in computer science. Professional Development in Education, 46(2), 354-367. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2018.1550102 Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist, 96(3), 606-633. Gorlewski, J., & Tuck, E. (Eds.). (2018). Who decides who becomes a teacher?: Schools of education as sites of resistance. Routledge. Grant, C. A., & Agosto, V. (2008). Teacher capacity and social justice in teacher education. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 175- 200). Routledge. Gregson, S. A. (2013). Negotiating social justice teaching: One full-time teacher's practice viewed from the trenches. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(1), 164- 198. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.44.1.0164 Grossman, P., & McDonald, M. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184-205. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207312906 Gunckel, K. L., & Tolbert, S. (2018). The imperative to move toward a dimension of care in engineering education. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 55(7), 938-961. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21458 Gutiérrez, R., Gerardo, J. M., Vargas, G. E., & Irving, S. E. (2017). Rehearsing for the politics of teaching mathematics. In S. E. Kastberg, A. M. Tyminski, A. E. Lischka, & W. B. Sanchez (Eds.), Building support for scholarly practices in mathematics methods (pp. 149-165). Information Age Press. Gutstein, E. (2006). Reading and Writing the World with Mathematics: Toward a Pedagogy for Social Justice. New York, NY: Routledge. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-28 

Gutstein, E. (2003). Teaching and learning mathematics for social justice in an urban, Latino school. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.2307/30034699 Hand, V. (2012). Seeing culture and power in mathematical learning: Toward a model of equitable instruction. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 80(1-2), 233-247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-012-9387-9 Harlow, D. B. (2012). The excitement and wonder of teaching science: What pre-service teachers learn from facilitating family science night centers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 23(2), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-012-9264-5 Hedges, L. V., & Schneider, B. (Eds.). (2005). The social organization of schooling. Sage. Heiling, J. V., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2008). Accountability Texas style: The progress and learning of urban minority students in a high-stakes testing context. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 75-110. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373708317689 Heimlich, J. E., Morrissey, K., Glass, M. A., Storksdieck, M., Schatz, D., & Hunter, N. (2021). Building an informal STEM learning professional competency framework. New Horizons in Adult Education and Human Resource Development, 33(1), 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1002/nha3.20303 Heredia, S. C., & Yu, J. H. (2017). A matter of choice: Opportunities for informal science institutions to support science teacher induction. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 28(6), 549-565. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2017.1388085 Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Shilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372-400. Hopkins, M., Weddle, H., Riedy, R., Caduff, A., Matsukata, L., & Sweet, T. M. (2022). Critical social network analysis as a method for examining how power mediates improvement efforts. In D. J. Peurach, J. L. Russell, L. Cohen-Vogel, & W. R. Penuel (Eds.), The foundational handbook on improvement research in education (pp. 403-422). Rowman & Littlefield. Horn, I. S. (2010). Teaching replays, teaching rehearsals, and re-visions of practice: Learning from colleagues in a mathematics community. Teachers College Record, 112(1), 225- 259. Horn, I. S., & Garner, B. (2022). Teacher learning of ambitious and equitable mathematics instruction: A sociocultural approach. Routledge. Horn, I. S., Garner, B., Chen, I.-C., & Frank, K. A. (2020). Seeing colleagues as learning resources: The influence of mathematics teacher meetings on advice-seeking social networks. AERA Open, 6(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420914898 Horn, I. S., Kane, B. D., & Wilson, J. (2015). Making sense of student performance data: Data use logics and mathematics teachers' learning opportunities. American Educational Research Journal, 52(2), 208-242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215573773 Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to problems of practice: Routines and resources for professional learning in teachers' workplace interactions. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217. Ingersoll, R. M. (2003). Who controls teachers' work? Power and accountability in America's schools. Harvard University Press. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-29 

Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2011). Recruitment, retention and the minority teacher shortage. #RR-69. Consortium for Policy Research in Education. https://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/226 Ingersoll, R. M., & May, H. (2012). The magnitude, destinations and determinants of mathematics and science teacher turnover. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(4), 434-464. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712454326 Ishimaru, A. M., & Bang, M. (2022). Solidarity driven co-design: Evolving methodologies for expanding engagement with familial and community expertise. In D. J. Peurach, J. L. Russell, L. Cohen-Vogel, & W. R. Penuel (Eds.), The foundational handbook of improvement research in education (pp. 383-402). Rowman & Littlefield. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 761-796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.004 Jacobs, V. R., Lamb, L. L., & Philipp, R. A. (2010). Professional noticing of children's mathematical thinking. Journal for research in mathematics education, 41(2), 169-202. Johnson, N. H., & Atwater, M. M. (2014). The impact of beliefs and actions on the infusion of culturally relevant pedagogy in science teacher education. In M. M. Atwater, M. L. Russell, & M. B. Butler (Eds.), Multicultural science education (pp. 81-102). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7651-7_6 Johnson, R., Severance, S., Penuel, W. R., & Leary, H. A. (2016). Teachers, tasks, and tensions: Lessons from a research-practice partnership. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(2), 169-185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9338-3 Johnson, S. M., Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), 1-39. Jurow, A. S., & Freeman, Q. (2020). Re-mediating designs for equity: Making commitments concrete. Information and Learning Sciences, 121(9/10), 711-728. https://doi.org/10.1108/ILS-01-2020-0003 Kang, H., & Furtak, E. M. (2021). Learning theory, classroom assessment, and equity. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 40(3), 73-82. https://doi.org/10.1111/emip.12423 Kang, H., & Nation, J. M. (2022). Transforming science learning framework: Translating an equity commitment into action through co-design. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560x.2022.2132633 Kang, H., Talafian, H., & Tschida, P. (2022). Expanding opportunities to learn in secondary science classrooms using unconventional forms of classroom assessments. Journal of Research in Science Teaching. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21824 Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Cunard, A., & Turrou, A. C. (2016). Getting inside rehearsals: Insights from teacher educators to support work on complex practice. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(1), 18-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115615191 Kloser, M., Wilsey, M., Madkins, T. C., & Windschitl, M. (2019). Connecting the dots: Secondary science teacher candidates’ uptake of the core practice of facilitating sensemaking discussions from teacher education experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 80, 115-127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2019.01.006 Koch, M., Gorges, T., & Penuel, W. R. (2012). Build IT: Scaling and sustaining an afterschool computer science program for girls. Afterschool Matters(16), 58-66. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-30 

Kohli, R. (2018). Lessons for teacher education: The role of critical professional development in teacher of color retention. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118767645 Kohli, R. (2019). Teachers of color: Resisting racism and reclaiming education. Harvard Education Press. Kohli, R., Picower, B., Nieves Martinez, A., & Ortiz, N. (2015). Critical professional pevelopment: Centering the social justice needs of teachers. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 6(2), 7-24. https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/1057/849 Kohli, R., Pizarro, M., Garcia, L.-G., Kelly, L., Espinoza, M., & Cordova, J. (2021). Critical professional development and the racial justice leadership possibilities of teachers of colour in K-12 schools. Professional Development in Education, 47(1), 89-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2020.1814387 Kozleski, E. B., & Handy, T. (2017). The cultural work of teacher education. Theory into Practice, 56(3), 205-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1336033 Lachney, M., Babbitt, W., Bennett, A., & Eglash, R. (2019). “A Voice to Talk About it”: Cosmetologists as STEM Experts in Educational Technology Design and Implementation. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 22(2), 41-55. https://doi.org/10.2478/eurodl-2019-0009 Ladd, H. F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33, 2. https://doi.org/ 10.3102/0162373711398128 Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard, A., & Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher eEducation, 64(3), 226-243. Langer-Osuna, J. M. (2011). How Brianna became bossy and Kofi came out smart: Understanding the trajectories of identity and engagement for two group leaders in a project-based mathematics classroom. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, 11(3), 207-225. https://doi.org/10.1080/14926156.2011.595881 Learning in Places Collaborative. (2021). Storyline frameworks for educators. Retrieved January 2 from http://learninginplaces.org/frameworks/ Lee, O., Llosa, L., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O'Connor, C., & Van Booven, C. D. (2016). Elementary teachers' science knowledge and instructional practices: Impact of an intervention focused on English language learners. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(4), 579-597. