Article 2 Oke

G Model
MATBEH-558; No. of Pages 14 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb
Reflections on the promise and complexity of mathematics

coaching夽
Patricia F. Campbell ∗ , Matthew J. Griffin
Center for Mathematics Education, Department of Teaching and Learning, Policy and Leadership, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD 20742, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: If students are to develop mathematical proficiency, then mathematics teaching must both
Received 27 July 2016 change and improve. In an effort to provide site-based professional development addressing
Received in revised form 2 November 2016 the mathematical content and pedagogical demands that teachers encounter in reality of
Accepted 9 December 2016
public schooling, many school districts are turning to elementary mathematics coaches.
Available online xxx
Knowledgeable coaches can have a significant positive impact on teachers, yet this study
documents substantial variance in the amount of coaching delivered and in the nature
Keywords:
of activity that coaches undertake within schools. Coaches are frequently responsive to
Elementary mathematics coaching
the needs of individual teachers. If this support is primarily marked by shared teaching
Professional development
Activity of elementary mathematics or provision of instructional materials, it may not transform either instruction or teacher
coaches knowledge. Similarly if coaches assume duties that primarily address an administrator’s
School-based coaching needs, they will have less time to enhance a school’s mathematics program. Coaches need
Mathematics education to engage teachers in fundamental dialogue about mathematical content, mathematical
learning, and student understanding. It may be that this dialogue and the effectiveness of a
coach’s work with individual teachers would benefit from a coach’s concurrent work with
grade-level teams. When a coach leads a grade-level team through discussion of targeted
goals and approaches, the coach may facilitate individual teacher learning while building
collective learning. When coupled with the support of a principal, this partnership may
foster instructional change across a school.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
For the past 30 years, school districts have faced constant pressure to meet ever-changing expectations for mathematics
achievement. And while state content or curriculum standards, guidelines for state or district-wide standardized assess-
ments, district criteria for instructional practices, and standards for mathematical practice are phrased as expectations,
school administrators and teachers generally experience these as demands. The educational goals for school mathematics
now portray an impressive vision of mathematics learning reflected not only in the increased rigor defining what students
should understand and do (e.g., Kilpatrick, Swafford & Findell, 2001; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices
& Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), but also in increased responsibilities for teachers because teachers’ instruc-
夽 This manuscript was developed in part with support from the National Science Foundation, DRL-0918223. All opinions, findings, conclusions and
recommendations expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foundation.
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: patc@umd.edu (P.F. Campbell).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.007
0732-3123/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Please cite this article in press as: Campbell, P. F., & Griffin, M.J. Reflections on the promise and complexity of mathematics
coaching. Journal of Mathematical Behavior (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.007
G Model
2 P.F. Campbell, M.J. Griffin / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx
tional practices need to define and support more ambitious learning opportunities (e.g., Franke, Kazemi, & Batttey, 2007;
Lampert, Beasley, Ghousseini, Kazemi, & Franke, 2010; Lampert & Granziani, 2009).
While the challenge of meeting new learning outcomes requires all teachers of mathematics to access and use strong
mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge effectively, this challenge is especially great in elementary schools because
elementary teachers typically are generalists who frequently are limited in terms of the knowledge that they may need to
draw on when teaching mathematics (e.g., RAND Mathematics Study Panel, 2003; National Mathematics Advisory Panel,
2008). Further, while efforts to improve teaching and learning are typically dependent on advancing the capacity of individual
teachers, approaches advancing instructional reform in mathematics must address the entire school mathematics staff. This
is because even though teacher knowledge and the quality of delivered instruction critically influence student achievement
(Campbell et al., 2014; Rivkin, Hanushek, & Kain, 2005), the potential for students’ mathematics achievement in any one year
is affected by mathematics learning and teaching in prior years. This raises an additional pressure in elementary schools
because 70% of the elementary teachers participating in a recent national survey reported attending less than 16 hrs of
professional development in mathematics per year over the last 3 years (Banilower et al., 2013).
In response to these challenges, school districts across the nation are turning to elementary mathematics coaches as a
route to instructional change and improved student achievement (Darling-Hammond, Wei, Andree, Richardson, & Orphanos,
2009). The intent is for a knowledgeable colleague who has both instructional expertise and a deep understanding of math-
ematics and students to serve as the available, on-site resource for teachers. The mathematics coach is to address the
mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge of teachers in the context of their practice with the intent of provoking
and supporting instructional change through authentic professional development that meets individual teachers’ needs
(Webster-Wright, 2009). The positioning of coaches implies a policy decision that schools need to become places where not
only students but also teachers can learn (Hawley & Valli, 1999).
At the same time, some models of coaching hold that the coach is also to increase a school’s instructional capacity (Neufeld
& Roper, 2003; Virginia Mathematics and Science Coalition, 2012). That is, the mathematics coach is expected to catalyze
and sustain efforts spanning mathematics curriculum, instruction, and assessment within the reality of public schooling,
supporting the emergence of collective professional practices that advance school-wide improvement as well as student
learning and achievement (Marzano, Walters, & McNulty, 2005; Saphier & West, 2009/2010; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). Ideally,
this coaching model allows at least two settings wherein elementary teachers may enhance their knowledge and transform
their teaching, namely by engaging in individual interactions with a coach and by participating in a grade-level team led by
the coach.
A recent grant-funded, professional development and research project investigating the activity and impact of elemen-
tary mathematics coaches applied this amplified perspective with coaches’ responsibilities spanning coaching teachers
and enhancing their schools’ mathematics program. From the winter 2010 through the fall 2011, this project sponsored
tuition-free, graduate coursework designed to prepare prospective elementary mathematics coaches and then supported
a data-collection effort documenting the professional activity and impact of newly positioned coaches over two academic
years (2011–13). While findings addressing the effect of these elementary mathematics coaches on student performance as
measured by state achievement tests are addressed elsewhere (Campbell & Griffin, 2016), this report addresses one aspect
of this larger effort, namely the nature and duration of the professional activity of the coaches.
The elementary mathematics coaches in this study addressed tasks advancing school-wide instructional capacity for
mathematics teaching and learning as well as coaching individual teachers. Nevertheless, review of the activity patterns of
these coaches permits a gross appraisal of the amount of coaching delivered and the nature of activity that coaches undertake
within schools when they are positioned to advance teacher knowledge, to facilitate instructional change, and to impact a
school’s mathematics program. As such, the research question addressed in this report is: What activities do elementary
mathematics coaches engage in and what proportion of their time do they spend completing differing activities?
2. Conceptual framework
Coaches work to advance teachers’ learning within what Desimone (2009) termed the “core conceptual framework” of
professional development (p. 183). As framed in terms of mathematics coaches, the core features of this framework are:
• Content focus, addressing both mathematics content and pedagogy as well as consideration of how students learn math-
ematics;
• Active learning, whereby a coach and teachers engage in independent or shared teaching demonstrations, co-planning,
co-teaching, observation of instruction, and debriefing, as well as assessment design and data-driven decision making;
• Coherence through teacher(s)-coach discussion that addresses teachers’ beliefs and prior perspectives of mathematics
content, teaching, and learning in light of new learning expectations, supporting teachers’ efforts to understand and
reconcile state, district, and local school policy demands;
• Duration, through a coach’s consistent efforts to provoke and sustain attention to problems of practice in mathematics
instruction; and
G Model
P.F. Campbell, M.J. Griffin / Journal of Mathematical Behavior xxx (2017) xxx–xxx 3
Fig. 1. Conceptual framework modeling coach and individual teacher co-learning through the coaching cycle.
• Collective participation, whereby a coach promotes analysis, reflection, and experimentation within a community of prac-
tice that investigates mathematical meaning, instructional approaches, and interpretation of student work (Campbell &
Malkus, 2011).
In practice, mathematics teachers and coaches are engaged in co-learning. Jaworski (2001) proposed that this co-learning
encompassed mathematical power, pedagogical power, and educative power. She defined mathematical power as knowledge
of mathematics content and the skillful design of activities or tasks to engage students in learning mathematics. In Jaworski’s
framework, pedagogical power encompasses knowledge of mathematics teaching as well as facility with developing or
altering approaches for teaching mathematics. Jaworski coined the term educative power to define the additional, accessible
knowledge that a teacher educator needs in order to support teachers as they solve or address mathematics and pedagogical
problems. Campbell and Malkus (2014) adapted this perspective when they proposed a conceptual model based on the
work of Zaslavsky and Leikin (2004) that depicts the interplay between a coach, an individual teacher, and the coaching
cycle (West & Staub, 2003), with the inclusion of both a teacher’s and a coach’s beliefs about mathematics and mathematics
teaching and learning. Fig. 1 presents this model with somewhat increased elaboration.
As noted in this model, while coaches must possess and access both mathematical and pedagogical power when working
with teachers, it is also critical that coaches possess and continue to develop educative power as they work with teachers.
This is critical because not only will coaches be called upon to enhance a teacher’s understanding of mathematical concepts,
coaches will also need to challenge and champion a teacher’s perspectives on teaching while supporting a teacher’s efforts to
interpret his students’ thinking (Moreau & Whitenack, 2013). However, what is also explicit in this model is the expectation
that a coach and a teacher will each reflect on what occurred during a lesson and on the implications of that event within
the re-occurring coaching cycle. The intent is for a teacher and a coach to discuss what a lesson revealed about students’
thinking so that the teacher (or the coach and the teacher) might design subsequent lessons that build on or question
students’ reasoning in an effort to foster students’ developing understanding and mathematical sophistication. A coach’s
educative power will be critical during both the debriefing and the subsequent planning interchange. At the same time,
this model conveys the expectation that a coach will reflect not only on the intended and delivered lesson, but also on her
assessment of the teacher’s current knowledge and instructional repertoire as well as on the teacher’s pedagogical goals as
these will shape the coach’s preparation for future work with that teacher.
Because of the inclusion of educative power in the skill set of the coach, this model of coaching implies that a coach is more
knowledgeable and more experienced than the teacher being coached. This model also implies that reflection may advance
both teacher learning and student learning, but it does not clarify whether coaching is to be responsive only to the needs of
teachers or to the needs of both students and teachers. This model only addresses the co-learning of a teacher and coach,
but, as noted above, coaches may be positioned in schools both to coach teachers and to advance a school’s instructional
capacity.
3. Context of the study
The coaches in this study had no supervisory responsibilities; they did not serve as a formal evaluator of teachers nor
did they participate in any prescribed teacher review procedure within their school districts. These coaches were each
assigned to a single school, but they were not identified as the teacher of record for any student, making them available
G Model
Table 1
Coaches’ Demographics and Professional Background upon Program Entry.
Source Rural Coaches (N = 21)
Master’s Degree (%) 9.5

