Hopkins Et Al. - Mathematics Coaching and Instructional Reform - JMB - 2017

Journal of Mathematical Behavior 46 (2017) 215–230
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
The Journal of Mathematical Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jmathb
Mathematics coaching and instructional reform: Individual

and collective change
Megan Hopkins a,∗ , Dan Ozimek b , Tracy M. Sweet c
a
University of California, San Diego, Department of Education Studies, 9500 Gilman Drive, La Jolla, CA 92093, United States
b
Pennsylvania State University, United States
c
University of Maryland, United States
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Mathematics coaching initiatives are being implemented in schools and districts across the
Received 21 July 2016 country, guided by the notion that these initiatives will foster individual teacher’s learning
Received in revised form 29 October 2016 and thereby support system-wide instructional improvement in mathematics. This paper
Accepted 30 November 2016
explores the evolving roles that mathematics coaches played in a system-wide instructional
Available online 10 December 2016
improvement effort focused on elementary mathematics education in a medium-sized sub-
urban school district. Using social network analysis and qualitative analysis of interviews,
Keywords:
we argue that coaches facilitated teachers’ implementation of a new mathematics curricu-
Brokering
lum by acting as brokers, first as intermediaries between the district office and schools, then
Curriculum implementation
Mathematics coaching as catalysts for collective inquiry. Further, we show how coaches’ work was both enabled
Organizational change and constrained over time by various organizational dimensions at the school and district
Teacher learning levels. Overall, our findings suggest that district and school leaders should think beyond
the roles and responsibilities of individual coaches, and consider how to support coaches
as participants in system-wide networks focused on continuous learning and instructional
improvement.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Over the last two decades, many mathematics education reform efforts have focused on transforming classroom pedagogy
to support the use of ambitious teaching practices (Cobb & Jackson, 2011; Lampert, Beasley, Ghousseini, Kazemi, & Franke,
2010). Supported by standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000), as well as the
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in mathematics, such practices seek to promote students’ conceptual knowledge—or
“learning that involves understanding and interpreting concepts” (Arslan, 2010)—rather than reliance on memorization
or step-by-step procedures. By engaging in mathematical discourse and argumentation, the goal of ambitious mathematics
teaching is for students to develop the ability to explain the reasoning behind their mathematical ideas and to solve real-world
problems.
Efforts have been made in a variety of contexts to support teachers’ use of these reform-oriented practices in mathe-
matics, with many such efforts including formal professional development (Bell, Wilson, Higgins, & McCoach, 2010; Borko,
2004; Carpenter, Fennema, & Franke, 1996). Mathematics instructional coaches are often part of these professional devel-
opment initiatives, and are charged with providing ongoing support to individual teachers to facilitate improvement in
∗ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: mbhopkins@ucsd.edu (M. Hopkins), dlo141@psu.edu (D. Ozimek), tsweet@umd.edu (T.M. Sweet).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2016.11.003
0732-3123/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
216 M. Hopkins et al. / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 46 (2017) 215–230
teachers’ instructional practices (Cobb & Jackson, 2011; Sun, Wilhelm, Larson, & Frank, 2014). In many cases, the theory of
change behind instructional coaching is that coaches’ work with individual teachers will result in system-wide instructional
improvement over time (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015).
In line with this theory of change, much of the literature on mathematics coaching has focused on the individual coach-
teacher relationship (Marsh, McCombs, & Martorell, 2010), the roles and responsibilities coaches take on within schools and
classrooms (Mudzimiri, Burroughs, Luebeck, Sutton, & Yopp, 2014), and the school- and district-level factors that enable
or constrain coaches’ work (Huguet, Marsh, & Farrell, 2014; Mangin, 2009). Though essential for understanding how to
develop and sustain reform efforts, fewer studies examine how mathematics coaching initiatives are implemented as part
of system-wide efforts to support teacher learning and curricular reform (Cobb & Jackson, 2011; Coburn & Russell, 2008).
Focusing on one local school system in which teachers’ beliefs and practices changed significantly over time in support of a
reform-oriented curriculum for teaching elementary mathematics (Hopkins & Spillane, 2015; Hopkins, Spillane, Jakopovic, &
Heaton, 2013; Spillane, Hopkins, & Sweet, under review), we explore whether and how a mathematics coaching initiative—as
just one component of the district’s reform efforts—contributed to these system-wide shifts. We ask: (1) What roles did
coaches play in supporting curriculum implementation during a system-wide instructional improvement effort? and (2)
How did dimensions of the school system’s organizational infrastructure enable and/or constrain coaches’ capacity to support
change? To address these questions, we used longitudinal analysis of social network and interview data to examine the work
of four mathematics instructional coaches over time. Our findings revealed that coaches served as brokers of the district’s
reform efforts by directly and indirectly facilitating the exchange of information (Burt, 1992) related to a new mathematics
curriculum. As such, we argue that coaches, through their work as brokers, enabled robust shifts in teachers’ opportunities to
learn about mathematics instruction over time, and these shifts were facilitated by various dimensions of the organizational
infrastructure.
We begin by outlining the literature on instructional coaching, describing the theoretical frameworks that guided our
analysis. Then, we present our mixed methodological approach. Turning to findings, we first describe how coaches’ work
as brokers evolved over time, from intermediaries who transferred reform-related information between the district office
and schools to catalysts who facilitated collective inquiry between teachers (Stovel & Shaw, 2012). Then, we show how
various dimensions of the districts’ organizational infrastructure enabled and constrained coaches’ work. We conclude with
a discussion of the implications of our work for theory, research, and practice.
2. Literature review
The instructional coaching literature can be situated more broadly in scholarship on teacher leadership. Teacher leader-
ship, a concept that developed in many ways out of research on distributed leadership (Spillane, 2006), has received attention
in the last few decades as a crucial element of teacher professional development and instructional improvement (Smylie,
Conley, & Marks, 2002). It has been defined as both a role and a practice (Scribner & Bradley-Levine, 2010), meaning that
teacher leaders include individuals who hold formal positions and are specifically tasked with leading instructional change
(e.g., coaches, team leaders, department heads), as well as individuals who lead on the job in more informal ways (Neumerski,
2013; York-Barr & Duke, 2004). In this paper, we focus on the formal role of the elementary mathematics instructional coach,
and on the practices these coaches engage in to support teacher professional learning and instructional improvement.
Instructional coaches, through their work with individual teachers, are thought to facilitate teacher learning and knowl-
edge development that will, over time, result in system-wide changes in instructional practice and student achievement
(Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). Research evidence generally supports this theory of change, showing positive associations
between instructional coaching, teacher knowledge development (Sun et al., 2014), changes in teaching practice (Carlisle &
Berebitsky, 2011; Cohen & Hill, 2001; Cronen et al., 2008; Neufeld & Roper, 2003; Rodgers & Rodgers, 2007; Teemant, 2014),
and increased student achievement (Biancarosa, Bryk, & Dexter, 2010; Campbell & Malkus, 2011; Elish-Piper & L’Allier, 2011;
Marsh et al., 2010; Obara & Sloan, 2009; Spelman & Bell, 2012).
Though an important feature of system-wide improvement, much of the extant literature explores instructional coaching
as an individually focused task, delineating coaches’ responsibilities (Mudzimiri et al., 2014), identities (Chval et al., 2010),
and learning trajectories (Gallucci, Van Lare, Yoon, & Boatright, 2010). In a recent study of the work of seven elementary
mathematics coaches, for example, Mudzimiri et al. (2014) demarcate three categories of coach activities: 1) work related to
the coaching cycle (e.g., observing instruction, meeting with teachers one-on-one, working with students), 2) administrative
duties (e.g., meeting with administrators), and 3) other responsibilities (e.g., visiting informally with teachers, managing
data, facilitating team meetings, locating resources). Focusing on the first category, the authors outline the topics coaches
focused on in their interactions with teachers, from mathematics content and pedagogy to curriculum issues and classroom
management, and describe the approaches that coaches used to address them, from directive to collaborative.
While Mudzimiri et al. (2014) point out the importance of knowing how to effectively negotiate interactions with teachers,
other scholars suggest that coaches must also attend to the politics of coaching during times of policy or curricular change
(Coburn & Woulfin, 2012), for example by working to understand school leaders’ desires (Huguet et al., 2014). In doing
so, coaches must learn to negotiate a variety of tensions (Mangin & Stoelinga, 2011) so they can promote the ongoing and
iterative interactions with teachers that have been shown to facilitate instructional change (Coburn & Russell, 2008).
In general, at least two mechanisms have been identified as important for supporting productive interactions between
coaches and teachers: professional development and strong district or school leadership. Given the range of activities in
M. Hopkins et al. / Journal of Mathematical Behavior 46 (2017) 215–230 217
which coaches engage, the content about which they are expected to be knowledgeable, and the interpersonal skills they
need, Obara (2010) and Polly, Mraz, & Algozzine (2013) outline the topics on which coaches’ professional development should
focus: content knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, knowledge of curriculum and research, and social leadership
skills. Nonetheless, other scholars have pointed out that professional development for coaches must extend beyond these
topics if coaches are to succeed in becoming agents of system-wide change (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). Gallucci et al.
(2010), for instance, assert that professional development for coaches should be embedded in reform activities that involve
multiple system actors (i.e., coaches, district and school leaders, teachers) in capacity building around a shared purpose.
In particular, principals served important roles by motivating teachers to implement the strategies that coaches advocate
(Matsumura, Sartoris, Bickel, & Garnier, 2009; Matsumura & Wang, 2014), and structuring coaches’ jobs in ways that are
sensitive to school power dynamics (Huguet et al., 2014).
Relatedly, scholars suggest that coaching initiatives may be most successful when they are part of district-wide initiatives
that are organized to foster the conditions necessary for instructional improvement (Fullan & Knight, 2011). These conditions
