A Professional Development Model Proposal Including Lesson Supervision Practices: School-Based Reflective Mathematics Coaching

Abstract

As a component of quality education, effective teaching is connected to students' exam success in the traditional understanding of education. However, today, effective teaching practices are handled much more comprehensively. In line with this innovative perspective in education and teaching processes, there are changes and developments in the teaching practices of teachers. It is clear that teachers need professional development to adapt to changes and new practices in existing teaching practices, and this need is valid for mathematics teachers as well as for many disciplines. In this study, a model of reflective mathematics coaching for the professional development of mathematics teachers is proposed. In the study, the findings obtained from the research studies on coaching on a large scale in the international literature, and in particular the multiplicity of mathematics, what coaching is and why it is needed, types of coaching, the basic elements of the coaching process, the coaching process and its implementation process, the supporting mechanisms for the effective coaching process and the difficulties of the process are discussed. In the light of this information, a proposal for a reflective mathematics coaching model has been developed as a school-based professional development model that can be used in the mathematics coaching process in our country.

Keywords

• lesson supervision
• mathematics coaching
• school-based professional development
• reflective thinking
• reflective coaching

Ders Denetimi Uygulamaları İçeren bir Mesleki Gelişim Modeli Önerisi: Okul Temelli Yansıtıcı Matematik Koçluğu

Öz

Kaliteli eğitimin bir bileşeni olarak etkili öğretim geleneksel eğitim anlayışında öğrencilerin sınav başarısı ile birebir eşlenirken günümüzde etkili öğretim uygulamaları çok daha kapsamlı olarak ele alınmaktadır. Eğitim-öğretim süreçlerindeki bu yenilikçi bakış açısı doğrultusunda öğretmenlerin öğretim pratiklerinde de yenilikler ve gelişimler söz konusudur. Öğretmenlerin mevcut öğretim uygulamalarında değişiklikler ve yeni uygulamalara uyum sağlaması noktasında mesleki gelişime ihtiyaç duydukları açıktır ve bu ihtiyaç pek çok disiplin alanı için geçerli olduğu gibi matematik öğretmenleri için de geçerlidir. Bu çalışmada matematik öğretmenlerinin mesleki gelişimlerine yönelik bir model matematik koçluğu ele alınmıştır. Çalışmada uluslararası alan yazında büyük ölçekte koçluk, özelde ise matematik koçluğu ile ilgili çalışmalardan elde edilen bulgular ile koçluğun ne olduğu ve neden ihtiyaç duyulduğu, koçluk türleri, koçluk sürecindeki temel unsurlar, koçluk süreci ve uygulanma şekli, etkili koçluk süreci için destekleyici mekanizmalar, sürecin zorlukları ele alınmıştır. Bu bilgiler ışığında Türkiye’de matematik koçluğu sürecinde kullanılabilecek okul temelli bir mesleki gelişim modeli olarak yansıtıcı matematik koçluğu modeli önerisi geliştirilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• ders denetimi
• matematik koçluğu
• okul temelli mesleki gelişim
• yansıtıcı düşünme
• yansıtıcı koçluk

Kaynakça

1. Allen, J. P., Pianta, R. C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A. Y. ve Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, 1034–1037. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207998.
2. Archibald, S, Coggshall, J.G., Croft, A. ve Goe, L. (2011). High-quality professional development for all teachers: Effectively allocating resources. National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
3. Aygün, B. (2016). The development of elementary mathematics teachers’ technological pedagogical content knowledge regarding geometry through mathematics coaching. (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Orta Doğu Teknik Üniversitesi, Ankara.
4. Aygün, B. ve Işıksal-Bostan, M. (2019). İlköğretim matematik öğretmenlerinin mesleki gelişimi: Matematik koçluğu. İlköğretim Online, 18(1), 52-77. https://doi.org/10.17051/ilkonline.2019.527153.
5. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H. ve Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554.
6. Bengo, P. (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.
7. Blakely, M. R. (2001). A survey of levels of supervisory support and maintenance of effects reported by educators involved in direct instruction implementation. Journal of Direct Instruction, 1, 73–83.Campbell, M. P.,
8. Baldinger, E. E. ve Graif, F. (2020). Representing student voice in an approximation of practice: Using planted errors in coached rehearsals to support teacher candidate learning. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 9(1), 23–49. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTE.2020.0005.

9. Campbell, P. F. ve Griffin, M. J. (2017). Reflections on the promise and complexity of mathematics coaching. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 163-176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.007.
10. Campbell, P. F. ve Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 111(3), 430–454.
11. Can, E. (2019). Öğretmenlerin meslekî gelişimleri: Engeller ve öneriler. Eğitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi, 7(4), 1618-1650.
12. Cornett, J. ve Knight, J. (2009). Research on coaching. In J. Knight (Ed.), Coaching: Approaches and perspectives (pp. 192–216). Corwin Press.
13. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51(3), 166-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487100051003002.
14. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei,R.C., Andree, A., Richardson, N. ve Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad. National Staff Development Council.
15. Denton, C. A. ve Hasbrouck, J. (2009). A description of instructional coaching and its relationship to consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 150–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410802463296.
16. Desimone, L. M. (2009). Impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08331140.
17. Dunst, C.J., Bruder, M.B. ve Hamby, D.W. (2015). Metasynthesis of in-service professional development research: Features associated with positive educator and student outcomes. Educational Research and Reviews, 10(12), 1731-1744.
18. Er, S.S., Toker, Z. ve Yücelyiğit, S. (2022). In-service teachers’ opinions about the use of video-based self-reflection for pedagogical development. Journal of Theoretical Educational Science, 15(3), 639-660. http://doi.org/10.30831/akukeg.1039752.
19. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F. ve Yoon, K. 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.
20. Gibbons, L. K. ve Cobb, P. (2017). Focusing on teacher learning opportunities to identify potentially productive coaching activities. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(4), 411–425. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0022487117702579.
21. Gibbons, L. K., Kazemi, E. ve Lewis, R. M. (2017). Developing collective capacity to improve mathematics instruction: Coaching as a lever for school-wide improvement. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 46, 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.12.002.
22. Guskey, T.R. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8(3/4), 381-391. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/135406002100000512.
23. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B. ve Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371-406. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002371.
24. Joyce, B. ve Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
25. Karip, E. (2017). Türkiye’nin TIMSS 2015 Performansı Üzerine Değerlendirme ve Öneriler. Türk Eğitim Derneği. Killion, J. (2012). Coaching in the K–12 context. In S. J. Fletcher ve C. A. Mullen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of mentoring and coaching in education (pp. 273–294). Sage Publishing.
26. Knight, J. (Ed.). (2009). Coaching approaches ve perspectives. Corwin Press.
27. Kurz, A, Reddy,L.A ve Glover, T.A. (2017) A multidisciplinary framework of instructional coaching. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 66-77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1260404.
28. Lilly, S., Bieda, K.N. ve Youngs, P.A. (2022). How early career elementary teachers vary in planning mathematics instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-022-09551-6.
29. Loucks-Horsley, S., Love, N., Stiles, K. E., Mundry, S. ve Hewson, P. W. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (2. baskı). Corwin Press.
30. Mangin, M. M. ve Dunsmore, K. (2015). How the framing of instructional coaching as a lever for systemic or individual reform influences the enactment of coaching. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51 (2), 179-213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X14522814.
31. Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D. J. ve Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works: research-based strategies for every teacher. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
32. Marzano, R. J. ve Simms, J. A. (2013). Coaching classroom instruction. Marzano Research Laboratory.
33. MEB (2018). 2023 Eğitim Vizyonu. http://2023vizyonu.meb.gov.tr
34. Mudzimiri, R., Burroughs, E. A., Luebeck, J., Sutton, J. ve Yopp, D. (2014). A look inside mathematics coaching: Roles, content, and dynamics. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(53). http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n53.2014.
35. Neufeld, B. ve Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity. Education Matters.
