This article describes and evaluates a web-based coaching program designed to support teachers in implementing Common Core–aligned math instruction. Web-based coaching programs can be operated at relatively lower costs, are scalable, and make it more feasible to pair teachers with coaches who have expertise in their content area and grade level. Results from our randomized field trial document sizable and sustained effects on both teachers’ ability to analyze instruction and on their instructional practice, as measured by the Mathematical Quality of Instruction instrument and student surveys. However, these improvements in instruction did not result in corresponding increases in math test scores as measured by state standardized tests or interim assessments. We discuss several possible explanations for this pattern of results.
AllenJ. P.HafenC. A.GregoryA. C.MikamiA. Y.PiantaR. (2015). Enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement: Replication and extension of the My Teaching Partner-Secondary Intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(4), 475–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2015.1017680
2.
ArgentinG.PennisiA.VidoniD.AbbiatiG.CaputoA. (2014). Trying to raise (low) math achievement and to promote (rigorous)policy evaluation in Italy: Evidence from a large-scale randomized trial. Evaluation Review, 38(2), 99–132. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X14529125
3.
AtteberryA.LoebS.WyckoffJ. (2017). Teacher churning: Reassignment rates and implications for student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 3–30. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716659929
4.
BallD. L.ThamesM. H.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching what makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554
5.
BeisiegelM.MitchellR.HillH. C. (2018). The design of video-based professional development: An exploratory experiment intended to identify effective features. Journal of Teacher Education, 69(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487117705096
6.
BengoP. (2016). Secondary mathematics coaching: The components of effective mathematics coaching and implications. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.07.027
Bridwell-MitchellE. N.FriedS. A. (2018). Learning one’s place: Status perceptions and social capital in teacher communities. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904818802117
9.
CampbellP. F.MalkusN. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1086/657654
10.
CarpenterT. P.FennemaE.PetersonP. L.ChiangC.-P.LoefM. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499–531. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312026004499
11.
CoburnC.RussellJ. (2008). Getting the most out of professional learning communities and coaching: Promoting interactions that support instructional improvement. Learning Policy Brief, 1(3), 1–5.
DominguezP. S.NichollsC.StorandtB. (2006). Experimental methods and results in a study of PBS TeacherLine math courses. Hezel Associates.
14.
FeldmanM. S.PentlandB. T. (2003). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(1), 94–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/3556620
15.
GaretM. S.HeppenJ. B.WaltersK.ParkinsonJ.SmithT. M.SongM.GarrettR.YangR.BormanG. D.WeiT. E. (2016, September). Focusing on mathematical knowledge: The impact of content-intensive teacher professional development (NCEE 2016-4010). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
16.
GaretM. S.PorterA. C.DesimoneL.BirmanB. F.YoonK. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312038004915
17.
GaretM. S.WayneA. J.StancavageF.TaylorJ.EatonM.WaltersK.SongM.BrownS.HurlburtS.ZhuP.SepanikS.DoolittleF.WarnerE. (2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Findings after the second year of implementation. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
18.
GibbonsL. K.CobbP. (2016). Content-focused coaching: Five key practices. Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 237–260. https://doi.org/10.1086/688906
19.
HillH. C.KapitulaL. R.UmlandK. L (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210387916
20.
HillH. C.LitkeE.LynchK. (2018). Learning lessons from instruction: Descriptive results from an observational study of elementary classrooms. Teachers’ College Record, 120(12), 1–46. https://www.tcrecord.org/library
21.
HornI. S.LittleJ. 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. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831209345158
JacobA.McGovernK. (2015). The mirage: Confronting the hard truth about our quest for teacher development. The New Teacher Project.
24.
JacobR. T.HillH. C.CoreyD. (2017). The impact of professional development on teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching, instruction, and student achievement. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 10(2), 379–407. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1273411
25.
JohnsonS. M.BirkelandS. E. (2003). Pursuing a “sense of success”: New teachers explain their career decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 40(3), 581–617. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040003581
26.
KelceyB.HillH. C.ChinM. J. (2019). Teacher mathematical knowledge, instructional quality, and student outcomes: A multilevel quantile mediation analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(4), 398–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1570944
27.