include the development of a coherent system that supports both formal and on-the-job professional development, teachers’
networks, as well as the practices of math coaches, school leaders, and district administrators (Cobb & Jackson, 2011). Though
important, coaching initiatives are less likely to be framed as important components of or embedded within system-wide
change efforts, particularly given many district and schools’ immediate need to strengthen and maintain coaches’ interactions
with individual teachers (Mangin & Dunsmore, 2015). Our study, which included a five-year examination of one local school
district’s efforts to reform elementary mathematics instruction, offered a unique opportunity to explore whether and how
mathematics instructional coaches contributed to system-wide instructional change, which in this case was demonstrated
via significant shifts in teachers’ beliefs about how elementary students should learn mathematics (Hopkins et al., 2013;
Spillane et al., under review). In the next section, we present the theoretical framework that guided our analytical approach.
3. Theoretical framework
We draw on organizational sociology, and particularly new institutional theory (Scott, 2007) and the literature on broker-
ing (Stovel & Shaw, 2012), to explore coaches’ roles in system-wide instructional change in one school district undergoing
reform in elementary mathematics. Generally speaking, institutional theory asserts that structures, policies, or programs gain
legitimacy—and become an institutionalized part of everyday practice—through social processes that allow organizational
members to arrive at shared understandings of their work (Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Scott, 1981).
The social processes that facilitate organizational change are shaped by three dimensions: regulative, normative, and
cognitive (Scott, 2007). From a regulative perspective, change is motivated by policies, mandates, or regulations, where
organizational members change because they feel they have to, not necessarily because they want to (Palthe, 2014). With
respect to the normative dimension, a sense of obligation is often the driving force of change, or the notion that organizational
members should change, even if the rationale is not clear, nor do they believe the change will succeed. In terms of the cognitive
dimension, the premises of change must be internalized and valued by organizational members for it to be implemented
and supported; that is, members must believe in the change and want to support it (Powell & DiMaggio, 1991).
While each of these dimensions on their own can motivate change, it is only in their alignment and interaction that
robust change can occur in school systems (Hopkins & Spillane, 2015). For example, if a school district mandates a new
curriculum, this regulation alone is not enough to generate system-wide change in practice. Capacity-building efforts must
also be undertaken that support norms of collaboration as well as teachers’ knowledge development such that teachers
come to engage with, believe in, and value the curricular approach. If sustained, such interactions between the regulative,
normative, and cognitive dimensions can facilitate the social processes that foster instructional improvement over time.
Given that organizational change occurs through social processes, we hypothesize that brokers can play important roles
in facilitating change efforts. Brokers, as individuals who facilitate the spread of information and resources by either directly
or indirectly connecting previously disconnected individuals (Burt, 1992; Stovel & Shaw, 2012), can facilitate interactions
within and between groups that have the potential to shape normative and cognitive dimensions of an organization. Within
groups, the connections that brokers forge can help to build trust among group members, which can bolster the normative
dimension by fostering norms of collaboration and enable productivity (Coleman, 1990). Between groups, brokers can attend
to the cognitive dimension by facilitating the spread of novel information that spurs innovation through the take up of new
ideas and behaviors (Burt, 1992).
Though situated in organizational sociology, these ideas about brokering align with the sociocultural concept of commu-
nities of practice as social learning systems (Wenger, 2010). From a communities of practice perspective, learning takes place
when participation changes over time in a community of practice, defined as group of individuals interacting around a com-
mon goal (Lave & Wenger, 1991). Brokers can facilitate such changes—and thus support learning—by connecting individuals
within and between communities of practice and translating, coordinating, and aligning their practices and perspectives
(Wenger, 1998). By coordinating the exchange of practices and perspectives, brokers can shift the way communities of prac-
tice, and the individuals within them, understand their identity. In our analysis, we explored whether and how coaches, as
brokers, translated information between and coordinated interactions among communities of practice.
Stovel and Shaw (2012) define two types of brokers: middlemen and catalysts. Middlemen, or what we refer to as
intermediaries, facilitate the transfer or flow of information and resources, whereas catalysts create connections between
previously disconnected others. As an example, Teacher B on the left side of Fig. 1 represents an intermediary, where
Fig. 1. Representations of an Intermediary and a Catalyst. In the left diagram, information travels from Teacher A to Teacher C thorugh Teacher B (an
intermediary). In the right diagram, Teacher B (a catalyst) is connected to Teachers A and C, who are also connected to one another.
information from Teacher A travels to Teacher C through Teacher B. In contrast, Teacher B on the right side of Fig. 1 represents
a catalyst, where Teachers A and C, who are both connected to Teacher B, are also connected to one another.
Both intermediaries and catalysts can facilitate teachers’ learning opportunities. First, given that the transfer of advice
and information supports learning and knowledge development (Frank, Zhao, & Borman, 2004; Reagans & McEvily, 2003),
intermediaries who translate information from one community of practice to another can alter the way in which individuals
engage in one or both of these communities. Second, by fostering connections between teachers, catalysts can facilitate
change in participation within and between communities of practice and thus promote the development of a more robust
social learning system. In this way, we theorize that instructional coaches can enable teachers’ learning opportunities at
both the individual and collective levels, and that these learning opportunities in turn supported the system-wide changes
in teachers’ beliefs and practices we observed in this school district. As such, we explore the extent to which mathematics
coaches worked as intermediaries and catalysts of curriculum reform over time, and whether and how the regulative,
normative, and cognitive dimensions of the school system enabled coaches to support teachers’ individual and collective
learning.
4. District context
Our study took place between 2010 and 2015 in Auburn Park School District (APSD; a pseudonym), a mid-sized suburban
school district in the Midwestern United States. The overarching goal of our research project was to understand how the
district designed and redesigned its infrastructure to support mathematics reform in the district’s 14 elementary schools
(Hopkins et al., 2013; Hopkins & Spillane, 2015). In 2014–2015, these 14 schools served between 300 and 600 students, with
staff sizes ranging from 20 to 35. Although APSD served a predominantly white student population (80%), the district was
socioeconomically diverse, with five schools identified as Title I buildings, and 30% or more of their students receiving free or
reduced-price lunches. During our study, APSD experienced some demographic change, with small but increasing numbers
of Latino and African immigrants, as well as English learners (ELs).
In the 2009–2010 school year, select APSD elementary schools piloted new mathematics resources, Investigations in
Number, Data, and Space, a program that emphasizes the development of young children’s conceptual understandings of
mathematics, and promotes teacher-student collaboration in the co-construction of mathematics ideas and representa-
tions (TERC, 2013). Full implementation of Investigations occurred in all elementary schools the following year. Also in
2009–2010, select elementary teachers began to participate in a university-led professional development program, Fun-
damental Math, that offered coursework over an 18-month period related to developing teachers’ mathematical content
knowledge and pedagogical knowledge in support of NCTM Principles (NCTM, 2000). Upon program completion, some par-
ticipants became full-time mathematics instructional coaches, while others remained in the classroom as designated teacher
leaders in mathematics.
APSD’s mathematics coaching initiative changed over time, beginning with two full-time math coaches assigned to their
home schools in 2010–2011, and shifting in 2012–2013 to three full-time coaches who were each assigned to two schools
(see Table 1). Five of the seven schools served by coaches between 2010 and 2015 received Title I funding. In addition
to serving as mathematics instructional coaches, these individuals participated in the district’s mathematics curriculum
committee. This committee, comprised of coaches and select teachers from each elementary school, was responsible for the
adoption of content standards, materials selection, and curriculum development, which included authoring standards-based
indicators and aligned instructional units.
During the time of our study, district administrators also refined their approaches to teacher professional develop-
ment. Within schools, teachers participated in monthly, half-day workshops on mathematics instruction that were typically
developed and led by mathematics instructional coaches. Additionally, teachers had time built into their weekly schedules
to participate in professional learning communities (PLCs), which were required meetings that included grade-level teams,
specialists (e.g., special education and/or EL teachers), and instructional leaders (e.g., coaches and principals). PLC meetings
focused on data-driven decision making to support instructional improvement in specific content areas, and often included
problem solving around student-specific issues (Spillane, Shirrell, & Hopkins, 2016). Between schools, the district established
an array structure that brought schools with similar demographics together at least quarterly for professional development
activities, most of which were planned by instructional coaches in both literacy and mathematics.
Table 1
Mathematics Coaches in Auburn Park School District, 2010–2015.
2010 2011 2012 2013 2015
Emily
Position Teacher Coach Coach Coach Coach
School(s) Bryant Bryant Bryant Bryant & Torres Bryant & Torres
In-degree 8 17 23 35 42
Betweenness 25.5 198.25 294.8 686.8 825.4
Triad count 2 21 31 34 57
Total ties 10 43 58 73 101
Triad proportion 0.20 0.49 0.53 0.47 0.56
Mary
Position Teacher Coach Coach Coach Teacher
School(s) Chamberlaina Chamberlain Chamberlain Warner & Chavez Chamberlain
In-degree 8 19 23 23 11
Betweenness 38.3 206.25 273.7 375.2 86.2
Total ties 16 56 52 46 28
Abby
Position Teacher Teacher Teacher Coach Coach
School(s) Cisneros Cisneros Cisneros Ashton & Riley Ashton & Chavez
In-degree 6 8 11 31 33
Betweenness 14 25.5 43.5 440.5 535.8
Total ties 7 10 18 50 71
Eva
Position Teacher Teacher Teacher Teacher Coach
School(s) Ashton Ashton Ashton Ashton Warner & Stevensona
In-degree 0 3 2 3 31
Betweenness 0 5 3 9.5 541.7
Total ties 1 9 4 7 69
a
Chamberlain and Stevenson were not Title I schools; however, Stevenson was assessed by district administrators as in need of improvement in
mathematics according to state achievement test results. All other schools listed above were designated to receive Title I funding.