Certified as an elementary teacher (%) 90.5
Certified as a middle-grades mathematics teacher (%) 4.8
Certified as a secondary mathematics teacher (%) 4.8
Mean (S.D.) mathematics credits (undergraduate and graduate) 14.16 (9.1)
Mean (S.D.) mathematics education credits (undergraduate and graduate) 2.42 (2.4)
Mean (S.D.) graduate credits (no master’s degree) 3.10 (5.6)
Mean (S.D.) graduate credits (beyond master’s degree) 1.43 (6.4)
Mean (S.D.) years of teaching experience (elementary) 7.8 (6.2)
Mean (S.D.) years of teaching experience (middle school) 2.4 (3.4)
Assigned to their original home school as a coach (%) 33.3
Gender (% female) 85.7
Race (% Caucasian) 90.5
for access to classrooms and teachers throughout the school day. In preparation for their role as coaches, 21 experienced
teachers completed a 24-graduate-credit, tuition-free, preparation program addressing mathematics content, pedagogy,
and leadership/coaching.
While continuing to work as classroom teachers, these prospective coaches accessed seven of their preparation courses
(21 credits) through blended distance learning and through project-supported, summer institutes over an 18-month period
prior to placement in a school as an elementary mathematics coach. The final preparation course was delivered in a blended
distance-learning format during the coaches’ first semester of placement. Each of the eight preparation courses were co-
taught with university mathematicians and mathematics educators staffing the five mathematics content courses and
university mathematics educators and district leaders co-teaching the three leadership/coaching courses, addressing state
licensure expectations for K-8 mathematics coaches. Additional tuition-free courses yielding a master’s degree were made
available to the prospective coaches. While completion of these additional courses was neither encouraged nor required by
this study, 20 of the 21 prospective coaches did avail themselves of this opportunity to access tuition-free coursework and
completed a master’s degree at one of the project’s collaborating universities by the end of the summer 2013.
The first coaching/leadership course focused on the design, delivery, and evaluation of mathematics instruction. The
second course focused on coaching individual teachers through the lens of instructional and content-focused coaching
(Knight, 2007; West & Staub, 2003). The final coaching/leadership course addressed facilitating grade-level planning and
fostering a community of shared practice through lesson study. Additional topics in the final coaching/leadership course
addressed interpretation of student achievement data as well as collaborating with local-school administrators to negotiate
a shared image of teaching and learning for a school-wide mathematics program (Saphier & West, 2009/2010).
4. Methodology
These 21 coaches were positioned in 21 schools located across 11 school districts in rural Virginia. Two of these schools
enrolled students in pre-kindergarten through grade 4, while the other 19 schools enrolled students in pre-kindergarten
through grade 5. Coaches did not work with the pre-kindergarten teachers. Two of the preK-5 schools closed due to financial
need and declining student enrollment after the first year of on-site data collection, necessitating the loss of two coaches.
School districts were paid an allotment per coach per year in order to help offset the cost of replacement classroom teach-
ers. In addition, the coaches each received an annual research participation stipend of $3000 awarded in three increments
over each of their first two years of placement as a coach, in recognition of and contingent upon their timely submission of
professional work activity logs.
4.1. Elementary mathematics coaches
As reported in Table 1, most of the 21 prospective coaches did not possess a master’s degree at the initiation of the
program, and the potential of earning this degree was an incentive. There were three males in this cohort, with two of
the males being experienced elementary teachers and one male having middle-grades mathematics teaching experience.
Seven of these coaches were placed in the same elementary school where they had been employed as a teacher prior to
participating in this study. This cohort of coaches is predominantly White. The coaches were placed in a school at the start
of the 2011–12 academic year.
4.2. Daily activity data source
The coaches recorded their daily professional work activity by type and time via a data-collection-transmittal program
operating on an iPad for two years (2011–2013). The coaches chronologically indicated the duration of an activity and then
clicked the primary identification of that activity (see Fig. 2). Based on a branching network, activities of interest triggered the
G Model
Fig. 2. ISAM Daily Log primary identification options.
presentation of more detailed sub-choices, which the coaches again selected by “clicking” on the appropriate button. After
the activities of a complete contract day were entered, coaches could review the day’s entries and, if necessary, modify the
listing prior to confirmation. Daily, confirmed data were subsequently transmitted over the Internet onto a comprehensive,
secure data management platform.
5. Findings
The contract day for the coaches varied from 7 hrs 15 min to 7 hrs 45 min with a mean of 7 hrs 30 min (standard deviation
of 10.3 min) and an average of 30 min within each contract day allotted for lunch. In order to analyze patterns of their work
during the contract day, each coach’s total annual time per primary activity in the branching network was computed, and
subsequently the mean time per activity across coaches was determined.
G Model
Table 2
Summary Descriptive Data of Coaches’ Percent Time per Activity During In-contract-day Work Time.
Year 1 (N = 21) Year 2 (N = 19)
Min (%) Max (%) Mean (%) SD (%) Min (%) Max (%) Mean (%) SD (%)
Coaching and Supporting Coaching 13.75 67.94 41.54 11.93 22.37 61.72 39.63 10.70
Observe a teacher’s instruction 0.00 16.97 5.91 4.62 0.06 6.75 2.97 2.21
Demonstrate or model the teaching of a lesson 0.00 18.79 4.11 3.86 0.05 14.65 3.04 3.19
Co-teach a lesson 0.11 31.52 12.26 8.20 1.03 37.96 14.80 9.45
Meet with an individual teacher 0.32 6.01 3.11 1.52 0.22 8.77 3.16 2.22
Meet with a grade-level team 0.00 6.90 1.97 1.89 0.00 7.80 2.32 2.35
Write notes and/or reflections 0.01 7.71 1.07 1.65 0.00 2.38 0.79 0.69
Prepare or plan for coaching 4.34 30.11 13.11 5.73 5.29 22.42 12.56 4.63
Community Organizing 7.29 32.14 21.47 6.62 7.92 33.90 20.69 6.48
Support use of materials (purchase, locate, distribute) 0.09 12.05 3.37 2.92 0.00 16.71 3.50 3.78
Deliver professional workshop 0.00 0.89 0.33 0.28 0.00 1.31 0.28 0.33
Align mathematics curricula 0.00 1.09 0.28 0.34 0.00 0.78 0.16 0.21
Attend meeting with a mathematics agenda 0.36 6.68 2.98 1.63 0.46 5.99 2.75 1.28
Develop mathematics assessments 0.00 3.53 0.67 0.91 0.00 5.10 1.10 1.27
Analyze/organize/interpret student data 0.23 4.64 1.38 0.92 0.08 3.76 1.42 1.08
Teach students (with no observing teacher) 1.31 22.97 9.33 5.60 0.32 13.15 7.75 4.48
Communicate with others (e.g., email, program flyers) 0.00 7.81 2.98 2.24 0.34 7.19 3.58 2.11
Recruit volunteers; schedule meetings 0.00 0.56 0.16 0.18 0.00 0.75 0.16 0.21
Personal Professional Development 6.14 37.76 14.11 6.35 2.86 21.81 10.97 4.45
Other 7.47 39.27 22.88 7.07 14.59 45.99 28.70 8.32
Complete non-job-description duties (e.g., bus duty) 2.89 22.33 9.90 4.59 2.87 29.56 11.55 6.48
Attend meeting with no mathematics agenda 0.21 3.42 1.49 0.86 0.31 5.19 2.28 1.28
Manage assessments (logistics, proctoring, training) 0.00 14.87 5.91 3.26 2.96 19.31 8.99 4.52
Absent 0.56 15.94 5.57 4.26 0.00 12.33 5.88 4.06
5.1. Coaches’ pattern of daily activity
The frequency of time data associated with the coaches’ on-the-job activities was classified as being in one of four
categories: Coaching and Supporting Coaching, Community Organizer for Mathematics, Personal Professional Development,
and Other. Table 2 presents a descriptive summary of these data including the minimum, maximum, mean and standard
deviation associated with the time per activity as a percentage of total time for each coach. In terms of hours per day, the
percentages in Table 2 may be contextualized by referring to the calculation that 14.29% is equivalent to 5 hrs per week, or
1 hr per day, as the coaches’ mean work time was 35 hrs per week, after adjusting for a daily lunch break.
The classification of Personal Professional Development was assigned when a coach was either attending or preparing
for on-going courses delivered through the study’s coach-preparation program or a partnered university’s master’s degree
program, engaging in professional interactions with other coaches, attending district-level professional development, or
attending state, regional or national professional conferences. Non-job description duties included bus duty, chaperoning
field trips, substitute teaching, or school-wide coordination that did not address mathematics instruction and learning (e.g.,
training student safety patrols, substituting as a school’s administrator for a day). The most frequent non-job-description
duty was on-site bus duty, averaging 6.4% of a coach’s time or approximately 27 min per day.
While these patterns of elementary mathematics coach activity are probably generalizable, there may be two study-
related artifacts. Prior to placement, more experienced coaches told the participants that volunteering for bus duty was
a way to build entrée into their school placements, as many teachers would not be available to meet with a coach at the
very beginning or end of the school day. This may have increased the prevalent pattern of bus duty. Further, all of these
coaches were completing their final coaching/leadership course during their first semester of placement, and all but one of
the coaches completed required master’s degree coursework throughout the remaining data collection period.
The degree-seeking coaches were enrolled in an online course addressing implications of mathematics education research
during their second semester of placement. Then, during their second year of placement, these coaches were completing
an action research project as required for their degrees. These professional program or graduate degree expectations are
likely to have influenced these coaches’ engagement in Personal Professional Development during their contract day as time
associated with meeting these expectations accounted for a substantial proportion of the coaches’ Personal Professional
Development activity (Year 1: an average of 38 min per day out of the mean nearing 5 hrs per week of Personal Professional
Development; Year 2: an average of 32 min per day out of the mean 3 hrs and 50 min per week of Personal Professional
Development).
While the job description for these coaches also included programmatic responsibilities for mathematics in their schools,
these data indicate that approximately 37–40% of their average time (13–14 hrs per week) was spent on tasks unrelated to
coaching, preparing for coaching, or their school’s mathematics program. On average, only 28.4% of their Year 1 time and
27.1% of the Year 2 time was spent working with teachers or reflecting on that work, with another 12.6–13% of the coaches’
time focused on preparing to coach.
G Model
Table 3
Source of Data for Determining Ranking of Individual Coaches’ Categorized Activity.
Activity In-contract Day Time Out-of-contract Day Time
Coaching and Supporting Coaching