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21314 Lees, A. (2016). Roles of urban Indigenous community members in collaborative field-based teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 67(5), 363-378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487116668018 Lin, Q., Frank, K. A., Bathia, S., Draney, K., Thomas, J., & Anderson, C. W. (2022). Factors affecting students’ learning from a design-based research project in diverse education systems. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 59(5), 808-850. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21745 Little, J. W. (1990). The persistence of privacy: Autonomy and initiative in teachers' professional relations. Teachers College Record, 91, 129-151. Little, J. W., & Horn, I. S. (2006, April). Resources for professional learning in talk about teaching: From 'just talk' to consequential conversation. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-31 

Liu, K. (2015). Critical reflection as a framework for transformative learning in teacher education. Educational review, 67(2), 135-157. Liu, K., & Ball, A. F. (2019). Critical reflection and generativity: Toward a framework of transformative teacher education for diverse learners. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 68-105. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18822806 Lizárraga, J. R. (2023). Cyborg sociopolitical reconfigurations: Designing for speculative fabulation in learning. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2154159 Llosa, L., Lee, O., Jiang, F., Haas, A., O’Connor, C., Van Booven, C. D., & Kieffer, M. J. (2016). Impact of a large-scale science intervention focused on English Language Learners. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 395-424. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216637348 Lobato, J. (2003). How design experiments can inform a rethinking of transfer and vice versa. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 17-20. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press. Louie, N. (2018). Culture and ideology in mathematics teacher noticing. Educational Studies of Mathematics, 97, 55-69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-017-9775-2 Luehmann, A., Zhang, Y., Boyle, H., Tulbert, E., Merliss, G., & Sullivan, K. (2023). Toward a justice-centered ambitious teaching framework: Shaping ambitious science teaching to be culturally sustaining and productive in a rural context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 61(2), 319–357. Lundh, P., House, A., Means, B., & Harris, C. J. (2013). Learning from science: Case studies of science offerings in afterschool programs. Afterschool Matters, 18, 33-41. Lynch, K., Hill, H. C., Gonzalez, K. E., & Pollard, C. (2019). Strengthening the research base that informs STEM instructional improvement efforts: A meta-analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 260-293. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719849044 Lyon, E. G. (2013). What about language while equitably assessing science?: Case studies of preservice teachers' evolving expertise. Teaching and Teacher Education, 32, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.12.006 Madkins, T. C., & Morton, K. (2021). Disrupting Anti-Blackness with young learners in STEM: strategies for elementary science and mathematics teacher education. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 21(2), 239-256. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42330-021-00159-1 Manz, E., Heredia, S. C., Allen, C. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2022). Learning in and through researcher-teacher collaboration. In G. Jones, J. A. Luft, & T. R. Tretter (Eds.), Handbook of Science Teacher Education (pp. 452-464). Routledge. Margolis, J., Estrella, R., Goode, J., Jellison Holme, J., & Nao, K. (2008). Stuck in the shallow end: Education, race, and computing. MIT Press. Marshall, S. L., Nazar, C. R., Ibourk, A., & McElhaney, K. (2021). The role of collective sensemaking and science curriculum development within a research–practice partnership. Science Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21676 Martin, D. B. (2015). The collective Black and “principles to actions”. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 8(1), 17-23. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-32 

Martinez, A. N., Valdez, C., & Cariaga, S. (2016). Solidarity with the people: Organizing to disrupt teacher alienation. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(3), 300-313. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2016.1194104 Martínez-Álvarez, P. (2019). What counts as science? Expansive learning actions for teaching and learning science with bilingual children. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14(4), 799-837. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09909-y Mason, J. (2016). Rising above a cause-and-effect stance in mathematics education research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19(4), 297-300. Mikeska, J. N., Howell, H., & Straub, C. (2019). Using performance tasks within simulated environments to assess teachers’ ability to engage in Coordinated, Accumulated, and Dynamic (CAD) competencies. International Journal of Testing, 19(2), 128-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/15305058.2018.1551223 Mintrop, H., & Sunderman, G. L. (2009). Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability from school improvement—And why we may retain it anyway. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 353-364. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339055 Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00684 Morales-Doyle, D., Price, T. C., & Chappell, M. J. (2019). Chemicals are contaminants, too: Teaching appreciation and critique of science in the era of Next Generation Science Standards. Science Education, 103(6), 1347-1388. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21546 Morrier, M. J., Irving, M. A., Dandy, E., Dmitriyev, G., & Ukeje, I. C. (2007). Teaching and learning within and across cultures: Educator requirements across the United States. Multicultural Education, 14(3), 32-40. Nagle, B. (2017). Preparing high school students for the interdisciplinary nature of modern biology. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12(2), 144-147. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.13- 03-0047 National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability. National Academies Press. Neal, D. A., & Schanzenbach, D. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test- based accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263-283. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest.2010.12318 Ni, L., Bausch, G., & Benjamin, R. (2021). Computer science teacher professional development and professional learning communities: a review of the research literature. Computer Science Education, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2021.1993666 Patterson, A. (2019). Equity in groupwork: the social process of creating justice in a science classroom. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 14, 361-381. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-019-09918-x Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Henson, K., Campanella, M., Patton, R., Rademaker, K., Reed, W., Watkins, D. A., Wingert, K., Reiser, B. J., & Zivic, A. (2022). Learning practical design knowledge through co-designing storyline science curriculum units. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 148-170. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2010207 Penuel, W. R., Allen, C. D., Manz, E., & Heredia, S. C. (2022). Design-Based Implementation Research as an approach to studying teacher learning in research-practice partnerships focused on equity. In A. C. Superfine, S. Goldman, & M.-L. M. Ko (Eds.), Teacher Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-33 

learning in changing contexts: Perspectives from the learning sciences (pp. 217-237). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003097112-15 Penuel, W. R., de Los Santos, E. X., Lin, Q., Marshall, S., Anderson, C. W., & Frank, K. A. (2018). Building networks to support effective use of science curriculum materials in the Carbon TIME project. In S. A. Yoon & K. Baker-Doyle (Eds.), Networked by design: Interventions for teachers to develop social capital (pp. 196-214). Routledge Press. Penuel, W. R., DeBarger, A. H., Boscardin, C. K., Moorthy, S., Beauvineau, Y., Kennedy, C., & Allison, K. (2017). Investigating science curriculum adaptation as a strategy to improve teaching and learning. Science Education, 101(1), 66-98. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21249 Penuel, W. R., Gallagher, L. P., & Moorthy, S. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in Earth science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996-1025. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410864 Penuel, W. R., Phillips, R. A., & Harris, C. J. (2014). Analysing curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 751-777. Philip, T. M. (2011). An "ideology in pieces" approach to studying change in teachers' sensemaking about race, racism, and racial justice. Cognition and Instruction, 29(3), 297- 329. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2011.583369 Philip, T. M., Pham, J. H., Scott, M., & Cortez, A. (2022). Intentionally addressing nested systems of power in schooling through teacher solidarity co-design. Cognition and Instruction, 40(1), 55-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2021.2010208 Philip, T. M., Souto-Manning, M., Anderson, L., Horn, I. S., Carter Andrews, D. J., Stillman, J., & Varghese, M. (2019). Making justice peripheral by constructing practice as ‘core’: How the increasing prominence of core practices challenges teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 70(3), 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487118798324 Pierotti, R. (2011). Indigenous knowledge, ecology, and evolutionary biology. Routledge. Pour-Khorshid, F. (2018). Cultivating sacred spaces: A racial affinity group approach to support critical educators of color. Teaching Education, 29(4), 318-329. https://doi.org/10.1080/10476210.2018.1512092 Quintero, E. (Ed.). (2017). Teaching in context: The social side of reform. Harvard Education Press. Rajala, A., Cole, M., & Esteban-Guitart, M. (2022). Utopian methodology: Researching educational interventions to promote equity over multiple timescales. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 1-27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2022.2144736 Ray, V. (2019). A theory of racialized organizations. American Sociological Review, 84(1), 26- 53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122418822335 Raza, A., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A.-R., Sumner, T., & Jacobs, J. K. (2021). “Making it culturally relevant”: A visual learning analytics system supporting teachers to reflect on classroom equity. In E. de Vries, Y. Hod, & J. Ahn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 442-449). International Society of the Learning Sciences. Reding, T. E., Dorn, B., Grandgennett, N., Sly, H., Youn, J., Zhu, Q., & Engelman, C. (2016). Identification of the emergent leaders within a CSE professional development program. In J. Vahrenhold & E. Barendsen (Eds.), WiPSCE '16: Proceedings of the 11th Workshop Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-34 