In general, the way in which APSD leaders designed and redesigned their organizational infrastructure to support ele-
mentary mathematics instruction resulted in a coherent system that provided teachers with ample opportunities to learn
about the new curriculum. In many ways, APSD represents an ideal setting for instructional reform, one where supports for
teachers and coaches were intentional and focused on instructional improvement. Indeed, there is evidence to suggest that
teachers’ beliefs about and practices in mathematics changed over time across the district to align with the new curricular
approach (Hopkins et al., 2013; Hopkins & Spillane, 2015; Spillane et al., under review). Yet to be explored, however, are the
specific roles that the four mathematics coaches played in these reform efforts.
5. Methods
Our analysis drew from a longitudinal mixed methods study that involved APSD’s 14 elementary schools between 2010
and 2015. Every spring, except in 2014,1 we administered a survey to all teaching and administrative staff that asked
questions related to school culture, mathematics beliefs and practices, and instructional advice and information networks.
Response rates on the survey were as follows: 81% in 2010 (n = 331), 95% in 2011 (n = 393), 94% in 2012 (n = 375), 94% in
2013 (n = 384), and 96% in 2015 (n = 437).
We also conducted interviews in Spring 2011 and Fall 2012, and again in Spring 2015, with purposively selected teachers
and administrators in the district office and five elementary schools. Schools were selected to represent the range of teacher
leadership models, with two schools receiving a full-time coach in 2011 (Bryant and Chamberlain; see Table 1), two schools
receiving a half-time coach in 2013 (Ashton and Chavez), and one school with no math coach (Kingsley).
Interviewees (n = 34 in 2011–2012 and n = 32 in 2015) thus included teachers and school leaders from schools with
and without mathematics coaches who held a variety of formal roles (e.g., principal, coach, teacher) and occupied different
positions in their mathematics advice and information networks (e.g., highly and weakly connected). District leaders included
1
Funding for the original study concluded in 2013; however, we have continued our work with the district and opted to collect an additional round of
data in 2015.
the director of elementary curriculum and two instructional facilitators who worked most closely with the curriculum
committees. When possible, we interviewed the same individuals at both time points, or replaced participants who had left
the district with individuals who held similar positions (e.g., assigned to the same grade level) and were similarly connected
in their school’s mathematics network. Below, we describe our data analysis procedures in more detail, but first we present
the four mathematics coaches who were the focus of our study.
5.1. The mathematics coaches
Both the survey and interview samples included APSD’s four mathematics coaches: Emily, Mary, Abby, and Eva, who were
all in the midst of successful elementary school teaching careers. Emily had 19 years of teaching experience in grades K-3,
and had been a third-grade teacher at Bryant Elementary for 10 years before becoming the school’s full-time mathematics
coach in Fall 2010. She remained a coach at Bryant for the entirety of our study, and began to split her time between
Bryant and Torres Elementary in Fall 2012 (see Table 1). Mary, also a third-grade teacher with 10 years of experience at her
school, Chamberlain Elementary, became Chamberlain’s mathematics coach in Fall 2010, where she remained for two years.
Following a district decision to focus coaches in Title I buildings, Mary was moved to Warner and Chavez in Fall 2012, as
Chamberlain was not a designated Title I school. For reasons we describe later, Mary returned to the classroom and resumed
teaching at Chamberlain in Fall 2013.
Both Abby and Eva became coaches in the later years of our study. Abby, a third-grade teacher at Cisneros Elementary
who had seven years of experience at the beginning of our study, became a mathematics coach in Fall 2012. She was
first assigned to Ashton Elementary and Riley Elementary, and then moved from Riley to Chavez Elementary in Fall 2013.
Finally, Eva became a coach in Fall 2014, with her efforts focused on Warner Elementary and Stevenson Elementary. Eva was
previously a fourth-grade teacher at Ashton Elementary, with seven years of teaching experience at the study’s outset.
5.2. Data analysis
Our study design was such that, while the survey data informed our selection of interview participants, the data were
mixed only at the point of analysis and interpretation (Creswell & Clark, 2010). Below, we describe our quantitative and
qualitative analytical approaches separately; however, we integrate both data sources in our presentation of the findings.
5.2.1. Quantitative
While we asked a number of questions on the school staff survey, this analysis focused on the social network items
that gathered information related to coaches’ and teachers’ mathematics instructional advice and information networks.
Using questions piloted and validated in previous studies (Pitts & Spillane, 2009; Pustejovsky & Spillane, 2009), we asked
respondents: “During this school year, to whom have you turned to for advice and/or information about curriculum, teaching,
or student learning?” Participants listed up to 12 individuals,2 and these names were auto-populated in a follow-up question
that asked respondents to indicate the content area (i.e., reading/language arts or mathematics) for which they sought advice
and/or information from each person. In this paper, we focus on mathematics advice and information interactions. Given
that changing participation is indicative of learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), and that advice and information are essential
building blocks for learning and knowledge development (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2000), we used the network data to
examine how participants’ opportunities to learn about mathematics instruction changed over time.
To examine coaches’ roles as brokers in these networks, we generated graphical representations of coaches’ egonetworks
(i.e., networks focused around individual coach interactions, not whole school networks) in mathematics and ran a series of
measures using ORA-NetScenes (Carley, 2016). The graphical representations provided visual images of each coach’s math
network and allowed us to compare and contrast general patterns in their advice and information interactions over time.
We also calculated five network measures for each coach: in-degree centrality, betweenness, total ties, triad count, and triad
proportion. In-degree, or the number of school staff members who named the coach as someone they sought for advice
or information related to mathematics, gave us a sense of a coach’s relative influence. Betweenness, on the other hand,
explicitly measures brokering, and represents the number of times each coach sat in-between two other individuals in the
network (Freeman, 1979). For example, if Mary had a betweenness of 10, then she brokered advice or information related to
mathematics between 10 unique pairs of teachers. Triad count is also a measure of brokering, and in particular the extent to
which an individual acts as a catalyst by connecting previously disconnected others. A closed triad occurs when two people
who are connected to the same person are also connected to each other; thus, the triad count indicates how many times a
closed triad occurs around a particular individual (Wasserman & Faust, 1998). Finally, we used the number of total ties in
a coach’s egonetwork to calculate the proportion of ties that were part of a triad in order to compare and contrast coach’s
brokering between individuals and across years.
2
Based on prior iterations of the survey, we found that limiting the list to 12 did not lead to significant omission of network actors. In the 2013 survey
administration, for example, respondents listed an average of 6 people from whom they sought advice or information related to mathematics, ranging from
3 to 10.
5.2.2. Qualitative
The qualitative data helped us to explain and extend findings from the quantitative analysis, and to explore whether and
how various organizational dimensions enabled coaches’ work. All interviews were semi-structured and lasted between 40
and 50 min. Our questions focused on an interviewee’s involvement in school and district activities and mathematics reform
efforts. We also asked interviewees how and why they interacted with particular individuals about mathematics instruction,
and to describe the nature and content of these interactions. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and imported
into NVivo-10 (QSR International, 2012) for analysis.
We conducted two rounds of coding. First, we close coded (Miles & Huberman, 1994) for all instances in which math-
ematics coaching was mentioned, which included both descriptions of the coach initiative as well as interactions with
mathematics coaches. In instances where we had two interviews for the same participant (i.e., from each round of data
collection), these interviews were read and coded side-by-side. We wrote a series of analytic memos, one for each intervie-
wee and one for overarching themes. In the second round of coding, we used a hybrid approach (Miles & Huberman, 1994),
beginning with our list of themes from the first round and adding codes as necessary for additional themes or subthemes.
For example, we coded for descriptions of brokering activities, then developed subthemes for the various types of brokering
we uncovered (e.g., information transfer, connecting disconnected others, district-school, teacher-teacher, teacher-leader).
We also coded for the three organizational dimensions: regulative, normative, and cognitive, and developed subcodes for
each dimension. For example, for the normative dimension, we coded for school culture and principal leadership. Finally,
we ran reports in NVivo to uncover the relative prominence of various themes and to explore the relationships between
different codes.
5.3. Limitations
Our study is limited in that it focuses on a coaching initiative that involves just four mathematics coaches in one school
district. This school district is not necessarily representative of the majority of districts in the United States, in terms of
demographics as well as its highly developed organizational infrastructure (Hopkins & Spillane, 2015). In many ways, APSD
represents a best-case scenario in terms of implementing coherent instructional reform, and as such other districts that use
coaching in the same way may not see the same results. Nonetheless, the strength of the APSD setting is that it allowed
particular aspects of the coaching initiative to surface in ways that they might not have in a district with a less well-developed
infrastructure to support instructional reform. Thus, the APSD case made it possible for us to identify specific features of
coaching and to understand how the district supported (or did not support) these features over time. We return to these
ideas below.
6. Findings
First, we describe coaches’ roles as brokers in APSD’s curriculum reform efforts between 2010 and 2015. Then, we examine
how the regulative, cognitive, and normative dimensions of the school system enabled or constrained coaches’ work as
brokers.
6.1. Coaches’ brokering: from intermediaries to catalysts
In the early years of curriculum implementation, coaches worked as intermediaries who facilitated the transfer of infor-
mation and resources related to the new curriculum from district leaders to teachers. Over time, coaches also worked as
catalysts, brokering connections between previously disconnected teachers both within and between grade levels. In this
way, coaches’ work shifted from helping teachers understand technical aspects of the curriculum to facilitating collective
inquiry.
6.1.1. Brokering the transfer of curricular information and resources

