Upload
stephen-hunter
View
22
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A Study of Mathematics Coaching in (U. S.) Elementary Classrooms. Elizabeth A. Burroughs Montana State University Department of Mathematical Sciences RCT Conference University of York, York, U.K. 11 September 2014. Research contributors. Principal Investigators - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
A Study of Mathematics Coaching in (U. S.) Elementary Classrooms
Elizabeth A. BurroughsMontana State UniversityDepartment of Mathematical Sciences
RCT ConferenceUniversity of York, York, U.K.11 September 2014
Research contributors
Principal InvestigatorsBeth Burroughs, Montana State UniversityJohn Sutton, RMC Research Corp. David Yopp, University of Idaho
Contributing ResearchersMark Greenwood, Megan Higgs, and Jennifer
Luebeck (Montana State University); Brandie Good, Clare Heidema, Dan Jesse, and
Arlene Mitchell (RMC Research Corp.).
Funded under NSF Award No. 0918326. Any opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the National Science Foundation.
Context
I’m a U.S. mathematics education scholar, spending the autumn and spring terms at the University of York in the Department of Education as a Fulbright Scholar.
My home is in Bozeman, Montana, at Montana State University
Mathematics classroom coaching A recent development in mathematics
professional development for practicing teachers.
Built on a foundation of coaching in other professions, like business and medicine.
Used by school districts nationwide and encouraged by the U.S. National Mathematics Advisory Panel.
There are a variety of educational coaching models coaches might follow.
Organizing question
What are next steps in mathematics coaching research, professional development, or other collaborations between researchers and coaches?
Examining Mathematics Coaching
EMC is a 5-year research and development project examining the effects of a coach’s knowledge for coaching on a diverse population of grades K-8 teachers
*(K – 8 is students aged 5 – 13, in U.S. elementary and middle schools, or sometimes a K-8 school.)
Mathematics coach: EMC definition
A mathematics coach is an on-site professional developer who enhances teacher quality through collaboration, focusing on research-based, reform-based, and standards-based instructional strategies and mathematics content that include the why, what, and how of teaching mathematics.
Coaching cycle for EMC Project
There are three distinct parts to each coaching cycle designed to examine mathematics instruction. Pre-Lesson Conference (~15
minutes) Lesson Observation (entire class
period) Post-Lesson Conference (~30
minutes)
Coaches conduct 8 cycles per year, with 4 focused on number and operations.*
Limitations
* This is not a study of coaching as an intervention (although it does produce some results along those lines).
Though we gave guidelines, school and district priorities superseded our research wishes. What this leaves is a study of coaching as it is enacted. Certainly this introduces limitations to our findings, but increases our inferential abilities.
EMC research hypothesis
The effectiveness of a mathematics classroom coach is linked to several domains of knowledge. Coaching knowledge and mathematics content knowledge both contribute to a coach’s effectiveness as measured by positive impact on teacher practice, attitudes, and knowledge.
Knowledge domains
Coaching Knowledge
Knowledge of Student
Learning
Knowledge of Teacher Learning
Mathematics Content Knowledge
Impacts of EMC study
Understanding of knowledge needed for effective mathematics coaching.
Understanding of what practices contribute to effective mathematics coaching.
Instruments to evaluate and monitor mathematics coaching
Research design
An observational design will answer: To what extent does a coach’s depth of content knowledge in coaching knowledge and mathematics content knowledge correlate to coaching effectiveness?
An experimental design randomly assigns coaches to one of two groups to answer: To what extent does professional development targeting these two knowledge domains improve coaching effectiveness? and To what extent are the effects of the targeted professional development explained by increases in knowledge?
