Abstract
Teacher learning is a huge challenge in instructional change, but relatively little work has carefully examined the mechanisms by which teachers learn, in contrast to the extensive work on programs that help teachers learn and the high-leverage instructional practices that are strong predictors of student learning. Specifically, relatively little is known about how teachers learn to effectively implement these new instructional practices. Using a mixed-methods, case-comparison design, this study examines specific instructional coaching practices that support 4th–8th grade mathematics teachers in learning to implement ambitious instructional practices. The study leverages a large, state-wide representative dataset in order to purposively select carefully-matched contrasting cases for qualitative analysis from a starting sample of hundreds of teachers, which enabled selecting teachers that began in a very similar place but then progressed at different rates. In-depth qualitative coding was systematically conducted on detailed transcripts of coach-teacher conversations from these carefully selected cases. Finally, these codes were analyzed quantitatively to determine whether the content and form of these conversations predicted improvement in teachers’ instructional practices. Results showed that coach-teacher pairs who discuss when and why certain practices should be implemented, and provide more opportunities for teacher input, see larger gains in ambitious instruction in later lessons. Implications for a coaching model based in the cognitive sciences are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability
De-identified data and code (Stata 16) is available by request.
References
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2007). Teachers and student achievement in the Chicago public high schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95–135. https://doi.org/10.1086/508733
Anthony, G., Hunter, J., & Hunter, R. (2015). Prospective teachers development of adaptive expertise. Teaching and Teacher Education, 49, 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.03.010
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination. In M. Holquist (Ed.), Hortus Artium Mediaevalium (Vol. 11). University of Texas Press.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033008003
Bowers, N., Merritt, E., & Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2020). Exploring teacher adaptive expertise in the context of elementary school science reforms. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 31(1), 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/1046560X.2019.1651613
Butterfield, E. C., & Nelson, G. D. (1989). Theory and practice of teaching for transfer. Educational Technology Research and Development, 37(3), 5–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299054
Chen, H., Cohen, P., & Chen, S. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and Computation, 39(4), 860–864. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610911003650383
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947–967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
Collet, V. S. (2012). The gradual increase of responsibility model: coaching for teacher change. Literacy Research and Instruction, 51(1), 27–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/19388071.2010.549548
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common Core State StandardS for. Development, 31(October), 93. http://www.corestandards.org/
Correnti, R., Matsumura, L. C., Walsh, M., Zook-Howell, D., Bickel, D. D. P., & Yu, B. (2020). Effects of online content-focused coaching on discussion quality and reading achievement: Building theory for how coaching develops teachers’ adaptive expertise. Reading Research Quarterly, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.317.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hammerness, K., Grossman, P., Rust, F., & Shulman, L. (2005). The Design of Teacher Education Programs. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing Teachers for a Changing World (pp. 390–441). Jossey-Bass.
Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001
Desimone, L. M., & Pak, K. (2017). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory into Practice, 56(1), 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1241947
Frensch, P. A., & Sternberg, R. J. (1989). Expertise and intelligent thinking: When is it worse to know better? In Advances in the psychology of human intelligence, Vol. 5. (pp. 157–188). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Garrett, R., Citkowicz, M., & Williams, R. (2019). How Responsive is a teacher’s classroom practice to intervention? A meta-analysis of randomized field studies. Review of Research in Education, 43(1), 106–137. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X19830634
Goldsmith, L. T., Doerr, H. M., & Lewis, C. C. (2014). Mathematics teachers’ learning: A conceptual framework and synthesis of research. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 17(1), 5–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-013-9245-4
Goldstone, R. L., & Son, J. Y. (2005). The transfer of scientific principles using concrete and idealized simulations. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 14(1), 69–110. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1401_4
Haneda, M., Sherman, B., Nebus Bose, F., & Teemant, A. (2019). Ways of interacting: What underlies instructional coaches’ discursive actions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 78, 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.11.017
Haneda, M., Teemant, A., & Sherman, B. (2017). Instructional coaching through dialogic interaction: helping a teacher to become agentive in her practice. Language and Education, 31(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2016.1230127
Hatano, G., & Inagaki, K. (1986). Two Courses of Expertise. In H. Stevenson, H. Azuma, & K. Hakuta (Eds.), Children development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). Freeman.
Heineke, S. F. (2013). Coaching discourse. The Elementry School Journal, 113(3), 409–433.
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., Berk, D., & Jansen, A. (2007). Preparing teachers to learn from teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 58(1), 47–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487106295726
Horn, I. S., & Kane, B. D. (2015). Opportunities for professional learning in mathematics teacher workgroup conversations: relationships to instructional expertise. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 24(3), 373–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2015.1034865
Ippolito, J. (2010). Three ways that literacy coaches balance responsive and directive relationships with teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 164–190.
Isiksal, M., & Cakiroglu, E. (2011). The nature of prospective mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge: The case of multiplication of fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(3), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9160-x
Kaiser, G., Blömeke, S., König, J., Busse, A., Döhrmann, M., & Hoth, J. (2017). Professional competencies of (prospective) mathematics teachers—cognitive versus situated approaches. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 94(2), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-016-9713-8
Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
Kisa, Z., & Correnti, R. (2015). Examining implementation fidelity in America’s choice schools: A longitudinal analysis of changes in professional development associated with changes in teacher practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 437–457. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373714557519.