While all four coaches were involved in the district’s mathematics curriculum committee over the course of our study,
two coaches, Emily and Mary, were intimately involved in the development of the new mathematics curriculum during the
2010–2011 school year. Given their new positions as mathematics coaches (i.e., both became coaches in 2010; see Table 1),
district administrators selected Emily and Mary from the larger curriculum committee to participate on a small leadership
team tasked with aligning state mathematics standards, curricular resources, learning indicators, and instructional units to
facilitate the implementation of Investigations in all elementary schools.
William, the district administrator in charge of all curriculum committees, described the small leadership team’s work
over the course of that year:
We handpicked certain individuals [from our curriculum committee] to work in a small team to look at each grade
level and the content versus the state standards, concepts and indicators and really trying to get them to mesh, which
has been a complete overhaul of our [units], a complete redesign of our [assessments]. So it was myself, Emily, Mary,
and then we pulled in a content expert from each grade level.
As key participants in the curricular development process, Emily and Mary acquired in-depth knowledge of the new
curriculum that they were then able to communicate with teachers at their schools. Mary suggested that her involvement in
this district-level work had a “trickle-down” effect: “It’s a trickle-down effect, which means at a building level, I communicate
with staff the changes with assessment, instruction, curriculum materials, state standards. So having that communication
piece from the district to the building level.” In many ways, district leaders’ intentional inclusion of coaches in the early
stages of curriculum development facilitated their roles as intermediaries of curricular information between the district
office and schools.
This district-to-school brokering is evident when examining Mary and Emily’s networks in Spring 2011 (see Fig. 2). That is,
Mary and Emily reported interacting with three and four district leaders (yellow nodes) in 2011, respectively, including the
director of elementary curriculum, the director of research, and the instructional facilitators. These connections were largely
absent the year prior, when Mary and Emily were classroom teachers and not yet engaged in the curriculum development
work. The exception is that Mary reported interacting with the elementary instructional facilitator in Spring 2010, likely due
to her existing role on the mathematics curricular committee.
Indeed, the director of curriculum, Georgia, indicated that APSD leaders intentionally positioned coaches to broker curric-
ular information and resources to teachers, or to “push out” district initiatives system wide: “Our math coaches, we utilize
them to impact district wide. The curriculum will be pushed out as a district, and when I say district it will come from
curriculum committees, math coaches, and then pushed out into the buildings. We have some very strong coaches who
will be able to provide professional development to their peers.” Georgia’s comments suggest that coaches were viewed
as key actors in the mathematics curriculum implementation, charged with sharing information with their colleagues and
supporting teachers’ professional learning in relation to the changes.
In schools, coaches supported teachers’ implementation of the new curriculum through formal professional development
as well as on-the-job interactions. With respect to the former, coaches were tasked with leading professional development
at the school, array, and district levels. Emily described this work in Fall 2012:
We [coaches] do staff development within our building, which at first focused on using the supplies and working
your way through the lessons. And then we also have done some staff development in arrays. Last year and this year
our focus is math, whether we’re looking at district assessment data, doing number talks, math talks, unit planning.
Then we’ve also done some district wide stuff; for example, this year I was in charge of second grade, so I had all
second-grade teachers from across the district, and we walked through a unit and planned it looking at the big picture
of the math involved.
As Emily noted, coaches led teachers’ formal professional development across different levels of the school system, which
helped to emphasize their roles as disseminators of curricular information and resources.
Coaches also supported more informal opportunities for teachers to learn about the new curriculum by serving as sources
of advice and information related to mathematics instruction. All four coaches experienced dramatic increases in the number
of teachers who sought them out for advice or information related to mathematics instruction over time, especially in the
year they became coaches (see “In-degree” in Table 1). For example, when Emily and Mary were classroom teachers in 2010,
eight teachers reported seeking them out for advice or information about mathematics instruction; in 2011, when they
became coaches, 17 teachers went to Emily for such advice, and 19 teachers went to Mary. The same is true for Abby and
Eva, who both had 31 teachers report seeking them out for math advice or information during their first year as coaches.
These increases continued for all of the coaches over time, only decreasing for Mary when she returned to the classroom.
In terms of the content of coaches’ interactions with teachers and the types of information they brokered, we found that
their initial emphasis was on helping teachers plan lessons using the new curriculum. In Fall 2012, Emily described the
assistance she provided in terms of lesson planning with Investigations, which often required some attention to teachers’
content knowledge: “I’m helping teachers be more intense on their planning. . .most of them are doing number sense,
so we’re really focusing on deepening their understanding of number sense, and then how can we implement that into
lesson planning, and how can they implement that into their teaching.” By supporting teachers’ planning of lessons, Emily
focused her work on helping teachers understand the technical components of the new curriculum, and on developing their
knowledge and skills to implement them effectively.
Indeed, teachers viewed coaches as resources for curricular-related information. Jessica, a second-grade teacher at Cham-
berlain, described how she reached out to Mary to ask questions about the curricular pacing guides: “I’ve gone to her usually
with each section because I don’t understand how our pacing guide is set up. We have nine books in Investigations, so each
book I’m trying to figure out what we need to do and what we don’t.” In addition to being knowledgeable about the curricu-
lum materials, teachers viewed coaches as resources for instructional ideas and strategies related to the new curriculum,
including Laura, who was a third-grade teacher at Kingsley and interacted with Mary through professional development
activities in her array: “I go to Mary for ideas, strategies. . .she’s taken so many classes, and she’s been in on so many class-
rooms she has some great ways to...I’ve learned a lot from her during our staff meetings, different ways to question the kids,
different things that to say to the kids.” Further, teachers sought feedback from coaches to help them improve students’
understanding during specific lessons. Carol, a first-grade teacher at Bryant, asked Emily for feedback: “We did a graphing
activity and so I just asked her for some feedback on how my conversation went with students and what I could have done
to deepen the kids’ understanding.”
Fig. 2. Coaches’ Mathematics Advice and Information Networks, 2010–2015 (For interpretation of the references to colour in the figure, the reader is
referred to the web version of this article).
Once teachers began to use the curricular materials with more regularity, Mary noted that her support shifted to develop-
ing teachers’ pedagogical knowledge: “Some teachers were holding back. So getting them to shift the classroom environment
and discourse, and how you facilitate that—so that whole piece of teaching teachers to teach math.” Coaches used a variety of
strategies to address this issue, including modeling instructional strategies in teachers’ classrooms. Modeling was a powerful
way for teachers to provide teachers with opportunities to learn how to implement the new curricular approach. Rachel,
a kindergarten teacher at Chamberlain, described how observing Mary teach helped her understand what an Investigations
lessons should look like: “Our math coach would come in and. . .she’s done a lesson or been in the classroom—just seeing the
way that she would teach the lesson to the kids and interact with the kids. It was towards the beginning of Investigations. It
kinda helped with, ‘This is what you should be doing, and this is what it looks like.”’ This type of modeling was most common
when Investigations was first implemented, to help teachers understand what was expected of them.
Coaches also focused efforts on teachers who were not taking up the curriculum as quickly as they would like. Emily
described her work with one teacher who she observed relying on more traditional instructional methods: “One teacher
wanted to send home flashcards, to give timed tests, so we had to have a lot of conversations about giving Investigations a
chance. ‘I’ll come in and I’ll model some teaching for you, but let’s keep this conversation going,’ and finally—the light bulb
came on, and she said, ‘Now I get it! Now I know why I need to do this.”’
By working one-on-one with this teacher over a series of weeks, Emily provided this teacher with opportunities to
learn about the new curricular approach, which helped her understand why they should be included in her teaching. Many
teachers noted that coaches’ ongoing attention to their implementation of the new curriculum supported changes in their
perspectives on mathematics, including JoAnne, a sixth- grade teacher at Bryant: “I think it makes me consider more ways
of doing problems and different ways of thinking about them and reasoning about them and not necessarily thinking it’s
wrong when somebody’s taking a different way.” Because of her work with Emily, JoAnne came to see that she could support
students’ understandings by exploring their mathematical ideas during her lessons.
Thus far, we have described how coaches were intermediaries who shared resources and information related to the new
mathematics curriculum, which in many ways involved transferring the knowledge they gained through their involvement in
district-level curriculum development. Further, coaches supported teachers’ opportunities to learn about the new curriculum
via formal professional development and on-the-job interactions. In the next section, we explore how coaches’ roles evolved
to that of catalysts who facilitated collective inquiry among teachers.
6.1.2. Brokering collective inquiry