Observe a teacher’s instruction X
Demonstrate or model the teaching of a lesson X
Co-teach a lesson X
Meet with an individual teacher X X
Meet with a grade-level team X X
Write notes and/or reflections X X
Prepare or plan for coaching X X
Community Organizing
Support use of materials (purchase, locate, distribute) X X
Deliver professional workshop X X
Align mathematics curricula X X
Attend meeting with a mathematics agenda X X
Develop mathematics assessments X X
Analyze/organize/interpret student data X X
Teach students (with no observing teacher) X X
Communicate with others (e.g., email, program flyers) X X
Recruit volunteers; schedule meetings X X
Personal Professional Development X
Other
Complete non-job-description duties (e.g., bus duty) X X
Attend meeting with no mathematics agenda X
Manage assessments (logistics, proctoring, training) X
Absent X
Interpreting these data in terms of units of time, on average, these coaches spent approximately 9.5–10 hrs per week
coaching and spent another 4.5 hrs per week preparing to coach. The most prevalent coaching activity was co-teaching a
lesson with a teacher (a weekly average of 4.3 hrs in Year 1 and 5.2 hrs in Year 2). This is equivalent to an average time spent
co-teaching between five and six 45-min classes per week in Year 1 and co-teaching seven 45-min classes per week in Year
2. However, there was minimal time engaged in either planning for or debriefing after these co-teaching sessions, as would
be expected within the coaching cycle (Meet with individual teachers: ∼1.1 hrs per week; Meet with grade-level team: ∼40
to 50 min per week). If all of the time that a coach spent meeting with individual teachers was allotted to the teachers with
whom a coach was co-teaching, then, on average per co-teaching episode, a coach and a teacher spent a total of 10–13 min
co-planning and debriefing.
These coaches had both coaching and programmatic responsibilities. On average in Year 1, the coaches spent 7.5 hrs per
week engaged in work supporting the mathematics program in their schools with slightly less time spent completing this
work in Year 2 (averaging 7.25 hrs per week). This category of work included time in meetings with a mathematics agenda,
such as sessions with a principal, district-wide mathematics leadership meetings in the district, and school leadership team
meetings, averaging 1 hr per week. However the category of Community Organizer for Mathematics also included those
periods when a coach was teaching students with no observing teacher present, averaging 3 hrs 15 min per week in Year 1 and
2 hrs 45 min per week in Year 2. Generally, these sessions occurred when a coach provided remedial mathematics instruction
to groups of children outside of the classroom. While these sessions could positively impact a school’s and certainly a
student’s performance on standardized mathematics assessments, these sessions were not advancing the instructional
capability of either a teacher or the school. This distinction is critical as it addresses whether an elementary mathematics
coach’s professional responsibilities include working directly with students to increase student achievement or whether the
instructional responsibilities of a mathematics coach are limited to settings with either observing or participating teachers,
permitting concurrent and/or subsequent teacher-coach interaction that may ultimately influence student achievement.
5.2. Aggregate distribution of coaches’ total workload
In order to further characterize the distribution of these coaches’ total workload over each academic year, iPad data
reflecting time spent on work-related tasks both within the contract day and outside of the contract day by year were
accessed. Table 3 provides a summary as to whether for each activity only in-contract-day time or both in-contract and
out-of-contract-day time were accessed when computing a coach’s total annual workload time. The rationale for these
determinations was as follows.
Many of the coaches worked on tasks associated with coaching or supporting the school’s mathematics program outside
of their contract day; this time did contribute to their workload. Therefore the total number of minutes by year that a coach
spent in activities classified as Coaching and Supporting Coaching either during the contract day or after the contract day
had ended was computed, as was the median and standard deviation of those data by year. This procedure was also followed
in determining the median and standard deviation of time that these coaches spent serving as a Community Organizer
for Mathematics. However, time spent engaging in personal professional development outside of the contract day was not
G Model
Table 4
Frequency of Coaches’ Level of Categorized Activity by Year.
Year 1 (N = 21 Coaches) Year 2 (N = 19 Coaches)
Median (Hours) SD (Hours) High Medium Low Median (Hours) SD (Hours) High Medium Low
Coaching and Supporting Coaching 564.25 181.20 4 12 5 513.87 146.03 7 5 7

