Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 5–36 | Cite as

Variations in coaching knowledge and practice that explain elementary and middle school mathematics teacher change

  • David A. YoppEmail author
  • Elizabeth A. Burroughs
  • John T. Sutton
  • Mark C. Greenwood


This study investigated relationships between changes in certain types of coaching knowledge and practices among mathematics classroom coaches and how these explain changes in the attitudes, knowledge, and practice of the teachers they coach. Participants in this study were 51 school-based mathematics classroom coaches in the USA and 180 of the teachers whom they coached between 2009 and 2014. The participating coaches were recruited from schools that hired their own coaches independently from this research project. This study found evidence that improvements in coaches’ use of practices recommended by particular coaching models are related to improvements in teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching. The study also found that improvements in coaches’ self-assessment of their own coaching skills are related to improvements in teachers’ mathematics content knowledge for teaching, mathematics teaching practices, and attitudes about self-efficacy for teaching mathematics. The study did not detect relationships between changes in coaches’ mathematics knowledge and changes in teachers’ knowledge or practices.


Classroom coaching Professional development Mathematics education Mentoring Teacher knowledge Teacher practice 



This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant 0918326. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.


  1. Agresti, A. (2010). Analysis of ordinal categorical data (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ball, D. L. (2012). Tackling inequity by teaching to teach: Focusing on high leverage strategies. Presentation at Fall 2012 CAEP conference, Arlington, VA. Downloaded at
  3. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2014). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using Eigen and S4 (R package version 1.1-6). Retrieved from
  5. Biancarosa, G., & Bryk, A. S. (2011). Efficacy of literacy collaborative professional development: A summary of findings. Journal of Reading Recovery, 10, 25–32.Google Scholar
  6. Bickel, R. (2007). Multilevel analysis for applied research: It’s just regression!. New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  7. Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, P. F., Nishio, M., Smith, T. M., Clark, L. M., Conant, D. L., Rust, A. H., et al. (2014). The relationship between teachers’ mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge, teachers’ perceptions, and student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 419–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Christensen, R. H. B. (2012). ordinal: Regression models for ordinal data (R package version 2012.01-19). Retrieved from
  10. Core Team, R. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  11. Costa, A. L., & Garmston, R. J. (2002). Cognitive coaching: A foundation for renaissance schools. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.Google Scholar
  12. Dweck, Carol. (2006). Mindsets: The new psychology of success. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar
  13. Gelman, A. (2008). Scaling regression inputs by dividing by two standard deviations. Statistics in Medicine, 27(15), 2865–2873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenwood, M., & Jesse, D. (2014). Scoring and then analyzing or analyzing while scoring: An application of GLMM to an education instrument development and analysis. In J. S. M. Proceedings (Ed.), Statistical computing section. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  15. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., et al. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Horizon Research Inc. (2000). Validity and reliability information for the LSC Classroom Observation Protocol. Retrieved from
  19. Hull, T. H., Balka, D. S., & Miles, R. H. (2009). A guide to mathematics coaching: Processes for increasing student achievement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  21. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Neuman, S. B., & Wright, T. S. (2010). Promoting language and literacy development for early childhood educators: A mixed-methods study of coursework and coaching. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 63–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-Plus. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2011). Improving the outcomes of coaching-based professional development interventions. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 3, pp. 295–307). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
  25. Ramey, S. L., Crowell, N. A., Ramey, C. T., Grace, C., Timraz, N., & Davis, L. E. (2011). The dosage of professional development for early childhood professionals: How the amount and density of professional development may influence its effectiveness. In J. A. Sutterby (Ed.), The early childhood educator professional development grant: Research and practice (pp. 11–32). Cambridge, MA: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Revelle, W. (2014). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research (R package version 1.4.8). Retrieved from
  27. Rizopoulos, D. (2006). ltm: An R package for latent variable modeling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17(5), 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Singer, J. D., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: Modeling change and event occurrence. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sutton, J. T., Burroughs, E. A., & Yopp, D. A. (2011). Mathematics coaching knowledge: Domains and definitions. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 13(2), 12–20.Google Scholar
  30. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). Common core of data (CCD) [Data file]. Retrieved from
  31. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Retrieved from the Horizon Research Inc.
  32. West, L., & Staub, F. C. (2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • David A. Yopp
    • 1
    Email author
  • Elizabeth A. Burroughs
    • 2
  • John T. Sutton
    • 3
  • Mark C. Greenwood
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Mathematics and Curriculum and InstructionUniversity of IdahoMoscowUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mathematical SciencesMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA
  3. 3.RMC Research CorporationDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations