Leveraging Co-Teaching to Differentiate Mathematics Instruction: Lessons Learned From One Coach-Teacher Dyad

• In Event: Equity and Mathematics Coaching: Promoting Equitable Teaching and Learning Through Embedded Professional Development

Abstract

Purpose and Perspectives
Differentiation – a teacher’s attempt to vary his or her instruction to meet individual students’ needs (Tomlinson, 2017) – is one pedagogical approach that can be leveraged to provide all students with access to high-quality mathematics instruction (NCTM, 2014). Despite its promise, research indicates that differentiating instruction is challenging for teachers (Nicolae, 2014), and that they require support as they learn how to differentiate instruction (Suprayogi, Valcke, & Godwin, 2017). Research also suggests that coaches can support teachers to differentiate their instruction (De Neve, Devos, & Tuytens, 2015); however, there is a lack of research describing how this can be done.
Below, we apply Tomlinson’s (2017) differentiation dimensions and Coburn and Russell’s (2008) depth construct as conceptual lenses to explore one coach-teacher dyad’s conversational learning opportunities (Authors, 2017) about differentiation during their co-teaching cycle. We also examine the emergent challenges the dyad encountered while differentiating their instruction.

Methods
We partnered with Claire (full-time elementary instructional coach) and Caroline (first-grade teacher) – both of whom are white females and experienced teachers. We observed their two-and-a-half-week co-teaching cycle, including four planning and reflection meetings, and four co-taught lessons. We also completed eight semi-structured interviews. All observations and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed.
To understand the dyad’s conversational learning opportunities about differentiation during mathematics instruction, we first tagged all instances of coach-teacher talk about differentiation with a Differentiation Indicator. Next, we engaged in two subsequent coding rounds. First, we applied Tomlinson’s (2017) differentiation dimensions to understand the substance of coach-teacher differentiation talk. Second, we applied a modified version of Coburn and Russell’s (2008) depth construct to understand the depth of coaching conversations about differentiation. Furthermore, to understand the emergent challenges during the co-teaching cycle, we engaged in open coding (Creswell, 2013).

Results
When Claire and Caroline engaged in differentiation conversations, they frequently discussed how to differentiate process (the activities in which they engaged students) and content (what students learned). Conversations centering on how to differentiate the learning environment (classroom adaptations) and product (assessment adaptations) seldom emerged. Moreover, the coaching conversations about differentiation tended to be of medium-depth as the coach and teacher discussed either how or why they would differentiate instruction, without attending to both.
Three challenges emerged during the co-teaching cycle, and likely impacted the coach-teacher talk patterns noted above: (1) lack of time to co-plan/co-teach; (2) lack of certainty regarding next steps for students who are struggling/need enrichment; and (3) lack of pedagogical coaching knowledge about differentiating for first-grade students.

Significance
Our study illustrates how one coach-teacher dyad leveraged a co-teaching cycle to differentiate instruction. The results highlight that even in this case of an experienced teacher and coach who were committed to differentiating instruction, there are certain limitations that need to be overcome. Continued research is needed that explores how coaches effectively support teachers to differentiate their mathematics instruction. Furthermore, school districts must critically examine professional development opportunities provided to coaches to help them understand how to effectively support teachers to differentiate their instruction.

Authors

• Evthokia Stephanie Saclarides, University of Cincinnati

• Kristin E. Harbour, University of South Carolina