Over time, rather than serving primarily as intermediaries who helped teachers understand and use Investigations, coaches
became catalysts who fostered collaboration between teachers. As can be seen in Fig. 2, district leaders (yellow nodes)
diminished in prominence in coaches’ networks, suggesting that coaches were less focused on transferring information and
resources from the district to schools over time. Moreover, there were dramatic increases in the number of teachers in each
coach’s network who were also connected to one another, indicating that coaches brokered more interactions between
teachers over time.
To more explicitly examine these changes, we see that Emily’s betweenness increased from 26 to 198 when she became a
coach (see Table 1), indicating that she brokered information between 198 unique pairs of teachers in her first year as a coach,
compared to just 26 when she was a teacher. This figure increased over time, and jumped significantly when Emily began
to serve two schools in 2012–2013. Similar trends were evident for the other coaches, such as Abby, whose betweenness
increased from 43 to over 500 in her first three years as a coach. This figure declined for Mary when she returned to the
classroom, suggesting that the formal coach position was a key factor in enabling coaches to broker advice and information
between teachers.
Another way to understand the extent to which coaches connected teachers to one other is by examining changes in
their triad counts (see Table 1), which indicates how many of the teachers with whom coaches interacted also interacted
with one another. Looking again at Emily, she was part of just two triads as a teacher, compared to 21 triads in her first year
as coach, and 57 triads in 2015. Said another way, the proportion of Emily’s ties that were included in triads increased from
2 out of 10, or 20%, in 2010, to 57 out of 101, or 56%, in 2015. Similar changes are evident for Abby and Eva, who were part of
36 and 34 triads in the 2014–2015 school year, which were 49% and 51% of their total ties, respectively. On the other hand,
Mary’s triad count and proportion decreased during the 2012–2013 school year, when she began to work with two schools,
an incongruent finding that we take up in the next section.
These shifts were not a function of chance, as coaches described how they worked to position teachers as mathematics
experts and thus as sources of instructional advice and information. For instance, all coaches participated in weekly grade-
level PLC meetings, in which teachers looked at data, analyzed student work, problem solved, and shared resources and
ideas. During a first-grade PLC meeting in 2014, Abby described how she supported a teacher when one of her grade-level
colleagues questioned her use of a particular instructional strategy, the domino builder, an activity that uses dice patterns
to help young learners develop number sense and knowledge of addition facts:
One element of her instructional routine is domino builder, and I let her lead it, I mean take it on [in her PLC]. One of
her team members said, “Well, do you really find any benefit to the domino builder [a strategy for building number
sense]?” Then she started talking, and I went in and supported her. But, she was able to support and explain why that
domino builder is so important and how it’s that instant knowledge of what those numbers are instead of having to
count and how we wanna move kids into that. And then we all talked about how that is so strong in building what
they need in first grade.
During this meeting, Abby played a support role to a teacher who explained the rationale behind her instructional
strategy (i.e., the domino builder), and helped her teammates appreciate why the strategy was useful in building first
graders’ mathematical understandings. In doing so, Abby helped to position this teacher as an expert, which may have in
turn motivated her teammates to seek her out for advice or information related to mathematics.
In fact, as teachers took ownership of the curriculum, they began to rely more on their grade-level teams for advice
and information related to mathematics. In 2015, Brenda, a kindergarten teacher at Ashton, noted: “I think it’s more of a
teamwork thing now. I think it’s really, we’re in it all together to get the whole grade to learn and to do well. Where I think
at the beginning I didn’t feel quite as much like that. Though we would plan lessons together it wasn’t, ‘How can I help you
with your kids?’ And that’s how I feel it is now.” This shift to a sense of collective responsibility for mathematics teaching and
learning was evident in teachers’ descriptions of their planning activities. Whereas many teachers noted that they reached
out to their coach for assistance with planning lessons as the curriculum was first implemented, this shifted over time to
include ongoing conversations among teachers. Sophia, a second-grade teacher at Bryant, described her grade-level team’s
work in 2015:
We do informal assessments throughout the units to create re-teaching groups. We talk frequently, daily on some
cases, about this practice: “I have a student and this is what he’s doing. Can I talk through with you what we’re going
through and what I’m seeing? Can you help me understand what he understands?” So the units are organized by the
district, but, we plan weekly, and we talk daily about the best way to help our kiddos understand math. And the goal
that we have is not only can they compute different mathematical problems presented but understand why, apply
it in different areas so that their learning is deeper than just being able to add two digit numbers or being able to
subtract a triple digit number.
Sophia described an iterative process, whereby she and her teammates collaboratively examined data to understand
students’ thinking, then worked together to structure lessons that supported students’ conceptual understandings and
“deeper” learning. Becky, a second-grade teacher at Chamberlain, described this shift among teachers as gradual, where
they became more comfortable opening up their practice over time: “I just think it gradually just went that way. I think
because things got so hard we couldn’t do it alone too. It got so hard to get everything done that we realized that we all have
shortcomings; we all need help from someone else. And it doesn’t mean that you’re a bad teacher.”
Coaches also facilitated interactions between teachers in different grade levels, fostering “vertical conversations” that
helped teachers understand the mathematics curriculum across the K-6 span. Lucy, a first-grade teacher at Ashton, described
how Abby facilitated these connections at staff meetings: “Our math coach will bring things up and sometimes she’ll break
us into small groups. A lot of times they try to mix grade levels so we get other feedback and ideas from other grade levels.”
By placing teachers in mixed grade-level groups, Abby provided teachers with opportunities to learn from others with whom
they might not typically interact.
Additionally, coaches facilitated between-grade-level connections during PLCs. Emily described how this happened:
I try to give lots of opportunities to talk in vertical conversations—any time the coaches bring that in is really helpful.
At a PLC I can ask, “How are we transitioning kids into different strategies?” We don’t want them always using the
100’s chart; now we’ve got to transition ‘em into a different strategy. And grade levels have had conversations with
other grade levels of, “Hey, could you maybe focus a little bit more on this strategy at the end of the year so that when
they come to us we’re not working as hard? Because we need them to get to this point.”
Here, Emily indicated that, as she began to push teachers to consider strategies used at other grade levels, teachers began
to seek each other out to share strategies to prepare students for the next grade level. Carmen, a fifth teacher at Ashton,
similarly described these cross-grade-level interactions with a sixth-grade teacher at her school: “A lot of my interactions
with her are like ‘Ok, this is what we’re doing in fifth grade. This is what I’m expecting of them. What do they need to come
into sixth grade knowing? What strategies, these are the strategies I’m gonna teach, is that what you expect? So it’s more
of a vertical team.” This example suggests that, on their own, teachers began to develop relationships across grade levels in
their efforts to the new curriculum.
As time went on, coaches more explicitly supported collective inquiry among teachers. Abby described a lesson study
group she coordinated and facilitated in 2014 for teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grade at Ashton: “My role was to facilitate.
We talked a lot about background content knowledge. We talk a lot about questioning, we talked about the planning and
then observing and then letting teachers debrief and talk about how they felt they did. What did we all notice or what is it we
would change to get an outcome that we want from students?” Like Abby, the other three coaches described their facilitation
of and engagement in activities that supported within and between-grade interactions among teachers, and noted how their
roles had changed to include this type of work. In 2015, Emily described how her role had shifted, from providing one-on-
one support focused on curriculum implementation to approaching teachers as a collective focused on improvement and
change: “Our job description, I think that’s changed from the beginning, when it was like, ‘What did you do today? What
were you able to do for teachers?’ I think it’s changed to, ‘How can we help teachers change?’ Our conversations are different
now.” Emily, like the other math coaches, began to see herself less as a mere resource for teachers, and more as catalyst for
instructional change.
6.2. Supporting coaches: from regulative to cognitive and normative dimensions
Our findings have shown that, during a time of instructional reform, coaches’ roles evolved from intermediaries who
transferred curriculum-related information to catalysts who connected teachers within and between grade levels. In this
section, we show how various organizational dimensions enabled and constrained coaches’ role evolution.
6.2.1. Regulating curricular change

