DOCSLIB.ORG

Studies of Education Reform: Systemic Reform

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Studies of Education Reform: Systemic Reform Studies of Education Reform: Systemic Reform Volume I: Findings and Conclusions Margaret E. Goertz, Project Director Robert E. Floden Jennifer O’Day This work is part of the Studies of Education Reform program, supported by the U. S. Depart- ment of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Research, under contract No. RR 91-172005. The program supports studies and disseminates practical information about implementing and sustaining successful innovations in American education. This document does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the U. S. Department of Education, and no official endorsement should be inferred. Studies of Education Reform: Systemic Reform Volume I: Findings and Conclusions Margaret E. Goertz, Project Director Consortium for Policy Research in Education Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Robert E. Floden National Center for Research on Teacher Learning Michigan State University Jennifer O’Day The Pew Forum on Education Reform Stanford University July 1995 Preface The reform of education has been a major focus of policymakers at the local, state and federal levels since the publication in 1983 of A Nation at Risk. Reform efforts have targeted all stages of education, from pre-school to school-to-work transition, and have addressed nearly every aspect of the public elementary and secondary education system: curriculum and assessment, teachers’ preparation and their professional lives, school organization and management, technology, and parental and community involvement. To increase the knowledge base for identifying, implementing and sustaining successful reforms in these areas, in 1991 Congress requested the Office of Research at the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI) to investigate education reform. In response, OERI identified and funded 12 studies of different aspects of current education reform, including a study of the systemic education reform movement.1 The Policy Center of the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), in conjunction with the National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (NCRTL), was awarded the contract to conduct the Systemic Reform study. As used in this study and in developing approaches in a number of states, systemic reform embodies three integral components: the promotion of ambitious student outcomes for all students; alignment of policy approaches and the action of various policy institutions to promote such outcomes: and restructuring of the public education governance system to support improved achievement. This research, which built on studies of systemic reform undertaken earlier by CPRE in nine states, and on other studies of teacher learning and school organization and change, was designed to (1) expand our knowledge of state approaches to education reform, (2) examine district, school and teacher response to state reform policies in a small number of reforming schools and school districts, (3) identify challenges at the state, district, school and classroom levels to reforming education, (4) study the capacity of the educational system to support education reform, and (5) provide guidance to policymakers at all levels of the education system as they design and implement education reform policies. The Systemic Reform study was conducted in three stages. In the first year of the study, we reviewed the emerging literature on systemic reform, and commissioned four papers that addressed issues related to the preparation and professional development of teachers and others in support of systemic reform, paying particular attention to the policy linkages between curriculum reform and teacher learning. These papers became the focus of a two-day national conference targeted to education policymakers and practitioners, and were used to refine the overall design of the second and third stages of the study. In the second stage, project staff conducted intensive case studies of twelve reforming schools located in six 1 These twelve studies are Assessment of Student Performance, Curriculum Reform, Early Childhood Education, Parent and Community Involvement in Education, School-Based Management, School-to- Work Transition, Student Diversity, Students at Risk, Systemic Reform, Professionalism of Educators, Technology and Uses of Time. i reforming school districts in three states that were undertaking systemic reform—California, Michigan, and Vermont. The third stage of the study entailed the preparation of state-level case studies and cross-site analyses that examined the scope, substance and coherence of state reform policies; teacher, school and school district reform activities in the context of these state policies; and the capacity of all levels of the system to support education reform. The study’s findings and methodology are contained in this three-volume technical report. Volume I begins with a summary of the literature review and commissioned papers (Chapter 1), the study methodology (Chapter 2), and the education reform strategies and policies in the three study states. In Chapter 4, we look across the schools, school districts and states in the sample to describe the strategies these sites used to develop a vision of reform, align relevant policies and support restructured governance systems, and the challenges they faced in implementing these strategies. Chapter 5 uses surveys of, and interviews with, teachers in our sites to characterize their instructional practices in mathematics and language arts in relationship to reform policies and opportunities for professional development. In Chapter 6, we present a framework for thinking about the concept of capacity and capacity- building strategies and policies in support of education reform, and examine how our sites used systemic tools to enhance the capacity of teachers and their