Community Organizer for Mathematics 297.92 108.07 6 7 8 302.33 103.10 6 6 7
Personal Professional Development 167.92 45.33 9 7 5 138.75 57.03 6 8 5
Other 301.67 95.60 6 9 6 367.75 109.90 8 4 7
salaried and was not considered part of their contracted workload. Therefore, within each year, only the during-the-contract-
day time engaged in Personal Professional Development was totaled for each coach, with subsequent determination of the
median and standard deviation of that data.
If a coach was engaged in non-job-description duties such as bus duty, chaperoning field trips, or school-wide coordination
that did not address mathematics instruction and learning (e.g., training student safety patrols) outside of the contract day,
those duties were judged as meeting external obligations that had been placed on the coach. For this reason, out-of-contract
time spent on non-job-description duties were included along with in-contract-day time spent completing those duties
when determining a coach’s total annual time spent on Other tasks. However, if a coach attended a meeting with a non-
mathematics agenda or managed assessments outside of the contract day that time was deemed a prerogative of the coach
and not included in the determination of total time spent addressing Other work. However, time spent on those activities
during the contract day as well as the times when a coach was absent during the contract day were included. Subsequently
the total time as well as the median and standard deviation of time that the coaches spent on Other tasks by year were
computed.
A coach was characterized as having a High level of activity in Coaching and Supporting Coaching for a given year if a
coach’s total time was greater than the median plus 0.5 standard deviation of Coaching and Supporting Coaching time for
that year, while a coach was coded as having a Low level of activity in Coaching and Supporting Coaching if the coach’s
total time for that year was less than the median minus 0.5 standard deviation. Otherwise a coach was classified as having a
Medium level of time spent in activities associated with Coaching and Supporting Coaching. Following the same definition,
coaches were coded as having a High, Medium, or Low level of time serving as the Community Organizer for Mathematics,
engaging in Personal Professional Development, or performing Other work in schools. Note these definitions characterize
the amount of time each coach spent in each of these four categories of activity within each year, relative to the distribution
of all coaches’ activity times in that year. Thus the numerical values defining the classifications of High, Medium and Low
levels of time were reset each year, rather than reflecting a common standard across both years.
Table 4 presents the median, standard deviation, and frequency of coaches’ classification of Coaching and Supporting
Coaching, of serving as the Community Organizer for Mathematics, of engaging in Personal Professional Development, and
of performing Other tasks by level and year. As may be inferred from the median-time data presented in Table 4, on average
these coaches spent less time engaged in coaching and in tasks supporting coaching in Year 2 as compared to Year 1, although
some of this differential time and dispersion of workload may be a result of efficiency because with additional experience
the coaches may not have needed to spend as much time on some tasks involved in preparing to coach. While there was a
decrease in the amount of in-contract-day median time spent on personal professional development between Year 1 and
Year 2, this decrease was less than the increase of median time spent on Other tasks.
Subsequent examination of total categorical time data by coach revealed that variability in the dispersion of the coaches’
activity patterns was not simply a function of their school district. As illustrated in Fig. 3, coaches from the same district
could have very different patterns of categorized activity.
The Year 1 data of these six coaches were selected because each of their frequencies of time within clusters of activity
differs substantively from that of another coach from the same school district. Referencing these clusters of activity in terms of
the sub-categories listed in Table 2, Coaching Activities refers to time spent observing a teacher’s instruction, demonstrating
or modeling a lesson, co-teaching a lesson, and meeting with either an individual teacher or a grade-level team. Supporting
Coaching reflects the time coaches spent writing notes and/or reflections as well as time spent preparing or planning for
coaching. The cluster of Community Organizer in Fig. 3 reflects all of the time spent on any of the sub-categories listed for
that category in Table 2. However, the final clusters in Fig. 3 distinguish between the subcategories in Other, depicting the
proportion of time spent on non-job-description duties, other managerial tasks (attending meetings with no mathematics
agenda and/or managing assessments), and simply being absent from school.
As illustrated in Fig. 3, not only is there noticeable variation in the activity patterns of two coaches in the same school
district, but there is also variation across districts. It is not known whether this variation in the patterns of activity completed
not only by these six coaches but also in the patterns of activity across all 21 coaches reflects guidelines of a local school
administrator or simply the decisions made by individual coaches. However, in an effort to analyze these coaching patterns
further, coaching profiles were defined (Russell, Stein, Correnti, Kehoe, & Moore, 2016).
G Model
Fig. 3. Activity of selected coaches (Total Hours, Year 1).