District administrators regulated the curricular change in mathematics to ensure that coaches would share particular
information with teachers. During curriculum committee meetings in 2010, divergent views of mathematics instruction
began to emerge, requiring administrators to take over the committee’s work. By identifying a “power team” to undertake
the curriculum development process, administrators ensured that a specific pedagogical approach would be emphasized.
Georgia, the director of elementary curriculum, explained how she discovered that some teachers on the curriculum com-
mittee did not have sufficient content knowledge to undertake the level of development work she expected: “We started
delving into the indicators we’re teaching and the resources we’re using and where’s that match. And they weren’t as explicit
as we needed them to be for people who didn’t have a solid background in math. Not by fault of their own but because their
training was very algorithm based.” Because she felt that the committee might not be up to the task of designing a strong
curriculum to support Investigations, Georgia pulled a handful of math experts to do the work, including Mary and Emily: “So
we made the decision that we needed to pull our strongest math experts. . .so William and Mary and Emily. And I couldn’t
even tell you how many hours was spent putting together those math units to make them tight enough, to be as explicit as
they can be.” As Georgia explained, Mary and Emily spearheaded the curricular development work, creating a “tight” and
“explicit” curriculum that teachers could understand and implement.
Mathematics coaches were thus framed from the beginning as key change agents, and district administrators used regu-
lative efforts to ensure that a particular type of change would occur. Administrators then strategically used coaches to “push
out” the curriculum districtwide, and charged coaches with providing teachers with formal and informal opportunities to
learn about it. In this way, the district’s regulative efforts enabled coaches to become intermediaries who brokered curricular
information and resources between the district office and schools.
6.2.2. Facilitating cognitive shifts

