Towards a research base for implementation strategies addressing mathematics teachers and facilitators

Abstract

Implementing innovations in mathematics education relies on scaling up professional development (PD) for mathematics teachers. Within the German Center of Mathematics Teacher Education (DZLM), the complexities involved in scaling-up processes are addressed with three implementation strategies: a material, a personnel, and a systemic strategy. For each of them, the research base is empirically established by design research and intervention studies. The personnel strategy focuses on preparing teachers for innovative teaching approaches and on preparing PD facilitators for conducting PDs on the content involved. The empirical research required for creating a research base for the personnel strategy investigates what teachers and facilitators need to know about their learners (students on the classroom level, teachers on the PD level) with regard to a specific (PD) content. The main focus of the material strategy is to provide support for teachers and facilitators by adaptable curriculum materials for classrooms and PD sessions. The empirical research on the material strategies focuses on how such material needs to be constructed to ensure both flexibility and fidelity for impactful quality implementation. The systemic strategy involves considering the systemic contexts on each level and cooperating with the respective stakeholders (e.g., school principals or regional PD authorities). The corresponding empirical research focuses on the interplay of processes and systemic conditions. In this paper, we present the implementation strategies on different levels, and typical research approaches and results for strengthening their empirical and theoretical bases.

Implementation-related research in mathematics education: the search for identity

“…Scaling up is uncertain. Implementation initiatives described by Burkhardt and Schoenfeld (2021), Devlin (2021), Diego-Mantecón et al (2021, Jaworski and Potari (2021), Karsenty (2021) and Roesken-Winter et al (2021) partially conform to scenario (ii), in that the change is initiated by researchers but not necessarily in collaboration with policy makers, who enter the picture later on. Scaling up is achieved to different extents.…”

“…Of course, there are also implementation programs, in which nearly symmetrical attention is given to both materialcentered and interaction-center innovations that complement each other (e.g., Diego-Mantecón et al, 2021;Jankvist et al, 2021aJankvist et al, , 2021bKarsenty, 2021;Roesken-Winter et al, 2021;Wang et al, 2021). Such programs concern innovations that can be seen as mixed or material-interactive.…”

“…Actually, research as an object of implementation is alluded to in many studies as a conjunction of approaches, resources, organizational models or theories developed in the past within an organizational frame called 'research' (e.g., Burkhardt & Schoenfeld, 2021;Wang et al, 2021). Some authors avoid the use of the collocation 'implementation of research' and talk about 'implementation of researchbased innovations' (e.g., Jaworski & Potari, 2021;Roesken-Winter et al, 2021). The other authors, however, adhere to the 'implementation of research' language.…”

“…Speaking on the benefits of small-scale qualitative studies, it is of note that most of the large-scale implementation projects mentioned above are accompanied by this type of research. For example, the Mastering Math project (Roesken-Winter et al, 2021) in Germany was informed and supported by a series of small-scale design and intervention studies. A national-level implementation project in Denmark presented by Tamborg (2021) was analyzed in light of the data collected from a group of seven teachers.…”

Launching Implementation and Replication Studies in Mathematics Education (IRME)

“…As mentioned, the issue of scaling up is closely related to implementation research in mathematics education (e.g., Maass et al, 2019;Roesken-Winter et al, 2021). Almost 20 years ago, Burkhardt and Schoenfeld (2003) argued that the "profitable dialectic between theory and practice can and should occur … from the initial stages of design all the way through robust implementation on a large scale" (p. 5).…”