Effective Coaching for Ambitious Mathematics Instruction: A Case Study (Poster 5)

• In Event: Exploring the Influence of Organizational and Leadership Contexts on the Work of Coaching

Abstract

Overview
Coaching provides context-specific support that is tailored to meet individual teacher’s needs. However, coaching often attends to superficial areas of need such as logistics, while discussions of deeper issues with mathematics teaching are rare (Authors, 2021). Moreover, coach-teacher conversations can be prescriptive and limited to what teachers should do (Kennedy, 2016), hindering teachers’ learning opportunities. This study examines the effectiveness of a coaching model in addressing these issues.

Methods
A coaching model was designed to support teacher learning of ambitious mathematics instruction. The model focuses on teacher challenges with the 5 practices (Smith & Sherin, 2019) and uses a discursive practice (Invite-Rehearse-Suggest-Generalize) to frame coaching conversations. A coaching cycle includes three phases: Pre-lesson (preparation activities for an upcoming lesson and a pre-lesson conference), lesson (teaching and recording the lesson), and post-lesson(lesson reflection and a post-lesson conference).

Data was collected from 8 coaches who worked in different grade levels (3–8), contexts (urban, suburban, rural), and geographic regions (East, South, West, Mid-West). Each coach engaged in three coaching cycles with two teachers in their schools. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with individual coaches prior to the first coaching cycle and after completion of the third coaching cycle. Interview transcripts will be analyzed to understand how, if at all, the coaching model supported participating coaches with respect to engaging in coach-teacher conversations that are productive in addressing critical areas of teaching.

Results
The initial data analysis revealed that, first, the coaching model provided coaches with a “structure” that has been missing in their environments. Prior to the study, the coaches used to schedule meetings (e.g., “10 minutes prior to a lesson”) and coaching activities (e.g., co-teaching, modeling) at teachers’ requests. The three-phase coaching cycle along with specific coaching activities in the model helped coaches better prepare for coaching and engage in more productive conversations with their teachers.

Second, according to the baseline interviews, coaches tended to let their teachers decide what to work on, as they wanted to ensure access to teachers’ classrooms (Authors, 2022a). This approach limited the depth of coach-teacher conversations. Conversely, focusing on teacher challenges with the 5 practices in the coaching model allowed coaches to address deeper issues of mathematics teaching.

Finally, the baseline interviews showed that coach-teacher conversations were mostly directed by coaches and coaches usually “suggested” or “modeled” teachers what to do and how to do it to improve teachers’ instruction (i.e., “directive coaching,” Authors, 2010). During the exit interviews, coaches reported that the discursive practice in the coaching model provided a “framework” for planning and enacting conversations. The discursive practice also helped coaches build on teachers’ thinking and better support their teachers.

Significance
To ensure that coaching supports teacher learning of ambitious mathematics instruction and thus improve meaningful student learning of mathematics, coaches should facilitate productive coach-teacher conversations that address the most critical issues of ambitious instruction with which teachers are grappling. Our coaching model offers the structure and the tools to help coaches with achieving this goal of coaching.

Author

• Bilge Yurekli, University of Pittsburgh