Note that the listing of categories from top to bottom in the key to the right of the graph is in the same order as the horizontal presentation of categories
within each bar.
5.3. Coaching profiles
Three coaching profiles were defined by accessing the previously described coding of each coach as engaging in either
a High, Medium or Low level of activity within the four classifications of Coaching and Supporting Coaching, Community
Organizer for Mathematics, Personal Professional Development, and Other. Those coaches rated as having a High level of
activity in Coaching and Supporting Coaching but a Low level of engagement in tasks defined as Other activity were deemed
Profile 1 coaches. Similarly, Profile 2 coaches were those coaches with High levels of activity in tasks associated with being a
Community Organizer for Mathematics in their schools who also had Low levels of time spent Other activity. Finally, Profile
3 coaches were those coaches who were rated as having a High level of activity in the Other category but who were not
ranked as having a High level of activity in either the Coaching and Supporting Coaching category or in the Community
Organizer for Mathematics category.
In order to discern whether there was an association between these coaching profiles, the coaches’ professional back-
ground, and their school placement variables, means and standard deviations were calculated. These variables of interest
included school size measures (number of students in the school, number of K-5 mathematics teachers, and student-to-
teacher ratios) as well as demographic measures (percent of students eligible for Free and Reduced Meal Status (FaRMS),
percent of Non-white students, and school’s Title I status). Also, each school’s average performance scores on the state’s stan-
dardized mathematics achievement test for grades 3, 4, and 5 prior to the placement of a coach were determined, and those
schools either a standard deviation above or below the state average for at least 2 of those 3 grades were coded respectively
as high or low academic tradition schools. The final variable of interest addressed the coaches’ mathematical knowledge for
teaching (MKT) (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). Each of the coaches completed a written assessment of their MKT (Study of
Instructional Improvement, 2004) after completion of the five mathematics courses in their coaching preparation program,
but prior to their placement in a school as a coach in 2011. Descriptive summaries for each of these variables are reported
in Table 5.
As expected, the coaches identified for these profiles spent much more time on the category of work coded for their
High level of activity than did the coaches in the other profiles. Nevertheless it is striking that coaches in both Profile 2 and
Profile 3 were associated with almost twice as much time in their high level of activity (Community Organizing and Other
respectively) as contrasted to the time that coaches in the other two profiles devoted to those tasks. While this pattern was
also evident in the contrast between the time spent on Coaching and Supporting Coaching between Profiles 1 and 3, Profile
2 coaches’ mean coaching time was higher than that of the Profile 3 coaches, averaging about 70% of that of the Profile 1
coaches. Further, on average, coaches identified with either Profile 1 or 2 worked approximately 3 more hrs per week than
did the Profile 3 coaches and over 3 hrs more per week than the non-profiled coaches.
In terms of their professional background, the Profile 2 coaches were somewhat less experienced than the coaches in
either Profile 1 or 3, but there was no substantive difference between MKT scores across the three coaching profiles. None
of the Profile 1 coaches were positioned as a coach in a school where they had previously worked as a classroom teacher.
G Model
Table 5
Descriptive Summary of Work Patterns, Professional Background and School Placement by Coaching Profile.
Profile 1 Coaches Profile 2 Coaches Profile 3 Coachesa
Mean (SD) Hours per Week