in Primary and Secondary Computing Education (pp. 37-44). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2978249.2978254 Resnick, A. F., & Kazemi, E. (2019). Decomposition of practice as an activity for research- practice partnerships. AERA Open, 5(3), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419862273 Rogers-Ard, R., Knaus, C. B., Epstein, K. K., & Mayfield, K. (2012). Racial diversity sounds nice; Systems transformation? Not so much: Developing urban teachers of color. Urban Education, 48(3), 451-479. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912454441 Romero, V. F., Foreman, J., Strang, C., Rodriguez, L., Payan, R., Bailey, K. M., & Olsen, S. (2022). Racial equity and inclusion in United States of America-based environmental education organizations: A critical examination of priorities and practices in the work environment. Journal of Outdoor and Environmental Education, 25(1), 91-116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42322-022-00099-w Rosebery, A., Ogonowski, M., DiSchino, M., & Warren, B. (2010). "The coat traps all your body heat": Heterogeneity as fundamental to learning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(3), 322-357. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2010.491752 Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Tucker-Raymond, E. (2016). Developing interpretive power in science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(10), 1571-1600. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21267 Rosenberg, J. M., Reid, J. W., Dyer, E. B., Koehler, M. J., Fischer, C., & McKenna, T. J. (2020). Idle chatter or compelling conversation? The potential of the social media-based #NGSSchat network for supporting science education reform efforts. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 57(9), 1322-1355. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21660 Ryoo, J., Goode, J., & Margolis, J. (2015). It takes a village: Supporting inquiry- and equity- oriented computer science pedagogy through a professional learning community. Computer Science Education, 25(4), 351-370. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2015.1130952 Ryoo, J., & Margolis, J. (2022). Power on! MIT Press. Saathoff, S. D. (2015). Funds of knowledge and community cultural wealth: Exploring how pre- service teachers can work effectively with Mexican and Mexican American students. Critical Questions in Education, 6(1), 30-40. Schack, E. O., Fisher, M. H., & Wilhelm, J. A. (Eds.). (2017). Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Schwarz, C. V., & Gwekwerere, Y. N. (2007). Using a guided inquiry and modeling instructional framework (EIMA) to support preservice K-8 science teaching. Science Education, 91(1), 158-186. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20177 Seawright, G. (2014). Settler traditions of place: Making explicit the epistemological legacy of white supremacy and settler colonialism for place-based education. Educational Studies, 50(6), 554-572. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131946.2014.965938 Self, E. A., & Stengel, B. A. (2020). Toward anti-oppressive teaching: Designing and using simulated encounters. Harvard University Press. Sengupta-Irving, T., Tunney, J., & Macias, M. (2021). Stories of garlic, butter, and ceviche: Racial-ideological micro-contestation and microaggressions in secondary STEM professional development. Cognition and Instruction, 39(1), 65-84. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1812612 Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-35 

Settlage, J. (2011). Counterstories from White mainstream preservice teachers: Resisting the master narrative of deficit by default. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 6, 803-836. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11422-011-9324-8 Shear, L., & Penuel, W. R. (2010). Rock-solid support: Florida district weighs effectiveness of science professional learning. Journal of Staff Development, 31(5), 48-51. Sherin, M. G., Phillip, R., & Jacobs, V. R. (Eds.). (2011). Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers' eyes. Routledge. Sherin, M. G., & van Es, E. (2005). Using video to support teachers' ability to notice classroom interactions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 475-491. Sleeter, C. E. (2008). Preparing White teachers for diverse students. In M. Cochran-Smith, S. Feiman-Nemser, D. J. McIntyre, & K. Demers (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education: Enduring questions in changing contexts (pp. 559–582). Routledge. Smith, L. T. (2013). Decolonizing methodologies: research and Indigenous peoples. Zed Books, Ltd. Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge. Thompson, M., Owho-Ovuakporie, K., Robinson, K., Kim, Y. J., Slama, R., & Reich, J. (2019). Teacher Moments: A digital simulation for preservice teachers to approximate parent– teacher conversations. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 35(3), 144-164. https://doi.org/10.1080/21532974.2019.1587727 Tolbert, S., Knox, C., & Salinas, I. (2019). Framing, adapting, and applying: Learning to contextualize science activity in multilingual science classrooms. Research in Science Education, 49(4), 1069-1085. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-019-9854-8 Tzou, C. T., Bell, P., Bang, M., Kuver, R., Twito, A., & Braun, A. (2019). Building expansive family STEAM programming through participatory design research. In V. R. Lee & A. L. Phillips (Eds.), Reconceptualizing libraries: Perspectives from the information and learning sciences. Routledge. Valenzuela, A. (Ed.). (2004). Leaving children behind: How “Texas-style” accountability fails Latino youth. SUNY Press. van Driel, J. H., de Jong, O., & Verloop, N. (2002). The development of preservice chemistry teachers' pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 86(4), 572-590. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.10010 van Es, E. A., Hand, V., Agarwal, P., & Sandoval, C. (2022). Multidimensional noticing for equity: Theorizing mathematics teachers’ systems of noticing to disrupt inequities. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 53(2), 114-132. van Es, E. A., Hand, V., & Mercado, J. (2017). Making visible the relationship between teachers’ noticing for equity and equitable teaching practice. In E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher noticing: Bridging and broadening perspectives, contexts, and frameworks (pp. 251-270). Springer. van Es, E. A., & Sherin, M. G. (2008). Mathematics teachers' "learning to notice" in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(2), 244–276. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. State University of New York Press. Vossoughi, S., Davis, N. R., Jackson, A., Echevarria, R., Muñoz, A., & Escudé, M. (2021). Beyond the binary of adult versus child centered learning: Pedagogies of joint activity in Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-36 

the context of making. Cognition and Instruction, 39(3), 211-241. https://doi.org/10.1080/07370008.2020.1860052 Vossoughi, S., Escudé, M., Kong, F., & Hooper, P. (2013). Tinkering, learning, and equity in the after-school setting. Wager, A. A. (2014). Noticing children’s participation: Insights into teacher positionality toward equitable mathematics pedagogy. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(3), 312-350. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.45.3.0312 Warren, B., Ballenger, C., Ogonowski, M., Rosebery, S., & Hudicourt-Barnes, J. (2001). Rethinking diversity in learning science: The logic of everyday sense-making. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(5), 529-552. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.1017 Warren, B., Ogonowski, M., & Pothier, S. (2003). "Everyday" and "scientific": Rethinking dichotomies in modes of thinking in science learning. In A. Nemirovsky, A. Rosebery, J. Solomon, & B. Warren (Eds.), Everyday matters in mathematics and science education: Studies of complex classroom events (Vol. 119-152). Erlbaum. Warren, B., & Rosebery, A. (2011). Navigating interculturality: African American male students and the science classroom. Journal of African American Males in Education, 2(1), 98- 115. Warren, B., Vossoughi, S., Rosebery, A., Bang, M., & Taylor, E. (2020). Multiple ways of knowing: Re-imagining disciplinary learning. In N. i. S. Nasir, C. D. Lee, R. Pea, & M. McKinney de Royston (Eds.), Handbook of the Cultural Foundations of Learning (pp. 277-293). Routledge. Wilhelm, A. G., Cobb, P., Frank, K. A., & Chen, I.-C. (2018). Teachers’ advice networks. In P. Cobb, K. Jackson, E. Henrick, T. M. Smith, & t. M. Team (Eds.), Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office (pp. 135-148). Harvard Education Press. Williams, A. P., Athanases, S. Z., Higgs, J., & Martinez, D. C. (2020). Developing an inner witness to notice for equity in the fleeting moments of talk for content learning. Equity & Excellence in Education, 53(4), 504-517. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2020.1791282 Windschitl, M., & Calabrese Barton, A. (2016). Rigor and equity by design: Seeking a core of practices for the science education community. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Teaching (pp. 787-851). AERA. Windschitl, M., Thompson, J., Braaten, M., & Stroupe, D. (2012). Proposing a core set of instructional practices and tools for teachers of science. Science Education, 96(5), 878- 903. Wingert, K., Riedy, R., Campanella, M., & Penuel, W. R. (2020). Equity across state systems: Possibilities and tensions in understanding scale. In M. Gresalfi & I. S. Horn (Eds.), The interdisciplinarity of the learning sciences (Vol. 4, pp. 2453-2460). International Society of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.22318/icls2020.2453 Woodson, A. N., & Pabon, A. (2016). “I’m none of the above”: Exploring themes of heteropatriarchy in the life histories of Black male educators. Equity & Excellence in Education, 49(1), 57-71. https://doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2015.1121456 Young, J., Tholen, A., Ortiz, N., Harmon, W. C., & James, M. C. (2022). Recruiting teachers of color for high need schools: Lessons learned from the Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship program. In C. A. Gist & T. J. Bristol (Eds.), Handbook of research on teachers of color and Indigenous teachers. Routledge. Prepublication copy, Uncorrected proofs 9-37