Crossover designGroup 1 Group 2
Year 12009-10
Provide orientation to EMC coaching model
Year 22010-11 Mathematics Content Knowledge
Year 32011-12 Coaching Knowledge
Year 42012-13 Coaching Knowledge
Year 52013-14 Mathematics Content Knowledge
EMC participants
ColoradoCoaches: 11Teachers: 31
IdahoCoaches: 15Teachers: 44
MontanaCoaches: 19Teachers: 54
N. DakotaCoaches: 3Teachers: 8
NebraskaCoaches: 2Teachers: 6
WashingtonCoaches: 2Teachers: 4
WisconsinCoaches: 4Teachers: 11
Project variables and measures
Implementation of Coaching
Model
Coaching beliefs,
knowledge, skills, and practice
Coaching Effectiveness
Mathematics Content
Knowledge
Project variables and measures
Implementation of Coaching
Model
Coaching beliefs,
knowledge, skills, and practice
Coaching Effectiveness
Mathematics Content
Knowledge
Teacher Variables
Mathematics Content
Knowledge
Classroom practice
Teacher anxiety, efficacy, engagement,
and preparedness
Coaching emphasis
Coaching impact
Project variables and measures
Implementation of Coaching
Model
Coaching beliefs,
knowledge, skills, and practice
Coaching Effectiveness
Mathematics Content
Knowledge
Teacher Variables
Mathematics Content
Knowledge
Classroom practice
Teacher anxiety, efficacy, engagement,
and preparedness
Coaching emphasis
Coaching impact
Mathematical Knowledge for
Teaching
Coach Reflection and Impact
Coaching Knowledge Survey & Coaching
Skills Inventory
Measures
Teacher Reflection and Impact
Survey
Inside the Classroom
Observation Protocol
Teacher Survey
Teacher Needs
Inventory
Classroom practices: Observational study
Year 5: 2014(N = 135)
Year 4: 2013(N = 153)
Year 3: 2012(N = 169)
Year 2: 2011(N = 189)
Year 1: 2010(N = 196)
16%
12%
6%
5%
3%
25%
27%
26%
22%
14%
16%
15%
11%
15%
8%
16%
15%
17%
15%
15%
17%
18%
23%
20%
26%
10%
12%
18%
22%
29%
0%
1%
1%
2%
6%
Level 1Level 2Level 3: LowLevel 3: SolidLevel 3: HighLevel 4Level 5
Percentage of Teachers
Teac
her O
bser
vatio
n
Level 5: Students highly likely to under-stand maths as a result of instruction
Level 1: Students un-likely to understand maths as a result of in-struction
Research question 1
To what extent does a coach’s depth of knowledge in coaching knowledge and mathematics content knowledge influence coaching effectiveness?
Models examine how variation in these aspects of the coaches propagates into teachers’ measures.
Four years of data included in the analysis.
Summary of findings for RQ1Improvements in coaches’ coaching knowledge scores and self-efficacy measure of coaching skills scores are related to increases in teachers’ mathematics knowledge
As coaches learn more about coaching, as measured both by how much they align with what coaching authors recommend and by their self-reports of effectiveness,
coached teachers perform better on mathematics assessments
Summary of findings for RQ1Coaches with higher mathematics for teaching scores are associated with teachers with higher mathematics for teaching scores.
We suspect that this is a relic of how teachers were chosen.
Research question 2
To what extent does professional development targeting these two knowledge domains improve coaching effectiveness?
Control for coaching intensity and outside PD
Effects are examined on changes in teachers’ mathematics for teaching scores, teachers’ attitudes, and teachers’ practice
Hierarchical linear models Four years of data
Summary of findings for RQ2 No detected coach-level PD effects on
teacher content knowledge or teacher attitude
Some evidence of PD effects on teacher practice
MathCoaching
Coaching
Summary of findings for RQ2
For all models, there are changes over time(Observational results that “coaching works”)
Suggestive evidence that changes happened in the different groups at different times; follow-up analyses are being conducted
Research question 3
To what extent are the effects of targeted professional development on coaching effectiveness explained by increases in coaching knowledge and mathematics content knowledge?
Analysis uses 51coaches randomly assigned to PD groups; 5 years of data
Analysis uses linear modeling, and controls for outside mathematics or coaching training
Summary of findings for RQ3 No evidence for direct effects of professional
development on coaches’ mathematics for teaching scores either in terms of differences in groups or differences in changes over time.
There is evidence of a change over time in mathematics for teaching scores of the coaches in the study, with the highest average score in the last year of the study.
There is evidence of a time effect and a PD effect on the mean scores of coaching knowledge (that is, increases in coaching knowledge that have an effect at the teacher level can be inferred to result from the PD).
Some thoughts about experiments Here, we’re using the model of RCTS,
which measure interventions, to measure effects of knowledge
Hope that this is one study to contribute to overall understanding – too complicated to expect a single study to determine causality
Ongoing struggle: what gets funded (experiments), but an appropriate next step is qualitative descriptions about what coaching entails in vivo.
What we learn from participants Coaches want to learn how to have hard
conversations with teachers about mathematics content —
And about student learning. Coaches expend a lot of energy on
resistant teachers. Professional development in coaching
knowledge is needed, and our model shows promise.
Organizing question
What are next steps in mathematics coaching research, professional development, or other collaborations between researchers and coaches?