Coaching and supporting coaching 22.46 (4.25) 15.98 (1.29) 11.78 (2.74)
Community organizer for mathematics 6.99 (1.06) 11.68 (0.96) 5.91 (1.42)
Personal professional development 3.77 (0.72) 4.27 (0.52) 5.37 (1.03)
Other activity 6.52 (2.01) 7.61 (0.62) 13.38 (0.33)
Total hours per week 39.74 (1.5) 39.54 (2.92) 36.44 (2.58)
Professional Background of Coaches
Mean (SD) years of teaching experience 10.00 (6.00) 5.00 (1.00) 12.67 (10.02)
Assigned to original home school 0 of 3 2 of 3 2 of 3
Mean (SD) standardized MKT score in 2011 0.29 (1.04) 0.29 (1.59) 0.03 (0.54)
Characteristics of Schools in 2011
Mean (SD) number of PreK-5 students 508.33 (138.46) 289.67 (68.24) 621.67 (88.66)
Mean (SD) number of K-5 math teachers 19.50 (6.95) 14.67 (1.26) 24.67 (1.61)
Mean (SD) student–to-teacher ratio 17.20 (2.97) 16.23 (2.35) 17.50 (0.53)
Mean (SD) percent of FaRMS students 56.83 (6.35) 69.93 (3.57) 59.43 (7.03)
Mean (SD) percent of Non-white students 18.77 (19.49) 29.90 (19.45) 19.60 (22.79)
Number of Title I schools 2 of 3 3 of 3 1 of 3
Number of low academic tradition schools 0 of 3 1 of 3 0 of 3
Number of high academic tradition schools 0 of 3 0 of 3 1 of 3
a
Two of the three Profile 3 schools were PK-4 schools (no fifth grade).
While this does not define a causal relationship, it should be noted that coaches who are placed in schools where they
were previously employed as classroom teacher will need to establish new identities with the other teachers in the schools
in addition to resetting responsibilities with their principals. Whether prior assumptions regarding roles and relationships
make it easier for a local school administrator to request or expect a coach who was previously assigned to the school as
a classroom teacher to assume non-job-description duties or to emphasize programmatic tasks is unknown. Similarly it is
not known whether prior relationships with teachers are discomforting when transitioning to the role of coach or if prior
relationships with local school administrators makes it more difficult for a coach to negotiate coaching expectations with a
principal.
The schools in which the profiled coaches were placed were quite similar in terms of their student-to-teacher ratio
and their student racial-ethnic identity. However, the schools where the Profile 2 coaches were positioned had a higher
percentage of FaRMS students as contrasted to the schools employing the Profile 1 and 3 coaches and the non-profiled
coaches. Further, as compared to the Profile 1 and Profile 2 coaches as well as to the entire cohort of coaches, the Profile 3
coaches were positioned in larger schools and had more mathematics teachers with whom they could work. Nevertheless
the Profile 3 coaches spent less time coaching or preparing for coaching,
6. Shared reflection and dialogue as a route to teachers’ strategic learning
Mere positioning of coaches in schools is not a sufficient catalyst for instructional change. As noted by Coburn and Russell
(2008), coaching involves “routines of interaction” whereby the coach must consider “(a) the degree to which the teacher’s
instruction focused on the mathematical ideas, (b) the ways that students were grasping these ideas, and (c) the next steps
for coaching the teacher” (p. 217). This type of interaction not only requires a knowledgeable coach, but, as depicted in Fig. 1,
also presumes reflection by the coach and with the teacher during the debriefing stage of the coaching cycle, by the coach
after completion of the coaching cycle, and is assumed to occur in the preparation phase whereby the coach prepares for the
next coaching cycle. In this model, individual reflection on the part of the teacher and the coach, as well as the opportunity
for shared reflection between the teacher and the coach, is critical. However, as inferred from the minimal amount of time
that the coaches in these rural schools spent meeting with individual teachers (on average 1 hr per week) or writing coaching
notes and/or reflections (on average, 17–23 min per week), shared reflection, debriefing, and the potential for development
of “routines of interaction” were infrequently enacted. This raises concerns regarding the prevalence of co-teaching within
the coaching practices of these coaches.
Without co-planning for instruction and subsequent reflective debriefing, how can co-teaching be a route for provoking
teachers’ learning, advancing teachers’ knowledge, or changing teachers’ instructional practices? In the coaching cycle, the
intention of co-teaching is not simply for coaches to split teaching responsibilities with teachers or to share their students.
Co-teaching must be an opportunity for a teacher’s strategic learning, with the expectation that the teacher and the coach
will use co-teaching as an opportunity for thinking seriously about teaching as exemplified within identified instructional
practices, for considering students’ mathematical understandings and dispositions, and for enabling a context for collegial
critique. But that will demand that a coach and a teacher set aside time to discuss and identify the teacher’s learning goal(s),
to consider and review the teacher’s lesson plan and/or to co-plan prior to the lesson, and to meet again for debriefing after
the lesson. The intent is for the teacher and the coach to collaborate in learning, not just to enact collaborative teaching.
G Model
It is critical that coaches enact Coburn and Russell’s (2008) routines of interaction. Coaches may feel comfortable and
useful being responsive to the needs of individual teachers, but they must move beyond serving as a source for teaching
ideas or instructional materials or only providing “another pair of hands in the classroom.” Without reflection and routines of
interaction, coaches may be improving teachers’ efficiency or perhaps even advancing some short-term teacher effectiveness,
but that does not mean that they are transforming teachers’ classroom practices or enhancing teacher knowledge in ways that
will engage teachers in rethinking their teaching routines (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). The primary reason for positioning
coaches in schools is not simply to identify and correct perceived inadequacies in teachers’ instructional practices. Rather,
coaches should approach their role as one of catalyzing teachers’ learning through successive interactions with long-term and
short-term goals and of guiding teachers through a process of reorganizing their current teaching routines and of scaffolding
new instructional practices (Jackson et al., 2015) that may be implemented with deep understanding.
Coaches will need to engage teachers in fundamental dialogue about mathematical content, mathematical learning, and
student understanding. Lord, Cress and Miller (2008) contend that meaningful, sustainable improvement in teaching occurs
when coaches deliver “hard feedback” (p. 57) challenging teachers’ instructional practices or mathematical conceptions by
providing formative feedback and asking critical questions that are non-punitive and collegial. Thus coaches are simulta-
neously challenged to work with individual teachers to implement the coaching cycle as a means of supporting teacher
development, to maintain trust, and to provide “hard feedback” without assuming the role of a formal evaluator. It may
be that a key factor influencing the creation of conditions within a school that support these seemingly conflicting norms
(Mangin & Stoelinga, 2011) is the coach’s role as a community organizer for mathematics and as a leader of grade-level
teams. This is because these roles position the coach as a mathematics education resource who engages with not only
individual teachers, but also groups of teachers, as well as the principal and other cross-grade instructional leaders, in devel-
oping programmatic coherence and a shared meaning for improving instructional practice in mathematics that may support
school-wide improvement (Gibbons, Fox, Lewis, & Nieman, 2016; Horn & Little, 2010; Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015).
When a coach leads teachers in a grade-level team through a discussion of the meaning of student work or in anticipating
how students might think about a mathematical topic, a setting for shared learning is established. At the same time, a coach
may use a grade-level team as an opportunity for “redirecting attention . . . to the methods of teaching.” As noted by Hiebert,
Morris, and Glass (2003), “when teachers work together to experiment with lessons, with the intent of sharing what they
learn with their professional colleagues, they are engaged in something more than becoming a better teachers; they are
contributing directly to the knowledge base upon which a true profession is built” (p. 212).
It is important to note that this perspective requires teachers not only to reflect on their own practices in order to learn,
but also to “ensure that others can learn from their experience, and that they are disposed to learn from others’ experiences”
(Hiebert et al., 2003, p. 212). A coach may serve as a mechanism for supporting and facilitating this interaction.
7. Coaches: advancing human capital while building social capital
Human capital refers to “an individual’s cumulative abilities, knowledge, and skills developed through formal and infor-