Knight, J. (2009). Instructional coaching. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 532–566. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210371497
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: a meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 109–113. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701263376
Lampert, M. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. Yale University Press.
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 Education, 64(3), 226–243. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487112473837
Lowenhaupt, R., McKinney, S., & Reeves, T. (2014). Coaching in context: the role of relationships in the work of three literacy coaches. Professional Development in Education, 40(5), 740–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2013.847475
Männikkö, I., & Husu, J. (2019). Examining teachers’ adaptive expertise through personal practical theories. Teaching and Teacher Education, 77, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.016
Reznitskaya, A., & Gregory, M. (2013). Student thought and classroom language: Examining the mechanisms of change in dialogic teaching. Educational Psychologist, 48(2), 114–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2013.775898
Richardson, V. (2003). Constructivist Pedagogy. Teachers College Record, 105(9), 1623–1640. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1467-9620.2003.00303.x
Rowland, T., & Ruthven, K. (2011). Introduction: mathematical knowledge in teaching. In T. Rowland & K. Ruthven (Eds.), Mathematical Knowledge in Teaching (pp. 1–5). Springer.
Russell, J. L., Correnti, R., Stein, M. K., Bill, V., Hannan, M., Schwartz, N., et al. (2020). Learning from adaptation to support instructional improvement at scale: Understanding coach adaptation in the TN mathematics coaching project. American Educational Research Journal, 57(1), 148–187. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219854050.
Salomon, G., & Perkins, D. N. (1989). Rocky roads to transfer: rethinking mechanism of a neglected phenomenon. Educational Psychologist, 24(2), 113–142. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2402
Schwartz, D., & Bransford, J. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16(4), 367–398. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1604
Schwartz, D., Bransford, J. D., & Sears, D. (2005). Efficiency and Innovation in Transfer. Transfer of Learning from a Modern Multidisciplinary Perspective, 3, 1–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2133.2005.06492.x
Sherin, M. G., & Han, S. Y. (2004). Teacher learning in the context of a video club. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2003.08.001
Smith, E. M., Ford, J. K., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1997). Building adaptive expertise: Implications for training design strategies. Training for a Rapidly Changing Workplace Applications of Psychological Research. https://doi.org/10.1037/10260-004
Smith, J. B., Lee, V. E., & Newmann, F. M. (2001). Improving Chicago’s Schools: Instruction and Achievement in Chicago Elementary Schools. Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Stein, M. K., Correnti, R., Moore, D., Russell, J. L., & Kelly, K. (2017). Using theory and measurement to sharpen conceptualizations of mathematics teaching in the common core era. AERA Open, 3(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416680566.
Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/10986060802229675.
Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663–693. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209361210.
Stein, M. K., & Meikle, E. (2017). The nature and role of goals in mathematics education. In D. Spangler & J. Wanko (Eds.), Research companion to principles to action (pp. 1–11). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31450-1.
Stroupe, D., & Windschitl, M. (2015). Supporting ambitious instruction by beginning teachers with specialized tools and practices. Newly Hired Teachers of Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-283-7_13
Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Journal of Educational Technology & Society. Routledge. https://www.jstor.org/stable/https://doi.org/10.2307/jeductechsoci.13.3.281
van der Linden, S., & McKenney, S. (2020). Uniting epistemological perspectives to support contextualized knowledge development. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(2), 703–727. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09772-7
Verschaffel, L., Luwel, K., Torbeyns, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2009). Conceptualizing, investigating, and enhancing adaptive expertise in elementary mathematics education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 24(3), 335–359. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03174765
Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. (2008). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(1), 80–91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.01.004
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development ofHigher Psychological Processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (eds.)). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-19850401-09
Wells, G., & Arauz, R. M. (2006). Dialogue in the classroom. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 15(3), 379–428. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1503_3
Willett, J. B., & Singer, J. D. (2004). How long did it take? Using survival analysis in educational and psychological research. Best Methods for the Analysis of Change: Recent Advances, Unanswered Questions, Future Directions., April 1989, 310–327. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/10099-018
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21027
Wray, D., Medwell, J., Fox, R., & Poulson, L. (2000). The teaching practices of effective teachers of literacy. Educational Review, 52(1), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910097432
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Lindsay Clare Matsumura and Marguerite E. Walsh for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported by a Teachers as Learners grant from the James S. McDonnell Foundation. The views and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and should not be represented as official policies of the James S. McDonnell Foundation.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Appendix A
Appendix A
See Figs.
A detailed model of the full Coaching Cycle
6,
Odds ratios of combinations of Conditions sub-codes within a Segment for coach-teacher pairs with high and low growth on the Instructional Quality scale, with bars for 95% CI shown. (Coach-teacher pairs are equally likely to have the code when the 95% CI bars include 1. Scale transformed to logarithmic to accurately depict Odds Ratios.)
7,
Odds ratios of combinations of Form codes by Content codes, within a Segment for coach-teacher pairs with high and low growth on the Instructional Quality scale, with bars for 95% CI shown. (Coach-teacher pairs are equally likely to have the code when the 95% CI bars include 1. Scale transformed to logarithmic to accurately depict Odds Ratios.)
8.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Witherspoon, E.B., Ferrer, N.B., Correnti, R.R. et al. Coaching that supports teachers’ learning to enact ambitious instruction. Instr Sci 49, 877–898 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09536-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-021-09536-7