The Effects of a Study‐Group Process on the Implementation of Reform in Mathematics Education

Abstract

In each of three consecutive years, 16 teachers were admitted to a program in which they participated in a study group to reform their teaching practices in mathematics. The 48 (total) elementary school teachers in this program were selected to ensure diversity of setting— urban and suburban, as well as public and parochial. Teachers routinely met with the study group for 1 year, engaging in follow‐up activities after that year. Surveys, interviews, and site visits showed that teachers underwent significant changes in their knowledge, beliefs, and teaching practices and were attempting to implement reform consistent with current standards. Teachers with 11 to 25 years of experience demonstrated the greatest changes. Long‐term effects of the program and its impact on colleagues within the building and district have yet to be studied.

Journey toward Teaching Mathematics through Problem Solving

“…The importance of teachers experimenting with reform‐based instruction is also seen in studies that focused on inservice teachers' actions while implementing standards‐based instruction as professional development project participants. By experimenting with standards‐based instruction, teachers showed their ability to assume the role of facilitator in the teaching and learning of mathematics (Borko, Davinroy, Bliem, & Cumbo, 2000; Brahier & Schäffner, 2004; Crespo & Featherstone, 2006; Kersaint & Chappell, 2001; Smith, 2000; Sullivan, Griffioen, Gray, & Powers, 2009). These studies identified situations that aided teachers' implementation of reform‐based instruction.…”

Lessons Learned about Effective Professional Development: Two Contrasting Case Studies

“…A "one size fits all" fix is simply recommending teachers employ the same strategies in all schools and is unlikely to be effective. Research supports the conclusion that these "one shot" or "top down" professional developments simply are not working (Arbaugh, 2003;Ball & Cohen, 1999;Brahier & Schäffner, 2004;Gojmerac & Cherubini, 2012;Hawley & Valli, 1999;Hofman & Dijkstra, 2010;Lieberman, 2000;Schmoker, 2006;West & Curcio, 2004;Wetzel, 2001); rather, professional development needs to encourage teachers to expand their pedagogical horizons and potentially make changes. Avoiding this traditional form of professional development in favor of what is being termed "sustained and significant" learning opportunities (Brahier & Schäffner, 2004) appears to be the current best route for development.…”

“…Brahier and Schäffner (2004) pointed out that in mathematics, teachers need concrete examples of reform strategies, a time to try the strategies, and then reflection for changes to actually occur in the classroom. The group discussed here attended presentations at the local university to learn new strategies for teaching mathematics.…”

“…Ensuring effective professional development is especially important because a high-quality professional development is needed in order to have high-quality, effective teachers in the field (Gojmerac & Cherubini, 2012). As well teachers are the ones who ultimately enact changes in the classroom (Blegen & Kennedy, 2000;Brahier & Schäffner, 2004), so it is important to provide professional development and support to in-service teachers. In the past, "teachers have been considered as passive receivers of prescriptive programs, [and] given little time or incentive to integrate these new programs into their classroom practice" (Lieberman, 2000, p. 226).…”

Student engagement and college readiness in mathematics.

“…When considering implementation of reform in elementary mathematics education Brahier and Schaffner (2004) found that teachers with the most experience underwent the most significant changes in their knowledge, beliefs, and teaching practices when attempting to implement reforms consistent with current standards. In this study the process of teachers working and supporting each other was fundamental to the change in practices but student achievement outcomes were not considered.…”