36. Obara,S. (2010) Mathematics coaching: a new kind of professional development, Teacher Development, 14(2), 241-251. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/13664530.2010.494504.
37. Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R. ve Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on head start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017763.
38. Ronfeldt, M., Farmer, S. O., McQueen, K. ve Grissom, J. A. (2015). Teacher collaboration in instructional teams and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 475–514. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215585562.
39. Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., . . . Gallagher, L. P. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 833–878. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210367426.
40. Russell, J. L., Correnti, R., Stein, M. K., Thomas, A., Bill, V. ve Speranzo, L. (2020). Mathematics coaching for conceptual understanding: Promising evidence regarding the tennessee math coaching model. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(3), 439–466. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/0162373720940699.
41. Saclarides, E. S. ve Munson, J. (2021). Exploring the foci and depth of coach-teacher interactions during modeled lessons. Teaching and Teacher Education, 105, Article 103418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2021.103418.
42. Sandholtz, J. H. (2002). Inservice training or professional development: Contrasting opportunities in a school/university partnership. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(7), 815-830. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00045-8.
43. Stein, M.K., Russell, J.L., Bill, V., Correnti, R. ve Speranzo, L. (2022). Coach learning to help teachers learn to enact conceptually rich, student-focused mathematics lessons. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education. 25, 321–346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-021-09492-6.
44. Sutton, J. T., Burroughs, E. A. ve Yopp, D. A. (2011). Coaching knowledge: Domains and definitions. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 13(2), 12-20.
45. Taşkireç, B. (2017). İçerik odaklı koçluk uygulamasının matematik öğretmenlerinin inançlarına etkisinin incelenmesi (Yayımlanmamış doktora tezi). Gazi Üniversitesi, Ankara.
46. Teemant, A. (2013). A mixed-methods investigation of instructional coaching for teachers of diverse learners. Urban Education, 49, 574–604. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085913481362.
47. Toker, Z. (2021a). Perceiving the change in the process of adaptation to an international curriculum framework. Education and Science, 46 (205), 93-111.doi: 10.15390/EB.2020.8940.
48. Toker, Z. (2021b). Effective Training of teachers in the teaching of mathematics: A reflective professional development model for teachers-as-designers. Espinosa, E.C.(Ed.), Developing Mathematical Literacy in the Context of the Fourth Industrial Revolution içinde. (pp.31-60). IGI Global.
49. Valoyes-Chávez, L. (2019). On the making of a new mathematics teacher: Professional development, subjectivation, and resistance to change. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 100(2), 177-191. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-018-9869-5.
50. van Veen, K., Zwart, R. ve Meirink, J. (2012). What makes teacher professional development effective? A literature review. In M. Kooy ve K. van Veen (Eds.), Teacher learning that matters: International perspectives (pp. 3-21). Routledge.
51. Vernon-Feagans, L., Kainz, K., Hedrick, A., Ginsberg, M. ve Amendum, S. (2013). Live webcam coaching to help early elementary classroom teachers provide effective literacy instruction for struggling readers: The targeted reading intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 1175–1187. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032143.
52. Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A, Richardson, N ve Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the United States and abroad: Technical report. National Staff Development Council.
53. Wenglinsky, H. (2002). How schools matter: The link between teacher classroom practices and student academic performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives.
54. West, L. ve Staub, F. (2003). Content focused coaching: transforming mathematics lessons. Heinemann.
55. Zanzali, A. (2003). Implementing the intended mathematics curriculum: Teachers’ beliefs about the meaning and relevance of problem solving. Proceedings of the International Conference: The Decidable and the Undecidable in Mathematics Education.
56. 11.Kalkınma Planı (2019). https://www.sbb.gov.tr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/OnbirinciKalkinmaPlani.pdf.