By Wendy P. Ruchti, Cory A. Bennett
and Michelle Dunstan
Idaho State University

https://doi.org/10.46767/kfp.2016-0021

Abstract

Teacher leaders are often responsible for providing professional development to improve teacher effectiveness and student learning.  Leading professional development for teachers can be highly effective when the focus is on student learning in on-going and relevant contexts. This article describes a school-based, teacher-led collaborative process conceptualized and facilitated by two teacher leaders using a modified protocol for examining students work in mathematics. The focus of the professional development aligned with a school-wide initiative of increasing the quality of students’ mathematical work across a kindergarten through eighth-grade school. This paper shares the structure of the professional development, the nature of the protocol, and how it was implemented followed by a discussion for teacher leaders who are interested in facilitating a similar type of collaborative professional development experience within their own schools. Findings suggest that the use of a well-developed protocol helped focus teachers’ attention to specific attributes expected in quality work and served as a reference point for considering how important structures of learning such as whole-class discourse could be evident in individual students’ quality work.

Keywords: Mathematics, Professional Development, Teacher Leaders

Full Text

PDF

REFERENCES

Bennett, C. A. (2013). Teachers’ perspectives of whole-class discourse: Focusing on effective instruction to improve student learning. Action in Teacher Education, 35(5-6), 475-488.

Allen, D., & McDonald, J. (2003). The Tuning Protocol: A process for reflection on teacher and student work. Retrieved from: http://essentialschools.org/horace-issues/the-tuning-protocol-a-process-for-reflection-on-teacher-and-student-work/

Balka, D. S., Hull, T. H., & Miles, R. H. (2009). A guide to mathematics leadership: Sequencing instructional change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Blythe, T., Allen, D., & Powell, B. S. (2015). Looking together at student work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Bonner, P. J. (2006). Transformation of teacher attitude and approach to math instruction through collaborative action research. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(3), 27-44.

Colbert, J. A., Brown, R. S., Choi, S., & Thomas, S. (2008). An investigation of the impacts of teacher-driven professional development on pedagogy and student learning. Teacher Education Quarterly, 35(2), 135-154.

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A.  (2007). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3^rd ed.).  Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2017). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage publications.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181–199.

Easton, L. B. (2009). Protocols for professional learning (The professional learning community series). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

EL Education. (2015).  Quality work protocol facilitation guide. Unpublished document.

Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Education Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Goldsmith, L. T., & Seago, N. (2011). Using classroom artifacts to focus teachers’ noticing. In Sherin, M., Jacobs, V., & Phillip, R. (Eds.), Mathematics teacher noticing: Seeing through teachers’ eyes (pp. 169-187). New York, NY: Routledge.

Guskey, T. R. (2002). Does it make a difference? Evaluating professional development. Educational Leadership, 59(6), 45-51.

Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(1), 3–19.

Hounsell, D., McCune, V., Hounsell, J., & Litjens, J. (2008). The quality of guidance and feedback to students. Higher Education Research & Development, 27(1), 55-67.

Hull, T. H., Balka, D. S., & Harbin-Miles, R. (2011). Visible thinking in the K-8 mathematics classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin and NCTM.

Kazemi, E. & Franke, M.L. (2004). Teacher learning in mathematics: Using student work

to promote collective inquiry. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 203-235.

Levin, D., Hammer, D., & Elby, A. (2012). Becoming a responsive science teacher:

Focusing on student thinking in secondary science. Arlington, VA: National Science Teachers Association.

Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3-14.

Little, J. W. (2003). Inside teacher community: Representations of classroom practice. Teachers College Record, 105(6), 913-945.

Marrongelle, K., Sztajn, P., & Smith, M. (2013). Scaling up professional development in an era of common state standards. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 202-211.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, D.C.: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.

National Research Council & Mathematics Learning Study Committee. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge: An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of research in education, 24, 173-209.

Zeichner, K. M. (2003). Teacher research as professional development for P–12 educators in the USA. Educational Action Research, 11(2), 301-326.