Rigorous college-and-career readiness standards require significant shifts in typical mathematics instruction. Many schools and districts employ coaches to support instructional changes. Although there is evidence that coaching programs can support teaching improvement, research has yet to identify high-leverage coaching practices. In collaboration with a network of state leaders and coaches, our research team refined a model for math coaching and documented the practices coaches employed in one-on-one work with teachers. Analysis of videotaped coaching conversations and teaching events suggests that model-trained coaches improved their capacity to use a high-leverage coaching practice—deep and specific prelesson planning conversations—and that growth in this practice predicted teaching improvement, specifically increased opportunities for students to engage in conceptual thinking.
AllenJ. P.PiantaR. C.GregoryA.MikamiA. Y.LunJ. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, 1034–1037.
2.
AtteberryA.BrykA. S. (2011). Analyzing teacher participation in literacy coaching activities. The Elementary School Journal, 112, 356–382.
3.
BiancarosaG.BrykA.DexterE. R. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student learning. Elementary School Journal, 3(1), 7–34.
4.
BlazarD.KraftM. A. (2015). Exploring mechanisms of effective teacher coaching: Results from two cohorts of an experimental evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 542–566.
5.
BoalerJ.StaplesM. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110, 608–645.
6.
BostonM.SmithM. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(2), 119–156.
7.
BrykA. S.GomezL. M.GrunowA.LeMahieuP. (2015). Learning to improve. Harvard Education Press.
8.
CampbellP. F.MalkusN. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430–454.
9.
CobbP.JacksonK.HenrickE. C.SmithT. M., & MIST Team. (2018). Systems for instructional improvement: Creating coherence from the classroom to the district office. Harvard Education Press.
10.
CoburnC. E.PenuelW. R. (2016). Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48–54.
11.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(3), 203–235.
12.
CoburnC. E.RussellJ. L.KaufmanJ. H.SteinM. K. (2012). Supporting sustainability: Teachers’ advice networks and ambitious instructional reform. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 137–182.
13.
CohenD. K.RaudenbushS. W.BallD. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 119–142.
14.
Darling-HammondL.WeiR. C.AndreeA.RichardsonN.OrphanosS. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession (p. 12). National Staff Development Council.
15.
DeCaroM. S.Rittle-JohnsonB. (2012). Exploring mathematics problems prepares children to learn from instruction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113(4), 552–568.
16.
DesimoneL. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.
17.
DesimoneL. M.GaretM. S. (2015). Best practices in teacher’s professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263.
18.
DesimoneL. M.PakK. (2016). Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development. Theory into Practice, 56(1), 3–12.
19.
DominaT.LewisR.AgarwalP.HanselmanP. (2015). Professional sense-makers: Instructional specialists in contemporary schooling. Educational Researcher, 44(6), 359–364.
20.
DuckworthA. L.TsukayamaE.MayH. (2010). Establishing causality using longitudinal hierarchical linear modeling: An illustration predicting achievement from self-control. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 1(4), 311–317.
21.
FennemaE.FrankeM. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In GrouwsD. A. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). Macmillan.
22.
FernandezC.YoshidaM. (2004). Lesson study: A Japanese approach to improving mathematics teaching and learning. Erlbaum.
23.
FosterD.NoyceP. (2004). The mathematics assessment collaborative: Performance testing to improve instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 367–374.
24.
FrankeM. L.TurrouA. C.WebbN. M.IngM.WongJ.ShinN.FernandezC. (2015). Student engagement with others’ mathematical ideas: The role of teacher invitation and support moves. The Elementary School Journal, 116(1), 126–148.
25.
GallucciC.Van LareM. D.YoonI. H.BoatrightB. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 919–963.
26.
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.
27.
GaretM. S.WayneA.StancavageF.TaylorJ.EatonM.WaltersK., et al (2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: Findings after the second year of implementation (NCEE 2011-4024). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
28.
GibbonsL. K.CobbP. (2016). Content-focused coaching practices implicated in designing potentially productive coaching activities to support teachers’ learning. Elementary School Journal, 117(2), 237–260.
29.
GravaniM. (2007). Unveiling professional learning: Shifting from the delivery of courses to an understanding of the processes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 688–704.
30.
GravemeijerK. (2004). Local instruction theories as means of support for teachers in reform mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6(2), 105–128.
31.
HallgrenK. A. (2012). Computing inter-rater reliability for observational data: An overview and tutorial. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 8(1), 23–34.
32.
HiebertJ. (2003). What research says about the NCTM Standards. In KilpatrickJ.MartinW. G.SchifterD. (Eds.), A research companion to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–23). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
33.
HiebertJ.GrouwsD. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In LesterF. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Information Age.
34.
HiebertJ.MorrisA. K.SpitzerS. M. (2018). Diagnosing learning goals: An often-overlooked teaching competency. In LeudersT.PhilippK.LeudersJ. (Eds.), Diagnostic competence of mathematics teachers: Unpacking a complex construct in teacher education and teacher practice (Vol. 11, pp. 193–206). Springer.
