The Challenges of Scale: Designing Learning Organizations for Instructional Improvement in
Mathematics
Paul CobbVanderbilt University
Purpose
• Illustrate a way of conducting research studies that aim to inform the ongoing improvement of mathematics teaching and learning at scale
History of Failure
• The closer that an instructional innovation gets to what takes place between teachers and students in classrooms, the less likely it is that it will implemented and sustained on a large scale
Limited Impact of Research on Classroom Practice
• Supporting students’ learning of central mathematical ideas• Instructional materials • Teachers’ instructional practices
• Supporting mathematics teachers’ development of high-quality instructional practices
Large-Scale ImplementationProjects
• Focus is primarily on teacher professional development
• Unanticipated “obstacles”• Conflicts with other district
initiatives• Lack of understanding and/or support
by school and district administrators
Large-Scale Implementation
• Flying blind: Little knowledge of the schools and districts in which they are working• Reactive: Plans changed in response to
unanticipated obstacles
• Proactive: Anticipate school and district structures that might support mathematics teachers’ ongoing improvement of their instructional practices
Map Backwards From the Classroom
• Research on high-quality mathematics instruction
• Demands on the teacher• Challenges of supporting the
development of high-quality instructional practices
• School and district support structures
High-Quality Mathematics Instruction
• Keep one eye on the mathematical horizon and the other on students’ current understandings, concerns, and interests. (Ball, 1993)
Measuring With a Ten Bar
Measuring With a Ten Bar
• Edward: I think it’s 33 [points to where they have marked 23 with the three cubes] because 10 [iterates the smurf bar once], 20 [iterates the smurf bar a second time], 21, 22, 23 [counts the first, second and third cubes within the second iteration]
Measuring With a Ten Bar
• Edward: Ten [iterates the smurf bar once], 20 [iterates the smurf bar again]. I change my mind. She's right.
• T: What do you mean?• Edward: This would be 20 [points
to the end of the second iteration].
Measuring With a Ten Bar
• T: What would be 20?• Edward: This is 20 right here
[places one hand at the beginning of the “plank” and the other at the end of the second iteration]. This is the 20. Then, if I move it up just 3 more. There [breaks the bar to show 3 cubes and places the 3 cubes beyond 20]. That’s 23.
Measuring With a Ten Bar
• Measuring as a sequence of separate units• Measuring as the
accumulation of distance
Classroom Discourse
• Not sufficient to show how measured• Also had to explain why
measured in a particular way• Measuring organizes distance into units
Demands on the Teacher
• Deep understanding of mathematics• Mathematical knowledge for teaching
• Knowledge of how students’ reasoning develops in particular mathematical domains
• Know-in-practice how to pursuing a mathematical agenda by building on students’ (diverse) contributions
Improvement in Instructional Practices
• Students have to adjust to the teacher• Teaching a routine activity• Covering instructional objectives +
classroom management
• Teacher adjusts instruction to the students• Ongoing assessment of student reasoning• Non-routine -- a complex and demanding
activity
Framing Instructional Improvement at Scale as a
Research Issue• Series of conjectures about school
and district structures that might support teachers’ ongoing learning
• Instruments to document the institutional setting of mathematics teaching• Extent to which the conjectured
support structures have been established
Research Plan
• Four urban districts• High proportion of students from
traditionally underserved groups of students
• Limited financial resources
• Most districts clueless about how to respond productively to high-stakes accountability• A small minority have reasonably
worked out strategies
Research Plan
• Document district plans for improving middle-school mathematics
• 6-10 middle schools - 30 teachers• Four rounds of yearly data
collection• First year: Baseline data• Document change over a three-year
period in each district
Data Collection
• Institutional setting of mathematics teaching• Audio-recorded interviews and surveys
• Quality of teacher professional development• Video-recordings
• Quality of instructional materials and resources• Artifact collection
• Quality of teachers’ instructional practices• Video-recordings of two consecutive classroom lessons
• Teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching• Student mathematics achievement data
Add Value to Districts’ Improvement Efforts
• Feed back results of analyses to districts• Gap analysis -- how district’s plan is
actually playing out in schools
• Recommend actionable adjustments that might make each district’s improvement design more effective• Design experiment at the level of the