mal education and experience” (Pil & Leana, 2009; p. 1103). When coaches are responsive or proactive to the requests or
needs of an individual teacher, addressing a teacher’s mathematical content and pedagogical knowledge as well as her
classroom competency, coaches are working to build the human capital of each teacher through one-on-one interactions.
In contrast, social capital refers to “the relations among individuals in a group or organization” (Spillane & Thompson, 1997;
p. 193). When coaches work with grade-level or subject-level teams or with their principals and other resource teachers to
define goals and then to determine, implement, and revise approaches for achieving those goals in an atmosphere of trust
and collaboration, they are building social capital. Coaches advance human capital when they support individual teachers’
commitment, disposition, and knowledge. They advance social capital when they mobilize and strengthen a cadre of local
educators by creating a sense of mutual obligation (Spillane & Thompson, 1997). Yet, these two aims do not need to be
competing. Indeed, teachers’ human capital can be developed though professional interaction (Pil & Leana, 2009) because as
“teachers join together to solve problems and learn from one another, the school’s instructional capacity becomes greater
than the sum of its parts” (Johnson, 2016, p. 15).
The perspective that teachers should work together for school improvement has been advocated for many years, leading
to an expanding interest in the formation of professional learning communities. However, “all collaborations are not equal”
(Ronfeldt, Farmer, McQueen, & Grissom, 2015, p. 479) and a team of teachers might “perpetuate existing practices, whether
or not these are conducive to pupils’ learning” (Jaworski, 2003, p. 255). Indeed, within-group interactions and conversa-
tions between teachers may weaken rather than foster opportunities for teacher learning, even if competent, committed,
improvement-oriented teachers populate the groups.
As reported by Horn and Little (2010), effective teacher collaboration groups are marked by three components. First,
teachers in a productive group share a common language for identifying the concepts and principles framing their work and
develop a common frame of reference for describing, examining, and interpreting problems of practice. Second, members
of effective groups have a shared view of teaching or learning and have access to a common and coherent set of curriculum
resources, including instructional tasks or activities, which address established expectations for students. Third, effective
teacher collaboration groups have consistent leadership that assumes a visible role in posing questions, in facilitating sharing
of instructional challenges or experiences, in maintaining a focus on student and teacher learning, and in encouraging engage-
G Model
ment beyond orchestrating division-of-labor assignments or presentations of “show and tell” descriptions of a proposed
lesson or activity.
Taken together, these components characterize a standard for teacher collaboration that is much more than the typical
provision in schooling whereby teachers are provided the “opportunity to work together and ‘reciprocally share knowledge”’
(Daly, Moolenaar, Der-Martirosian, & Liou, 2014, p. 28). Yet, in concert with a principal who is an instructional leader, an
elementary mathematics coach could work towards the development of multiple grade-level teams, each marked by these
components. But doing so would first require the coach and the principal to determine and share a common vision for
the mathematics program in a school and for the coach to work concurrently with individual teachers to develop a shared
language and vision for student expectations in terms of mathematics content and practices and for mathematics teaching
and learning. That is, the coach would need to work with her principal and with individual teachers to develop their human
capital. This emerging human capital could be accessed and further developed when the coach leads grade-level teams
through discussion of targeted goals, such as teaching a particular concept or skill that is either traditionally difficult for
students or that has been identified through assessment as needing further instruction (Gibbons et al., 2016; Saphier &
West, 2009/2010). In this way, a coach might facilitate the development of continued teacher learning targeting human
capital while building the components of effective collaboration that advance emergent social capital. Further, research
indicates that when teachers collaborate in effective groups with the support of engaged, responsive school administrators,
the result is improved student achievement (Gibbons et al., 2016; Goddard et al., 2010; Kraft & Papay, 2014; Ronfeldt et al.,
2015).
8. Conclusion
Because teaching is so complex, instructional change is particularly difficult. Yet, elementary mathematics coaches are
placed in schools with the charge of advancing and changing the instruction of others. However, a coach and a principal can
partner together to shape a school culture (Saphier & West, 2009/2010) that mitigates the risk of change through the creation
of a trusting environment that provides space for skepticism while establishing an atmosphere of individual and collective
learning. But positive instructional change cannot occur if coaches are focused on meeting administrative or instructional
needs that reinforce the status quo.
When coaches are responsive to the instructional needs that teachers identify in their classrooms, coaches are gaining
access. Similarly, when coaches share ideas for mathematics lessons or provide instructional materials to teachers there is the
prospect of gaining entry into teachers’ classrooms. But, a coach’s potential for leveraging instructional change and teacher
learning will be limited if this access is not accompanied by opportunities for substantive, deep teacher-coach interaction.
This requires not only time for interaction, but also teachers’ knowledge of that expectation with a concurrent understanding
of why that interaction is essential. Principals play a critical role in the creation of this dynamic because it is the principal
who introduces the coach to the school staff, it is the principal who clarifies how teachers are expected to be engaging
with the coach, and it is the principal who establishes school schedules as well as staffing assignments and responsibilities.
Explicitly establishing these expectations may be especially important and particularly challenging in those settings where
a newly positioned coach is someone who was formerly employed as a classroom teacher at the school.
As originally conceptualized, elementary mathematics coaches work collaboratively and strategically with individual
teachers in sustained, content-focused conversations that address curricular intent, instructional approaches, and student
understanding. This perspective positions a coach as an agent to advance teacher learning and provide professional devel-
opment. It is likely that the coaches in this study viewed themselves in this way, as it is the perspective advanced in their
coaching/leadership preparation courses. Yet, one interpretation of their activity data is that, once positioned in schools, a
number of these coaches found their role being shaped by the needs of their teachers and their school administrators. This
would explain the higher than expected occurrences of shared teaching, remedial instruction, and assessment management
in their activity data. Whether these coaches did not feel the need to question assumption of these duties or whether they
had limited opportunity to negotiate with their principal is unknown.
While coaching is often viewed through the lens of a coach working with an individual teacher, when coaches also
establish and meet with grade-level mathematics teams there is the potential for widening instructional coherence across
a school’s mathematics program and advancing collective capacity. This in turn can influence the culture shaping a school’s
mathematics program. The coaches in this study had minimal involvement with grade-level teams, but this may have been
a function of school size and instructional clustering within these rural schools. If there are only two teachers per grade or if
one teacher serves as the sole teacher of mathematics for an entire grade, then there are not likely to be opportunities for a
coach to meet with multiple teachers in a common preparation period addressing mathematics instruction. Unfortunately
this can serve to maintain teacher isolation and may perpetuate the perspective that a coach is positioned to be responsive
to the needs of individual teachers. Nevertheless, it may be that a coach’s work with individual teachers would benefit
from a coach’s concurrent work with grade-level teams involving those teachers because group work may shape and foster
definition and acceptance of change. When a coach leads a grade-level team through discussion of targeted goals, the coach
may facilitate individual teacher learning while building collective learning. When coupled with the support of an engaged