35.
HiebertJ.WearneD. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.
36.
HillH. C. (2009). Fixing teacher professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 470–476.
37.
HopkinsM.SpillaneJ. P.JakopovicP.HeatonR. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224.
38.
HopkinsM.WoulfinS. L. (2015). School system (re) design: Developing educational infrastructures to support school leadership and teaching practice. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 371–377.
39.
JacksonK.GarrisonA.WilsonJ.GibbonsL.ShahanE. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding whole-class discussions in middle-grades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 646–682.
40.
KapurM. (2012). Productive failure in learning the concept of variance. Instructional Science, 40(4), 651–672.
KillionJ. (2012). Coaching in the K-12 context. In FletcherJ.MullenC. A. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coaching in education (pp. 273–295). SAGE.
45.
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.
46.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863.
47.
LampertM. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. Yale University Press.
48.
LewisC. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Research for Better Schools.
49.
LewisC.TsuchidaI. (1997). Planned educational change in Japan: The shift to student-centered elementary science. Journal of Educational Policy, 12, 313–331.
50.
LewisC.TsuchidaI. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: Research lessons and the improvement of Japanese education. American Educator, 22(4), 12–17, 50–52.
51.
ManginM. M.DunsmoreK. (2014). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 179–213.
52.
MatsumuraL. C.GarnierH. E.ResnickL. B. (2010). Implementing literacy coaching: The role of school social resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 249–272.
53.
MatsumuraL. C.GarnierH. E.SpybrookJ. (2012). The effect of content-focused coaching on the quality of classroom text discussions. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(3), 214–228.
54.
MatsumuraL. C.GarnierH. E.SpybrookJ. (2013). Literacy coaching to improve student reading achievement: A multi-level mediation model. Learning and Instruction, 25, 35–48.
55.
MatsumuraL. C.SartorisM.BickelD. D.GarnierH. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45(5), 655–693.
56.
NeufeldB.RoperD. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity: Promises and practicalities. Aspen Institute Program on Education.
57.
NeumanS. B.CunninghamL. (2009). The impact of professional development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 532–566.
58.
OpferV. D.PedderD. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.
59.
OttenS.SoriaV. M. (2014). Relationships between students’ learning and their participation during enactment of middle school algebra tasks. ZDM, 46(5), 815–827.
60.
PenuelW. R.FishmanB. J.ChengB. H.SabelliN. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331–337.
PollyD. (2012). Supporting mathematics instruction with an expert coaching model. Mathematics Teacher Education and Development, 14(1), 78–93.
63.
PowellD. R.DiamondK. E.BurchinalM. R.KoehlerM. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on Head Start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 299–312.
64.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). SAGE.
65.
RigbyJ. G.Larbi-CherifA.RosenquistB. A.SharpeC. J.CobbP.SmithT. (2017). Administrator observation and feedback: Does it lead toward improvement in inquiry-oriented math instruction?Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(3), 475–516.
66.
RussellJ. L.SteinM. K.CorrentiR.BillV.BookerL.SchwartzN. (2017). Tennessee scales up improvement in math instruction through coaching. The State Educational Standard, 17(2), 22–27.
67.
SailorsM.PriceL. R. (2010). Professional development that supports the teaching of cognitive reading strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 301–322.
68.
SchwartzD. L.MartinT. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22(2), 129–184.
69.
SmithM. S.BillV.HughesE. K. (2008). Thinking through a lesson protocol: A key for successfully implementing high-level tasks. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 14(3), 132–138. (Reprinted in Rich and engaging mathematical tasks: Grades 5-9, by LappanG.SmithM. S.JonesL., Eds., 2012, Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.)
70.
SteinM. K.CorrentiR.MooreD.RussellJ. L.KellyK. (2017). Using theory and measurement to sharpen conceptualizations of mathematics teaching in the common core era. AERA Open, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416680566
71.
SteinM. K.EngleR. A.SmithM. S.HughesE. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, an International Journal, 10(4), 313–340.
72.
SteinM. K.GroverB. W.HenningsenM. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.
73.
SteinM. K.KaufmanJ. H. (2010). Selecting and supporting the use of mathematics curricula at scale. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 663–693.
74.
SteinM. K.LaneS. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.
75.
SteinM. K.MeikleE. (2017). The nature and role of goals in mathematics education. In SpanglerD.WankoJ. (Eds.), Research companion to principles to actions (pp. 1–11). National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
TarrJ. E.ReysR. E.ReysB. J.ChavezO.ShihJ.OsterlindS. J. (2008). The impact of middle grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.
78.
WebbN. M.FrankeM. L.IngM.WongJ.FernandezC. H.ShinN.TurrouA. C. (2014). Engaging with others’ mathematical ideas: Interrelationships among student participation, teachers’ instructional practices, and learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 63, 79–93.
79.
Webster-WrightA. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702–739.
80.
WoulfinS. L.RigbyJ. G. (2017). Coaching for coherence: How instructional coaches lead change in the evaluation era. Educational Researcher, 46(6), 323–328.
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.
