International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education

Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model
AMA 10th edition
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Courtney SA. Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2018;13(3), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2702
APA 6th edition
In-text citation: (Courtney, 2018)
Reference: Courtney, S. A. (2018). Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), 103-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2702
Chicago
In-text citation: (Courtney, 2018)
Reference: Courtney, Scott A.. "Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education 2018 13 no. 3 (2018): 103-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2702
Harvard
In-text citation: (Courtney, 2018)
Reference: Courtney, S. A. (2018). Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 13(3), pp. 103-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2702
MLA
In-text citation: (Courtney, 2018)
Reference: Courtney, Scott A. "Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model". International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, vol. 13, no. 3, 2018, pp. 103-123. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2702
Vancouver
In-text citation: (1), (2), (3), etc.
Reference: Courtney SA. Teacher Educator-Embedded Professional Learning Model. Int Elect J Math Ed. 2018;13(3):103-23. https://doi.org/10.12973/iejme/2702

Abstract

The author describes interactions with two middle grades (grades 6-8, student ages 11-14 years) and three secondary school (grades 9-12, student ages 14-18 years) mathematics teachers designed to increase and enhance teachers’ content knowledge and transform their classroom instruction by embedding the author (i.e., mathematics teacher educator) into teachers’ practices. In addition, the author operationalizes the teacher educator-embedded professional learning model. Embedding a teacher educator into grade K-12 (student ages 5-18 years) teachers’ practices, as presented in this study, involves more than simply implementing lessons with teachers. Rather, the mathematics teacher educator navigates iterative instructional cycles alongside the participating teacher, serving as sounding board, interventionist, epistemic student, and colleague. Results of teacher-educator embedding are presented, indicating participating teachers increased their content knowledge, engaged their students in more rigorous mathematics, demonstrated increased self-efficacy and more frequently engaged students in mathematical sense making, reasoning, modelling, generalizing, and communicating.