principal, the result may be a partnership that fosters instructional change across a school.
G Model
References
Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: what make it special? Journal for Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
Banilower, E. R., Smith, P. S., Weiss, I. R., Malzahn, K. A., Campbell, K. M., & Wells, A. M. (2013). Report of the 2012 National Survey of Science and
Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research. Retrieved from.
http://www.horizon-research.com/2012nssme/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2012-NSSME-Full-Report1.pdf
Campbell, P. F. & Griffin, M. J. (2016). Activity and impact of elementary mathematics specialists in rural schools. Paper presented at the 2016 Research
Conference of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, San Francisco, CA.
Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3),
430–454.
Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2014). The mathematical knowledge and beliefs of elementary mathematics specialist-coaches. ZDM: The International
Journal on Mathematics Education, 46, 213–225.
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.
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
Daly, A. J., Moolenaar, N. M., Der-Martirosian, C., & Liou, Y. (2014). Accessing capital resources: Investigating the effects of teacher human and social
capital on student achievement. Teachers College Record, 116(7), 1–42.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher
development in the United States and abroad. Dallas, TX: National Council of Staff Development. Retrieved from.
http://learningforward.org/docs/pdf/nsdcstudy2009.pdf
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational
Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on
mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Gibbons, L. K., Fox, A., Lewis, R., & Nieman, H. (2016). Examining how professional development facilitators and teacher educators help establish a culture
of risk-taking. Paper presented at the 2016 Research Conference of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, San Francisco, CA.
Goddard, Y. L., Miller, R., Larson, R., Goddard, R., Madsen, J. & Shroeder, P. (2010). Connecting principal leadership, teacher collaboration, and student
achievement. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO. Retrieved from:
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528704.pdf.
Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond, & G. Sykes (Eds.),
Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127–150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. K., & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: An experiment model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal
of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6(3), 201–222.
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.
Jackson, K., Cobb, P., Wilson, J., Webster, M., Dunlap, C., & Applegate, M. (2015). Investigating the development of mathematics leaders’ capacity to
support teachers’ learning on a large scale. ZDM: The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 47, 93–104.
Jaworski, B. (2001). Developing mathematics teaching: Teachers, teacher educators, and researchers as co-learners. In F.-L. Lin, & T. J. Cooney (Eds.),
Making sense of mathematics teacher education (pp. 295–320). Drodrecht: Kluwer.
Jaworski, B. (2003). Research practice into/influencing mathematics teaching and learning development: Towards a theoretical framework based on
co-learning partnerships. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 249–282.
Johnson, S. M. (2016). Will value-added reinforce the walls of the egg-crate school? In E. Quintero (Ed.), The social side of education reform (pp. 15–17).
Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute. Retrieved from.
https://docs.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.shankerinstitute.org/sites/shanker/files/SSoER%2520Research%2520Primer%2520Final 1.pdf
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Knight, J. (2007). Instructional coaching: A partnership approach to improving instruction. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Kraft, M. A., & Papay, J. P. (2014). Can professional environments in schools promote teacher development? Exploring heterogeneity in returns to teaching
experience. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 476–500.
Lampert, M., & Granziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher educators’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5),
491–509.
Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious
mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein, & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanation in the disciplines (pp. 129–141). New York: Springer.
Lord, B., Cress, K., & Miller, B. (2008). Teacher leadership in support of large-scale mathematics and science education reform. In M. M. Mangin, & S. R.
Stoelinga (Eds.), Effective teacher leadership: Using research to inform and reform (pp. 55–77). New York: Teachers College Press.
Mangin, M. M., & Dunsmore, K. (2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a level for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of
coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51(2), 179–213.
Mangin, M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (2011). Peer? Expert? Teacher leaders struggle to gain trust while establishing their expertise. Journal of Staff Development,
32(3), 48–51.
Marzano, R., Walters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
Moreau, D., & Whitenack, J. W. (2013). Coaching individual teachers. In P. F. Campbell, A. J. Ellington, W. E. Haver, & V. L. Inge (Eds.), Handbook for
elementary mathematics specialists (pp. 31–49). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from. http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI Math%20Standards.pdf
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundation for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education. Retrieved from. http://www2.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/final-report.pdf
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity. Cambridge, MA: Education Matters. Retrieved from.
http://www.annenberginstitute.org/Products/Specalisting.php
Pil, F. K., & Leana, C. (2009). Applying organizational research to public school reform: The effects of teacher human and social capital on student
performance. Academy of Management Journal, 52(6), 1101–1124.
RAND Mathematics Study Panel. (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics
education. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved from. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph reports/MR1643.html
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417–458.
Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K., & Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American
Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 475–514.
Russell, J. L., Stein, M. K., Correnti, R. J., Kehoe, S. S., & Moore, D. W. (2016). Theorizing and measuring social supports for teacher learning. Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.
Saphier, J., & West, L. (2009/2010). How coaches can maximize student learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(4), 46–50.
G Model
Spillane, J. P., & Thompson, C. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.
Study of Instructional Improvement. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
Virginia Mathematics and Science Coalition. (2012). Mathematics specialists.. Retrieved from. http://www.vamsc.org/index2.html
Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research,
79(2), 702–739.
West, L., & Staub, F. (2003). Content-focused coaching: Transforming mathematics lessons. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research, 74,
255–317.
Zaslavsky, O., & Leikin, R. (2004). Professional development of mathematics teacher educators: Growth through practice. Journal of Mathematics Teacher
Education, 7(1), 5–32.

Article 2 Oke

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Article 2 Oke

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

G Model

MATBEH-558; No. of Pages 14 ARTICLE IN PRESS

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Mathematical Behavior

Reﬂections on the promise and complexity of mathematics

3. Context of the study

Source Rural Coaches (N = 21)

Master’s Degree (%) 9.5

4.1. Elementary mathematics coaches

4.2. Daily activity data source

Fig. 2. ISAM Daily Log primary identiﬁcation options.

Year 1 (N = 21) Year 2 (N = 19)

5.1. Coaches’ pattern of daily activity

Activity In-contract Day Time Out-of-contract Day Time

Coaching and Supporting Coaching

5.2. Aggregate distribution of coaches’ total workload

Year 1 (N = 21 Coaches) Year 2 (N = 19 Coaches)

Coaching and Supporting Coaching 564.25 181.20 4 12 5 513.87 146.03 7 5 7

Fig. 3. Activity of selected coaches (Total Hours, Year 1).

5.3. Coaching proﬁles

Profile 1 Coaches Profile 2 Coaches Profile 3 Coachesa

Mean (SD) Hours per Week

6. Shared reﬂection and dialogue as a route to teachers’ strategic learning

7. Coaches: advancing human capital while building social capital

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi