A Framework for Coaching to Promote Teacher Learning of Ambitious Mathematics Instruction

• In Event: Understanding the Complexities of Mathematics Coaching: What Multiple Theoretical and Analytical Frameworks Reveal

Abstract

Overview
Research efforts to provide high-quality coaching typically focus on the design features of coaching programs. These features describe what effective coaching should look like, in terms of tools (e.g., observational instrument; Kraft & Hill, 2020), activities (e.g., co-teaching, modeling, and debriefing; Author, 2016), and discursive practices (e.g., deep and specific conversations; Author, 2020). However, this approach assumes that the effectiveness of a coaching program can be judged solely by implementation fidelity, ignoring the complex nature of coaching, including the tensions that affect the work of coaches (e.g., responsiveness vs directiveness; Ippolito, 2010). Our goal is to design a coaching model that highlights the processes of teacher learning and describes how the design features of our model are expected to work together to promote teacher learning of ambitious mathematics instruction. By focusing on these processes, we also aim to shift the discussion about tensions in coaching beyond the dichotomies that characterize the dominant approach in research.

We used conjecture mapping approach (“a means of specifying theoretically salient features of a learning environment design and mapping out how they are predicted to work together to produce desired outcomes;” Sandoval, 2014, p. 19) to develop our coaching model. Our conjecture map (Figure 2) was guided by the high-level conjecture that we generated based on past research: Effective coaching programs engage teachers in learning processes similar to the learning processes that students experience in ambitious classrooms (Cobb & Jackson, 2015; Opfer & Pedder, 2011; Sztajn, Borko, & Smith, 2017). This high-level conjecture was embedded in the design features that are expected to activate three processes of teacher learning which are parallel to student learning processes in ambitious classrooms: (1) Engaging teachers in challenges with ambitious mathematics instruction, (2) building coaching on teacher thinking, and (3) generalization of instructional practices.
For each of these processes, we identified tensions that affect coaching practices, based on past research: (1) Teacher- vs coach-identified areas of improvement (or “teacher challenges” as we define), (2) being responsive to teacher thinking by following their solutions to the challenges of instruction vs being directive by telling teachers what to do and how to address their challenges, and (3) addressing challenges in the context of individual lessons vs discussing general instructional practices without connections to specific lessons. Through our coaching model, we argue, coaches will have enough information about their teachers and guidance about effective coaching practices that, without coaches getting caught in these tensions, the three processes necessary for teacher learning will be activated.

Significance
Conjecture mapping allowed us to distinguish between design conjectures (i.e., how the design features will activate the processes of teacher learning) and theoretical conjectures (i.e., how these processes will produce teacher learning). This framework is important to guide the systematic test of specific conjectures and, ultimately, lead to the development of an empirically grounded theory for teacher learning through coaching. The reification of teacher learning processes is particularly important for adaptation of effective coaching practices in different contexts and content areas.

Authors

• Bilge Yurekli, University of Pittsburgh
  Presenting Author

• Mary Kay Stein, University of Pittsburgh
  Non-Presenting Author