KilleenK. M.MonkD. H.PleckiM. L. (2002). School district spending on professional development: Insights available from national data (1992–1998). Journal of Education Finance, 28(1), 25–49.
KnightD. S. (2012). Assessing the cost of instructional coaching. Journal of Education Finance, 38(1), 52–80.
30.
KnowlesM. S.HoltonE. F., IIISwansonR. A. (2012). The adult learner. Routledge.
31.
KraftM. A.BlazarD.HoganD. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
32.
KrugerJ.DunningD. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1121–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.6.1121
33.
Learning Mathematics for Teaching. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of mathematics teaching. Journal for Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 25–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9140-1
34.
LeeD. S. (2009). Training, wages, and sample selection: Estimating sharp bounds on treatment effects. Review of Economic Studies, 76(3), 1071–1102. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00536.x
35.
LichtensteinS.FischhoffB. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know?Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(2), 159–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(77)90001-0
36.
Loucks-HorsleyS.StilesE.MundryS.LoveN.HewsonP. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Corwin.
37.
LynchK.ChinM.BlazarD. (2017). Relationships between observations of elementary mathematics instruction and student achievement: Exploring variability across districts. American Journal of Education, 123(4), 615–646. https://doi.org/10.1086/692662
38.
MerriamS. B. (2001). Andragogy and self-directed learning: Pillars of adult learning theory. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2001(89), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ace.3
39.
MilesK. H.OddenA.FermanichM.ArchibaldS. (2004). Inside the black box of school district spending on professional development: Lessons from five urban districts. Journal of Education Finance, 30(1), 1–26. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40704218
40.
MudzimiriR.BurroughsE. A.LuebeckJ.SuttonJ.YoppD. (2014). A look inside mathematics coaching: Roles, content, and dynamics. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(53), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n53.2014
41.
NeufeldB.RoperD. (2002). Off to a good start: Year I of collaborative coaching and learning in the Effective Practice Schools. Education Matters.
42.
PapayJ. P.Bacher-HicksA.PageL. C.MarinellW. H. (2017). The challenge of teacher retention in urban schools: Evidence of variation from a cross-site analysis. Educational Researcher, 46(8), 434–448. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17735812
43.
PenuelW. R.GallagherL. P.MoorthyS. (2011). Preparing teachers to design sequences of instruction in earth systems science: A comparison of three professional development programs. American Educational Research Journal, 48(4), 996–1025. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831211410864
44.
PutnamR. T.BorkoH. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning?Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X029001004
45.
RoschelleJ.ShechtmanN.TatarD.HegedusS.HopkinsB.EmpsonS.KnudsenJ.GallagherL. P. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 833–878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210367426
46.
RothK.WilsonC. D.TaylorJ.HvidstenC.StennettB.WicklerN.KowalskiS.NumedahlP.BintzJ. (2015, April11–14). Testing the consensus model of effective PD: Analysis of practice and the PD research terrain [Paper presentation]. International Conference of the National Association of Science Teacher Researchers, Chicago, IL, United States.
47.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys (Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics). https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470316696
SantagataR.KerstingN.GivvinK. B.StiglerJ. W. (2010). Problem implementation as a lever for change: An experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on students’ mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2010.498562
50.
SchönD. (1983). The reflective practitioner. Harper & Collins.
SussmanJ.WilsonM. R. (2019). The use and validity of standardized achievement tests for evaluating new curricular interventions in mathematics and science. American Journal of Evaluation, 40(2), 190–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214018767313
53.
SutcherL.Darling-HammondL.Carver-ThomasD. (2016). A coming crisis in teaching? Teacher supply, demand, and shortages in the US. Learning Policy Institute.
54.
SynarE.MaidenJ. (2012). A comprehensive model for estimating the financial impact of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 38(2), 130–144.
55.
ValliL. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United. Peabody Journal of Education, 72(1), 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje7201_4
56.
WatlingtonE.ShockleyR.GuglielminoP.FelsherR. (2010). The high cost of leaving: An analysis of the cost of teacher turnover. Journal of Education Finance, 36(1), 22–37. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.0.0028
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