Consistent with the regulative dimension, district administrators provided coaches with professional development
that aligned with Investigations’ pedagogical approach. Each coach was asked to participate in Fundamental Math, the
university-led professional development program. This program reinforced the training coaches received on the mathe-
matics curriculum committee, which facilitated shifts in their beliefs about mathematics instruction. Mary described these
learning opportunities:
We [the math committee] studied the NCTM book, and that was when our philosophy began to change to focus on
their five practices—reasoning, representing, communication. Then Fundamental Math came at a perfect time, where
the district wanted to shift in that direction. So Emily and I began that process together, knowing that math was much
more than just showing kids what to do. So we began to make that shift. Then we went through Fundamental Math
and continued to deepen our understanding and philosophical change.
Because of their exposure to NCTM principles through both the curriculum committee and Fundamental Math, Mary and
Emily’s philosophies about mathematics began to cohere with the district’s overall vision for math instruction.
The other two coaches experienced similar cognitive shifts, which motivated them to become coaches. Eva explained
the “change of mindset” that the new curriculum, in addition to the Fundamental Math program, enabled: “[When I was a
teacher] I had kids that I wouldn’t call on because I didn’t understand the way they solved problems. But now I definitely
embrace those. And I think it was the change of my mindset that made me want to help other people see that there’s other
ways to do it.” The changes Eva experienced were so powerful that she wanted to support similar learning experiences for
other teachers. By aligning coaches’ professional development with the curricular changes, administrators supported shifts
in the cognitive dimension. That is, coaches internalized and valued the new teaching philosophy, which in turn informed
their work with teachers.
District leaders also encouraged coaches to take ownership of their own professional development. Abby described
these activities, which coaches engaged in during monthly meetings: “Right now [in spring 2015] we’re watching a video
and discussing it. We’ve read coaching books, and so we always do a book study or some type of thing to help us grow
professionally. We’re also in the middle of writing a math class that we can offer to teachers in third through sixth grade. So we
spend part of our time planning that and talking about what our big objectives are.” In addition to engaging in activities that
provided them opportunities to learn and “grow” as mathematics instructional leaders, coaches started to plan collaborative
research projects. For instance, Eva and Emily decided to investigate intervention programs for students in pre-kindergarten
through first: “The most recent time I’ve talked to Emily, she and I identified a need for primary interventions. And so we
had a discussion about doing an action research project on new interventions in our buildings. First, we’re trying to find
outside research so that we can present a plan to central office.” This type of collective inquiry among coaches parallels the
work they began to do with teachers in the later years of our study.
6.2.3. Conflicting normative contexts