district
Research Team
Paul Cobb Tom SmithErin Henrick Kara JacksonChuck Munter Sarah GreenJohn Murphy Karin KatterfeldLynsey Gibbons Glenn Colby
Annie Garrison
One District as an Illustrative Case
• Conjectured support structures
• The district’s improvement plan
• Findings and feedback to the district
Conjecture: Teacher Networks
• US teachers typically work in isolation• Social support from colleagues in
developing demanding instructional practices• Focus of teacher interactions
• Classroom instructional practice
• Depth of teacher interactions• Mathematical intent of instructional tasks• Student reasoning strategies
Conjecture: Key Resources for Teacher Networks
• Time built into the school schedule for collaboration among mathematics teachers
• Access to colleagues who have already developed relatively sophisticated instructional practices• Concrete exemplars of high-quality
instructional practice
District Plan: Teacher Networks
• 1-2 mathematics teachers in each school receive additional intensive mathematics professional development
• Lead mathematics teachers • Facilitate biweekly or monthly
teacher study group meetings
Findings and Recommendations: Teacher Networks
• Quality of professional development for lead teachers high• Does not focus specifically on teaching
underserved groups -- English language learners (ELLs)
• Additional professional development for lead teachers on:• Teaching language in the context of
mathematics -- ELLs
Findings and Recommendations: Teacher Networks
• Collaboration between isolated pairs of mathematics teachers in some schools• Typically low depth
• No opportunities for lead teachers to share what they are learning in most schools
• Common planning time for mathematics teachers
• Additional professional development for lead teachers on:• Process of supporting colleagues’ learning• Organizing the content of a study group’s work
Findings and Recommendations: Teacher Networks
• At least one mathematics teacher in each school with a sophisticated view of high-quality mathematics instruction• Principals selected teachers for
additional professional development
• District policy: criteria for selecting lead mathematics teachers
Conjecture: Shared Vision of High Quality Mathematics Instruction
• Instructional goals -- what students should know and be able to do mathematically
• How students' development of these forms of mathematical knowing can be supported
Conjecture: Shared Vision of High Quality Mathematics Instruction
• Coordination between district administrative units• Curriculum and Instruction• Leadership• Research and Evaluation• English Language Learners• Special Education
Conjecture: Shared Vision of High Quality Mathematics Instruction
• Occupational groups: Mathematics teachers, principals, district mathematics specialists, district leadership specialists, …
• Differences in: • Responsibilities• Practices • Professional affiliations (and professional
identities)
Conjecture: Brokers
• Participate at least peripherally in the activities of two or more groups• Can bridge between differing
agendas for mathematics instruction
District Plan: Shared Instructional Vision
• Curriculum Cabinet -- heads of all district units + area superintendents
• Professional development in instructional leadership for all principals • Not content specific
• Intellectually-demanding tasks• Maintain the challenge of the tasks as they
are enacted in the classroom
• Compatible with district goals for mathematics instruction
Findings and Recommendations: Shared Instructional Vision
• District leaders: Inconsistent visions + not specific to mathematics• Form rather than function views
• Area superintendents participate in mathematics professional development with lead teachers• Expertise in Curriculum Cabinet• Support alignment between Curriculum and
Instruction, and Leadership• Brokers between district leaders and
principals
Findings and Recommendations: Shared Instructional Vision
• Principals: Not specific to mathematics• Form rather than function views
• Teachers: At least one mathematics teacher in each school with a sophisticated view of high-quality mathematics instruction• Few formal opportunities for principals
to draw on or learn from expert teachers
Findings and Recommendations: Shared Instructional Vision
• Principals share leadership of mathematics study groups with lead teachers• Principals gain access to mathematics
expertise in their schools• Brokers between mathematics
teachers and school/district leaders• Legitimize work of lead teachers• Lead teachers can focus on content-
specific aspects of study group activities
Conjecture: Mutual Accountability
• School leaders hold mathematics teachers accountable for developing high-quality instructional practices
• School leaders are accountable to mathematics teachers (and district leaders) for supporting teachers’ learning
Conjecture: Leadership Content Knowledge (in Mathematics)
• Enables school and district leaders to:• Recognize high-quality mathematics
