Capturing the Complexity of Teacher Development: Two Cases

1. Capturing the Complexity of Teacher Development: Two Cases AMTE 2004 Susan D. Nickerson & Gail Moriarty San Diego State University

2. Setting • Eight high-poverty, low-performing urban elementary schools with 57-91% ELL • 32 additional staff at grades 4-6 teach only mathematics (mathematics specialists) • Teachers take university coursework in elementary mathematics and graduate education and have site-based support and shared PD time • Six case studies over three year period to examine changing practice

3. Our Perspective Analysis focuses on the proactive nature of teacher’s role in guiding inquiry in mathematics classrooms. Teacher’s support of students’ mathematical development encompasses: • Guiding and initiating shifts in the classroom discourse • Teacher’s learning goals & plans for activity

4. Mathematics Teaching Cycle (Simon, 1995) Teacher Knowledge • HLT: • Learning goals • Planning for learning activities • Hypothesis of learning process Assessment Classroom Activities

5. Discussion Contexts (Wood & Turner-Vorbeck, 1997)

6. Data • Classroom Observations: researcher • Fieldnotes of visits to classrooms by teachers-in-residence and instructors • Interviews with teachers reflecting on practice • Notes of meetings with district personnel

7. Method of Analysis • Analysis of Discussion Contexts –Analysis of Patterns of Interaction • Focus on Teacher Contribution to Increasing Student Responsibility for Participation and Thinking–scaffolding • Analysis of Teacher Interviews Following Lesson Observation

8. Mathematics Teaching Cycle (Simon,1995) Teacher Knowledge • HLT: • Learning goals • Planning for learning activities • Hypothesis of learning process Assessment Classroom Activities

9. Chris: 9 years teaching experience Had taught grade levels K & 1 Teaches 5th grade Bilingual, M.A. Education Anne: 4.5 years teaching experience Had taught grade levels 2 & 3 Teaches 5th grade Bilingual, supplemental in Math Teachers’ Experience Credential from same institution

10. Chris • Learning goals oriented toward scaffolding students • Planning for learning activities was response to the perceived immediate needs of students • Often used assessment of student work and student understanding as a starting place for the next lesson

11. Chris • Ex 1: When students struggled with an item on a district test, that became a focus of a lesson the next week. • Ex. 2: When students struggled with an item that she had presented, student work became the object of discussion and the focus of a lesson later that week.

12. Anne • Learning goals oriented toward scaffolding mathematics • Planning for learning activities were geared toward preparation for algebra • Analysis of lesson included analysis of task

13. Anne • “They had difficulty, I think, because it was really disconnected from what they have been doing. I was really disappointed that there wasn’t more discussion. But when I think about it, there wasn’t much to talk about, was there? It wasn’t a rich task. • “I am really interested in Algebra. What can I do to push toward the algebraic part?”

14. Conclusions Chris’ planning for learning activities was responsive whereas Anne’s planning had a longitudinal view–her eye on the horizon Big ideas, strategies, and models are important landmarks across the “landscape of learning” (Fosnot and Dolk)

15. ImplicationsAs teacher educators… • Recognize the lenses teachers bring • How do we bring the perspectives together? • Do we typically plan for outcomes–focus on experience? Do we help bring out connections among mathematical ideas? • Guiding questions that we set up for teachers--framing questions might include “What are the landmarks?”, “How is this connected to big ideas in mathematics?” as well as “How are you going to respond to what happened today?”