Up to this point, we have shown how the regulative and cognitive dimensions of the school system supported coaches’
work in APSD by regulating their involvement in curriculum development efforts and supporting their professional learn-
ing as coaches. With respect to the normative dimension, however, not all coaches encountered school-level norms that
facilitated their work.
In 2012, when each coach began to work with two schools, it became evident that the culture within one of Mary’s
schools, Chavez, was not supportive. Georgia explained: “We really had difficulty with one building; the teachers did not
believe they needed a math coach. They are very closed in their practices; they don’t want outsiders. They tend to be one
of our most traditional schools as far as doing things the way we’ve always done it.” Because teachers were not open to
coaching and were more “traditional” in their thinking about mathematics instruction, they did not see the need to interact
with Mary. Mary was thus limited in how much she could support their implementation of the new curriculum. Indeed,
the “closed” school culture had an impact on Mary’s math advice and information network, where she did not experience
an increase in-degree between 2012 and 2013, nor did her betweenness increase as much as Emily, the other coach, over
the same time period (see Table 1). The number of triads in which Mary was involved also decreased, suggesting that fewer
teachers to whom Mary was connected were also connected with each another.
District administrators opted to remove Mary from Chavez in 2013, and only brought a coach (Abby) back to Chavez once
a new principal was hired in 2014. Nonetheless, Abby still found it challenging to support teachers at Chavez, especially
compared to teachers at Ashton:
I think it’s more difficult over there [at Chavez] because people are more isolated, and it’s harder to break in the cliques.
When you have groups of teachers that really wanna do things on their own and not open their doors to you, it’s hard.
My principal over there, this is her first year, and she doesn’t have the same relationship with the staff as Mary Beth
does [at Ashton]. It’s nice when you have a principal like Mary Beth who she sets really clear expectations.
For Abby, having a strong and supportive principal was critical in allowing her to fulfill her coaching responsibilities.
Similarly, in other schools, principals were key to fostering collaborative norms, as Emily noted: “In this building [Torres],
I chose to do math lesson study with teachers, and my principal really wanted that to happen too because she talked to
my principal at Bryant who said what an impact lesson study made. So the principal said, ‘It can be in our Title I budget;
we’ll make it happen.’ Here, the principal’s explicit support of mathematics coaching activities enabled Emily to promote
collective inquiry among teachers. Overall, a strong principal and collaborative school culture were necessary to support
coaches’ work as brokers of curricular reform.
7. Discussion
The four mathematics instructional coaches in our study played evolving roles as brokers who facilitated the implemen-
tation of a reform-oriented mathematics curriculum elementary in Auburn Park School District. Initially, coaches served
as intermediaries who transferred information and resources from the district office to teachers. Over time, coaches also
worked as catalysts who facilitated connections between teachers in the same and different grade levels and supported
teachers’ engagement in collective inquiry. In this way, the mathematics coaches in our study were instrumental in chang-
ing teachers’ interactions about mathematics instruction, which facilitated learning opportunities for teachers at both the
individual and collective levels. These opportunities, we argue, allowed teachers to take on more responsibility for curricular
reform, as they went from relying on the coach to seeking out one another for advice and information about mathematics.
As such, the coaches in our study were agents of both individual and collective learning and change.
The extent to which coaches were able to support change individually and collectively depended on various dimensions
of the APSD’s organizational infrastructure. From a regulative perspective, district administrators followed a tight-loose
leadership approach to ensure that a particular pedagogical approach would be supported through the new curriculum.
They exerted control over the curriculum development process, and then utilized the mathematics instructional coaches
to take information and resources to schools to support its implementation. This regulatory approach aligned well with
district leaders’ attention to the cognitive dimension, where coaches’ professional development via the Fundamental Math
program bolstered their support for and belief in the new curriculum. Moreover, the district’s initial emphasis on developing
individual coaches’ knowledge, and then on supporting collaboration and collective inquiry among coaches, mirrored how
coaches engaged with teachers over time.
Whereas the regulative and cognitive dimensions worked in tandem to enable coaches’ roles as brokers of curricular
reform, the normative dimension sometimes constrained coaches’ work in particular schools. Specifically, coaches struggled
to facilitate interactions with and among teachers in schools that did not have strong instructional leaders or a collaborative
culture. This finding mirrors prior scholarship, which shows that strong school leadership is an important part of any coaching
initiative (Matsumura et al., 2009; Obara, 2010), and that principals can help coaches structure interactions with teachers
and navigate political or normative tensions (Huguet et al., 2014). Without strong leadership that can create collaborative
norms, teachers who are not accustomed to opening their practice to others will not be motivated to do so, as these are not
interactions they feel they should engage in, nor are they valued. When interactions are constrained in this way, teachers’
learning opportunities are more limited.
As state previously, APSD was in many ways an ideal setting in which to examine the evolution of a mathematics coaching
initiative over time. The district’s careful attention to the design of its infrastructure to support elementary mathematics
education facilitated coaches’ work and allowed particular features of the coaching initiative to surface. For example, district
leaders reassigned coaches between schools to focus on Title I buildings and to ensure that coaches worked in environments
that would support them. These moves allowed us to examine the effects of school placement on coaches’ brokering, and
particularly to explore the influence of school leadership and norms. Additionally, district leaders intentionally selected
coaches for participation in district-wide curriculum development, and positioned them as brokers of curricular-related
information who were in charge or teacher professional development, both formally in schools and arrays and informally
as participants in grade-level PLCs. These features of the coaching initiative were important for situating coaches as both
intermediaries and catalysts of curricular reform, who were part of a system-wide effort to change teachers’ beliefs and
practices in elementary mathematics.
In order for mathematics coaching initiatives to be successful, then, they must be part of a coherent strategy to support
system-wide change (Cobb & Jackson, 2011; Fullan & Knight, 2011). Such a strategy attends to the professional development
of leaders, coaches, and teachers, as well as to the development of networks within and between groups of system actors.
These networks shape the practices that teachers and leaders engage in with another about mathematics instruction and
thus create opportunities for learning and knowledge development. In considering how to support the development of these
networks, we argue that it is also necessary to take the regulative, normative, and cognitive dimensions of the school system
into account to ensure they align in ways that support interaction. That is, there should be coherence between what a school
district mandates, the norms around which teachers work, and the mathematical teaching practices that teachers believe
in and value.
8. Implications
Our account contributes to both research and practice. With respect to research, we offer a conceptual framework for
supporting and evaluating coaching initiatives over time, both with respect to how coaches’ function as brokers of math-
ematics curricular reform, and to how schools as systems can support coaches’ evolving roles as agents of individual and
collective change. This framework shifts the focus away from the individual teacher-coach relationship to consider how
coaches support system-wide learning efforts. Thus, while researchers who study instructional coaching may want to con-
sider combined individual and collective framings, educational reform researchers may also want to consider how coaching
efforts facilitate (or not) broader efforts to support organizational change in schools and school districts.
Second, our study suggests that it is of the utmost importance for educational leaders to take a long-term, system-level
approach to the implementation of coaching initiatives. Such an approach requires attention to the selection, preparation, and
continued professional development of coaches so that can contribute to instructional decision making as well as individual
and collective capacity development. For the coaches in our study, their involvement in curriculum design and development
was important for shaping their beliefs about mathematics instruction, and their continued professional development was
critical to supporting shifts in their roles from intermediaries to catalysts. As Gallucci et al. (2010) assert, coaches’ professional
development should be embedded in activities that involve district and school leaders, as well as teachers, in developing
knowledge and skill around a shared vision for instruction. Thus, support should also be provided to district and school
leaders so that they understand and value the overarching instructional vision, and can foster norms that will support
coaches as they work with teachers to enact it.
Moreover, coaching initiatives may be most efficacious when they are connected to and augment ongoing formal pro-
fessional development for teachers. Coaches can be involved in the planning and delivery of these professional learning
opportunities, but they must also be afforded the time and resources to support teachers on the job in ways that extend
the knowledge gained through formal professional development. In this way, coaches can facilitate interactions with and
between teachers and foster learning opportunities across a school system. Finally, it is important to note that designing a
system that supports coaches takes time; thus, leaders should be committed to a long-term investment in coaches and in
designing system-wide supports to facilitate their work. This long-term investment is necessary to move us beyond a focus
on individual coach-teacher relationship to utilizing coaches as part of system-wide instructional improvement efforts.
References
Arslan, S. (2010). Traditional instruction of differential equations and conceptual learning. Teaching Mathematics and Its Applications, 29(2), 94–107.
Bell, C. A., Wilson, S. M., Higgins, T., & McCoach, D. B. (2010). Measuring the effects of professional development on teacher knowledge: The case of
developing mathematical ideas. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 41(5), 479–512.
Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A. S., & Dexter, E. R. (2010). Assessing the value-added effects of literary collaborative professional development on student learning.
The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7–34.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: brain, mind, experience, and school. In. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, P. D., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 111, 430–454.
Carley, K. M. (2016). Ora-NetScenes. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute for Software Research International.
Carlisle, J. F., & Berebitsky, D. (2011). Literacy coaching as a component of professional development. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal,
24(7), 773–800.
Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: a knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction.
Elementary School Journal, 97, 3–20.
Chval, K. B., Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J. K., van Garderen, D., Cummings, L., Estapa, A. T., et al. (2010). The transition from experienced teacher to mathematics
coach: Establishing a new identity. Elementary School Journal, 111, 191–216.
Cobb, P., & Jackson, K. (2011). Towards an empirically grounded theory of action for improving the quality of mathematics teaching at scale. Mathematics
Teacher Education and Development, 13(1), 6–33.
Coburn, C. E., & Russell, J. L. (2008). District policy and teachers’ social networks. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30, 203–235.
Coburn, C. E., & Woulfin, S. L. (2012). Reading coaches and the relationship between policy and practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 5–30.
Cohen, D. K., & Hill, H. C. (2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2010). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., Uekawa, K., et al. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading
instruction and achievement. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Elish-Piper, L., & L’Allier, S. K. (2011). Examining the relationship between literacy coaches and student reading gains in grades K-3. Elementary School
Journal, 112, 83–106.
Frank, K. A., Zhao, Y., & Borman, K. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in
schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148–171.
Freeman, L. C. (1979). Centrality in social networks: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215–239.
Fullan, M., & Knight, J. (2011). Coaches as system leaders? Educational Leadership, 69(2), 50–53.
Gallucci, C., Van Lare, M. D., Yoon, I., & Boatright, B. (2010). Instructional coaching: Building theory about the role and organizational support for
professional learning. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 919–963.
Hopkins, M., & Spillane, J. P. (2015). Conceptualizing relations between instructional guidance infrastructure (IGI) and teachers’ beliefs: Regulative,
normative, and cultural-cognitive considerations. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 421–450.
Hopkins, M., Spillane, J. P., Jakopovic, P., & Heaton, R. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and
teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal, 114(2), 200–224.
Huguet, A., Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2014). Building teachers’ data-use capacity: Insights from strong and developing coaches. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 22(52) http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n52.2014
Lampert, M., Beasley, H., Ghousseini, H., Kazemi, E., & Franke, M. L. (2010). Using designed instructional activities to enable novices to manage ambitious
mathematics teaching. In M. K. Stein, & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 129–141). New York: Springer.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mangin, M. M., & 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.
Mangin, M. M., & Stoelinga, S. R. (2011). Peer? Expert? Teacher leaders struggle to gain trust while establishing their expertise. Journal of Staff
Development, 32, 48–51.
Mangin, M. M. (2009). Literacy coach role implementation: How district context influences reform efforts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45,
759–792.
Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., & Martorell, F. (2010). How instructional coaches support data-driven decision making: Policy implementation and effects in
Florida middle schools. Educational Policy, 24(6), 872–907.
Matsumura, L. C., & Wang, E. (2014). Principals’ sensemaking of coaching for ambitious reading instruction in a high-stakes accountability environment.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(51) http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v22n51.2014
Matsumura, L. C., Sartoris, M., Bickel, D. D., & Garnier, H. E. (2009). Leadership for literacy coaching: The principal’s role in launching a new coaching
program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 45, 655–693.
Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 340–363.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mudzimiri, R., Burroughs, E. A., Luebeck, J., Sutton, J., & 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
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
Neufeld, B., & Roper, D. (2003). Coaching: A strategy for developing instructional capacity: Promises & practicalities. Washington, DC: Aspen Institute.
Neumerski, C. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, teacher, and coach instructional leadership and
where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly, 49(2), 310–347.
Obara, S., & Sloan, M. (2009). The evolving role of a mathematics coach during the implementation of performance standards. The Professional Educator,
33(2), 11–23.
Obara, S. (2010). Mathematics coaching: A new kind of professional development. Teacher Development, 14(2), 241–251.
Palthe, J. (2014). Regulative, normative, and cognitive elements of organizations: Implications for managing change. Management and Organizational
Studies, 1(2), 59–66.
Pitts, V. M., & Spillane, J. P. (2009). Using social network methods to study school leadership. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 32(2),
185–207.
Polly, D., Mraz, M., & Algozzine, R. (2013). Implications for developing and researching elementary school mathematics coaches. School Science and
Mathematics, 113(6), 297–307.
Powell, W., & DiMaggio, P. (1991). The new institutionalism in organizational analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Pustejovsky, J. E., & Spillane, J. P. (2009). Question-order effects in social network name generators. Social Networks, 31(4), 221–229.
QSR International. (2012). NVivo qualitative data analysis software, Version 10. Burlington, MA: QSR International Pty Ltd.
Reagans, R., & McEvily, B. (2003). Network structure and knowledge transfer: the effects of cohesion and range. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2),
240–267.
Rodgers, A., & Rodgers, E. M. (2007). The effective literacy coach: Using inquiry to support teaching and learning. New York: Teachers College Columbia
University.
Scott, W. R. (1981). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Scott, W. R. (2007). Institutions and organizations: Ideas and interests. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Scribner, S. M. P., & Bradley-Levine, J. (2010). The meaning(s) of teacher leadership in an urban high school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly,
46(4), 491–522.
Smylie, M. A., Conley, S., & Marks, H. (2002). Exploring new approaches to teacher leadership for school improvement. In Yearbook of the national society
for the study of education. pp. 162–188.
Spelman, M., & Bell, D. (2012). Transforming literacy instruction in urban settings: Combining professional development and instructional coaching to
improve student achievement. In L. Martin, M. Boggs, S. Szabo, & T. Morrison (Eds.), Joy of teaching: ALER 34th yearbook (pp. 149–168). Texas A&M:
Association of Literacy Educators and Researchers.
Spillane, J. P. (2006). Distributed leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Spillane, J. P., Hopkins, M., & Sweet, T. (under review). School system educational infrastructure and change at scale: Teachers’ instructional beliefs and
their interactions about mathematics instruction.
Spillane, J. P., Shirrell, M., & Hopkins, M. (2016). Designing and deploying a Professional Learning Community (PLC) organizational routine in an education
system: Bureaucratic and collegial structures in tandem (and in tension?). Dossiers des Sciences de l’Education.
Stovel, K., & Shaw, L. (2012). Brokerage. Annual Review of Sociology, 38, 139–158.
Sun, M., Wilhelm, A. G., Larson, C. J., & Frank, K. A. (2014). Exploring colleagues’ professional influence on mathematics teachers’ learning. Teachers College
Record, 116(6), 1–30.
TERC. (2013). Overview of investigations. https://investigations.terc.edu/overview.cfm
Teemant, A. (2014). A mixed-methods investigation of instructional coaching for teachers of diverse learners. Urban Education, 49(5), 574–604.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1998). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and
communities of practice (pp. 179–198). London: Springer-Verlag and the Open University.
York-Barr, J., & Duke, K. (2004). What do we know about teacher leadership? Findings from two decades of scholarship. Review of Educational Research,
74(3), 255–316.

Hopkins Et Al. - Mathematics Coaching and Instructional Reform - JMB - 2017

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Hopkins Et Al. - Mathematics Coaching and Instructional Reform - JMB - 2017

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Mathematical Behavior 46 (2017) 215–230

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

The Journal of Mathematical Behavior

Mathematics coaching and instructional reform: Individual

2010 2011 2012 2013 2015

5.1. The mathematics coaches

5.2. Data analysis

6.1. Coaches’ brokering: from intermediaries to catalysts

6.1.1. Brokering the transfer of curricular information and resources

6.1.2. Brokering collective inquiry

6.2. Supporting coaches: from regulative to cognitive and normative dimensions

6.2.1. Regulating curricular change

6.2.2. Facilitating cognitive shifts

6.2.3. Conﬂicting normative contexts

You might also like