References

  • Abt Associates Inc. (2015, March). A guide for reporting on evaluations for the U.S. Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP): A user-friendly guide for MSP project officials and evaluators. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.
  • Achieve the Core. (n.d.). Mathematics: Focus by grade level. New York, NY: Student Achievement Partners. Retrieved from https://achievethecore.org/category/774/mathematics-focus-by-grade-level
  • Amrein-Beardsley A., Osborn Popp S. E. (2012). Peer observations among faculty in a college of education: investigating the summative and formative uses of the Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP). Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability, 24, 5–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11092-011-9135-1
  • Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. (2010). Changing the face of student teaching through co- teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32(1), 3-14. https://doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463538
  • Bruce, C. D., Esmonde, I., Ross, J., Dookie, L., & Beatty, R. (2010). The effects of sustained classroom-embedded teacher professional learning on teacher efficacy and related student achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(8), 1598-1608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.06.011
  • Clarke, D. (1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. B. Aichele and A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Professional Development for Teachers of Mathematics, 1994 Yearbook (pp. 37–48), Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  • Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995). Co-Teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1-16.
  • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2005). Surveys of enacted curriculum: A guide for SEC state and local coordinators. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). (2009). SEC self-guided tour of data charts: Introduction to data reported through the surveys of enacted curriculum online report generator. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Courtney, S. (2017). What teachers understand of model lessons. Cogent Education, 4(1), 1-23.
  • Covey, S. R. (2004). The seven habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change. New York: Free Press/Simon & Schuster.
  • Darling-Hammond, L, & McLaughlin, M. W. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604.
  • Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. (2003). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. The High School Journal, 86(4), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1353/hsj.2003.0007
  • Ebert-May D., Derting T. L., Hodder J., Momsen J. L., Long T. M., Jardeleza S. E. (2011). What we say is not what we do: Effective evaluation of faculty professional development programs. Bioscience, 61(7), 550-558. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2011.61.7.9
  • Fernandez, C., Cannon, J., & Chokshi, S. (2003). A U.S.-Japan lesson study collaborative reveals critical lenses for examining practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 19, 171-185. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00102-6
  • Florida State University. (2017). CPALMS. Tallahassee, FL: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cpalms.org/Public/
  • Friend, M. (2008). Co-teaching: A simple solution that isn’t simple after all. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 2(2), 9-19. https://doi.org/10.3776/joci.2008.v2n2p9-19
  • Gleason, J., Livers, S., & Zelkowski, J. (2017). Mathematics Classroom Observation Protocol for Practices (MCOP2): A validation study. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 9, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/19477503.2017.1308697
  • Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development? Phi Delta Kappan, 90(7), 495–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170909000709
  • Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371
  • Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11-30. https://doi.org/10.1086/428763
  • Idol, L. (2006). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education: A program evaluation of eight schools. Remedial and Special Education, 27(2), 77-94. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325060270020601
  • Ingvarson, L. (2005). Getting professional development right. ACER Annual Conference Proceedings 2005, Using Data to Support Student Learning. Melbourne, Australia: ACER Press.
  • Inside Mathematics. (2017). Common core state standards for mathematical content. Austin, TX: The Charles A. Dana Center, The University of Texas at Austin. Retrieved from http://www.insidemathematics.org/
  • Institute for Advanced Study/Park City Mathematics Institute. (2011). Resources to supplement rubric implementing mathematical practices. Princeton, NJ: Author, Secondary School Teachers Program.
  • Krauss, S., Baumert, J., & Blum, W. (2008). Secondary mathematics teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge and content knowledge: validation of the COACTIV constructs. ZDM, 40(5), 873-892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-008-0141-9
  • Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Better Schools.
  • Lewis, C. C., Perry, R. R., & Hurd, J. (2009). Improving mathematics instruction through lesson study: A theoretical model and North American case. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(4), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-009-9102-7
  • Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Hurd, J. (2004, February). A deeper look at lesson study. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 18-22.
  • Lewis, C., Perry, R., Hurd, J., & O’Connell, M. P. (2006). Lesson study comes of age in North America. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170608800406
  • Loucks-Horsley, S., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S., Love, N., & Hewson, P. W. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
  • Lyle, J. (2003). Stimulated recall: A report on its use in naturalistic research. British Educational Research Journal, 29(6), 861-878. https://doi.org/10.1080/0141192032000137349
  • Mathematics Assessment Project. (2015). Common core state standards. Oakland: CA: Shell Center for Mathematics Education, University of Nottingham (Shell Center), the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley). Retrieved from http://map.mathshell.org/materials/index.php
  • National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA Center & CCSSO) (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
  • Nebraska State Board of Education. (2015). Nebraska’s college and career ready standards for mathematics. Lincoln, NE: Nebraska Department of Education.
  • New York State Education Department. (n.d.). EngageNY. Albany, NY: Author. Retrieved from https://www.engageny.org/
  • Nguyen, N. T., McFadden, A., Tangen, D., & Beutel, D. (2013). Video-stimulated recall interviews in qualitative research. Paper presented at the AARE Annual Conference, Adelaide, Australia.
  • Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC). (2017, November). PARCC model content frameworks: Mathematics, Grades 3-11 (Version 5.0). Austin, TX: New Meridian Corporation.
  • Perry, R. R., & Lewis, C. C. (2009). What is successful adaptation of Lesson Study in the U.S.? Journal of Educational Change, 10(4), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-008-9069-7
  • Piaget, J. (1962). Comments on Vygotsky’s critical remarks concerning The Language and Thought of the Child, and Judgment and Reasoning in the Child (A. Parsons, Trans., & E. Hanfmann & G. Vakar, Eds.). Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. Press.
  • Piburn, M., & Sawada, D. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP): Reference manual (ACET Tech. Rep. No. IN00-3). Tempe: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers, Arizona State University.
  • Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. (2002). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68(2), 203-222. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290206800204
  • Rice, D., & Zigmond, N. (2000). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of developments in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(4), 190-197. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1504_3
  • Rosenbaum, D. A. (1972). The theory of cognitive residues: A new view of fantasy. Psychological Review, 79(6), 471-486. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0033548
  • Rowe, V. (2009). Using video-stimulated recall as a basis for interviews: Some experiences from the field. Music Education Research, 11(4), 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1080/14613800903390766
  • Salomon, G., Globerson, T., & Guterman, E. (1989). The computer as a zone of proximal development: Internalizing reading-related metacognition from a reading partner. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(4), 620-627. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.620
  • Salomon, G., Perkins, D. N., & Globerson, T. (1991). Partners in cognition: Extending human intelligence with intelligent technologies. Educational Researcher, 20(3), 2-9. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X020003002
  • Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford R., Bloom, I., & Judson, E. (2000) Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP) training guide (ACET Tech. Rep. No. IN00-2). Tempe: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers, Arizona State University.
  • Silverman, J. (2005). Examining the relationships between teachers’ understandings of mathematics content and their developing pedagogy. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vanderbilt University.
  • Silverman, J., & Thompson, P. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(6), 499-511. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-008-9089-5
  • Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
  • Steffe, L. P., & Thompson, P. W. (2000). Interaction or intersubjectivity? A reply to Lerman. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(2), 191-209. https://doi.org/10.2307/749751
  • Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., Thornton, C. A., Stump, S. L., & Miller, D. R. (1999). The impact on instructional practice of a teacher change model. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32(2), 69-82.
  • Sztajn, P., Marrongelle, K, & Smith, P. (2011). Supporting implementation of the common core state standards for mathematics: Recommendations for professional development. Raleigh, NC: College of Education, North Carolina State University.
  • Taylor, A. R., Anderson, S., Meyer, K., Wagner, M. K., & West, C. (2005). Lesson study: A professional development model for mathematics reform. Rural Educator, 26(2), 17–22.
  • Thompson, P. W. (2006). What makes a conversation conceptual? Retrieved from http://tpc2.net/Courses/Func1F05/ConceptConv.html
  • Thompson, P. W. (2009, August). The didactic triad in mathematics teacher professional development. Invited presentation given at the University of Michigan College of Education, Ann Arbor, MI.
  • Thompson, P. W. (2013). In the Absence of Meaning. In K. Leatham (Ed.), Vital Directions for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 57-93), New York, NY: Springer, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-6977-3_4
  • Thompson, P. W. (2016). Researching mathematical meanings for teaching. In English, L., & Kirshner, D. (Eds.), Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 435-461). London: Taylor and Francis.
  • Valero, P. (2010). Mathematics education as a network of social practices. In V. Durand-Guerier, S. Soury-Lavergne, & F. Arzarello (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. LIV-LXXX). Lyon, France: Institut National de Recherche Pedagogique.
  • Walsh, J. M. (2012). Co-teaching as a school system strategy for continuous improvement. Preventing School Failure, 56(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.555792
  • Webster-Wright, A. (2009). Reframing professional development through understanding authentic professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 79(2), 702-739. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308330970
  • Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER). (2018). Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC). Madison, WI: WCER, School of Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.

License

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.