instruction • Support teachers’ learning directly • Organize the conditions for ongoing
learning of school and district staff(Stein & Nelson)
Conjecture: Leadership Content Knowledge
• Principals require a relatively deep understanding of:• Mathematical knowledge for teaching • How students learn mathematics• What is known about how to teach
mathematics effectively• Teachers-as-learners and effective
ways of teaching teachers
Conjecture: Leadership Content Knowledge
• Distributed across formal and informal leaders• Lead mathematics teachers• Accomplished teachers as informal
instructional leaders• Principal instructional leadership
expertise involves recognizing and capitalizing on mathematics teachers’ expertise
District Plan: Mutual Accountability
• Professional development in instructional leadership for all principals• In classrooms observing instruction for
two hours each day• Use developing understanding of
(content-free) high-quality instruction to:• Assess quality of instruction and give
feedback to teachers• Organize school-level teacher professional
development• Develop school improvement plans
Findings and Recommendations: Mutual Accountability
• Most principals do not view themselves as instructional leaders
• Most principals are spending only limited time in classrooms• Inconsistent messages from district leaders --
not aware that district leaders expect them to be in classrooms
• District leaders need to communicate expectations for what it means to be an instructional leader clearly and consistently• Hold principals accountable for supporting
mathematics teachers in improving their instructional practices
Findings and Recommendations: Mutual Accountability
• Most Principals have developed form rather than function views of high-quality mathematics instruction• Feedback to teachers focuses on surface level
features of instruction (e.g., arranging students in groups)
• Most principals are not organizing school-based professional development for mathematics teachers
• No supports for principals as instructional leaders beyond professional development
Findings and Recommendations: Mutual Accountability
• Principals participate in at least a portion of mathematics professional development with lead teachers
• Principals share the leadership of mathematics study groups
• Area superintendents provide guidance on:• Providing constructive feedback to
teachers• Organizing school-based professional
development
Findings and Recommendations: Mutual Accountability
• Generic classroom observation form specifies “promotion of innovative teaching methods”
• Redesign observation form to reflect district vision of high-quality mathematics instruction
Summary: Conjectured Support Structures
• Teacher networks• Time for collaboration• Access to expertise
• Shared instructional vision• Brokers
• Mutual accountability• Leadership content knowledge
Current and Next Steps
• Fall 2009:• Document whether districts actually
act on the basis of our feedback
• January-March 2009:• Document the consequences of any
adjustments
• May 2009: • Second round of feedback to districts
Research Agenda
• Test, revise, and modify conjectures about relationships between:• Changes in school and district
support structures • Improvement in mathematics
teachers’ instructional practices • Student achievement
Research Agenda
• Refine conjectures: • Identifying additional support
structures• Clarifying relationships between
support structures • Specifying the conditions under
which particular support structures are important
Teachers’ Access to Expertise: Local and External Views of
Expertise• Local views: Who teachers identify
as experts • Criteria for what counts as instructional
expertise
• External views: Teachers we identified as experts:• District views of high-quality
mathematics instruction• Research literature on mathematics
learning and teaching
Teachers’ Access to Expertise: The Role of the Principal
• Teachers’ access to expertise• Teacher networks, mathematics coaches,
district math specialists, external expertise
• Principals’ practices• The how of instructional leadership
• Principals’ knowledge-of-practice• Vision of high-quality mathematics
instruction• (Suppositions about process of teacher
learning)
Policy and Learning
• Policy• Local, state, and national policies
intentionally designed to influence teachers’ classroom practices
• Mathematics education• Professional development and
instructional materials intentionally designed to influence teachers’ classroom practices
Policy Research
• The outcomes of specific policies • The process by which particular
policies are implemented• No position on what high-quality
instruction looks like
Mathematics Education
• Students’ and teachers’ learning• Classroom in an institutional vacuum
Learning Policy
• Formulate and refine policies by building on research on learning and teaching
• Frame instructional improvement as a problem of organizational learning for schools and districts