schools. Chapter 7 identifies some common lessons for policymakers who choose to take a standards-based approach to instructional improvement, and suggests a set of research questions about both the role of capacity-building in systemic reform and broader aspects of education reform. Volume II contains the case studies of California, Michigan and Vermont. These include more detailed information on state policies, and describe and analyze reform efforts in our small sample of reforming schools and school districts in each state. The findings reported in Chapters 4 through 7 of Volume I are based on data contained in these case studies, as well as the teacher survey. Volume III contains a description of the study methodology and copies of the interview protocols and teacher surveys used in the data collection. ii Acknowledgements We are grateful to the many people who assisted in this study. The study would not have been possible without the excellent cooperation of the teachers and school and school district administrators in our six study districts; state department of education personnel in California, Michigan and Vermont; and individuals in universities and other education organizations in these three states. We appreciate the time and effort that all of the respondents put into answering our numerous questions. The information and insights they provided us were invaluable. We are indebted to Kimberly Bogdan (CPRE), David Gamson (Stanford University) and Jordy Whitmer (Michigan State University) who assisted us in the collection and preliminary analysis of the interview data for the Michigan, California and Vermont case studies, respectively. Chris Chiu (MSU) painstakingly analyzed the teacher survey data and produced the tables presented in Chapter 5 (Volume I) of this report; Jordy Whitmer organized these survey data. Many individuals contributed to the overall design of the study. Our Advisory Panel reviewed our initial research plan and provided direction for the commissioned papers, national conference and site selection. Members of the Advisory Panel were Gail Burrell (Whitnell High School, Greenfield, WI), Jane David (Bay Area Research), Mary Kennedy (National Center for Research on Teacher Learning, MSU), David Mandel (National Board for Professional Teaching Standards), Andrew Porter (Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison) and Kenneth Zeichner (University of Wisconsin-Madison). Cynthia Levinson prepared the review of literature on systemic reform with the assistance of Diane Massell. Jane David, Hendrik Gideonse, Judith Warren Little and Frank Murray contributed commissioned papers. Conversations with Deborah Ball, Thomas Corcoran, Susan Fuhrman, Diane Massell, Milbrey McLaughlin and Marshall Smith helped us conceptualize the study and think about ways of framing our analyses and interpreting our data. David Cohen and Thomas Corcoran also provided valuable background information on education reform in Michigan and Vermont. We consulted several sources when designing our teacher questionnaires. Andrew Porter shared instruments and data from his teacher surveys with us. Joan Talbert, Sharon Bobbitt, Hilda Lynch, John Smithson and Iris Weiss helped us identify, obtain and interpret results from other teacher questionnaires. This final report was greatly strengthened by reviews of earlier drafts by Deborah Ball, Richard Elmore, Susan Fuhrman and Jim Fox. We also thank Jim Fox for his support of our work over the life of this study. As our project monitor, he provided substantive and timely feedback on our draft products, facilitated our communication with OERI, and helped us through uncertain
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Holding Students to Account by Paul E. Peterson
    CHAPTER 7 Holding Students to Account Paul E. Peterson The American high school is troubled. Not only do US high school students’ performances trail those of students in most other indus- trialized nations, but there are few signs of improvement within the United States. While pupils in fourth grade have made striking gains over the past couple of decades, the gains attenuate by eighth grade and disappear altogether in high school. Even the most tal- ented high school students don’t always do well. Only 7 percent of US students score at or above the advanced level in mathematics, as compared to twice that percentage on the part of Canadians, Germans, Finns, Dutch, Belgians, and Japanese. Students in high- flying places such as Korea, Switzerland, and Singapore do even better.1 Many students graduate from high school without the req- uisite skills needed to perform successfully in a modern, industrial- ized society. Approximately 1.7 million college students must take remedial courses, a clear indication that high school graduates have not acquired a minimum set of cognitive skills. The causes are multiple, and no one fix will address them all. But flaws in the country’s student accountability system are a Copyright © 2014 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. FinnSousa_WhatLiesAhead.indb 119 12/19/13 8:15 AM 120 Holding Students to Account likely contributing factor. Unlike most countries that have high- performing students, the United States lacks, as do most states within the United States, a set of exit exams, that is, subject- specific examinations students are expected to take as their careers in secondary schools are concluding.
    [Show full text]
  • Four Common Grading Practices Can Hurt Students and Erode Instructional Culture
    SPECIAL TOPIC What’s Worth Fighting Against in Grading? Four common grading practices can hurt students and erode instructional culture. Douglas Reeves, Lee Ann Jung, and Ken O’Connor n his classic book What’s Worth opportunities and university admis- Fighting for in the Principalship?, sions, grading remains the wild west Michael Fullan (2008) identified of school improvement, in which a dozen action items for prin- policy coherence is more apparent in cipals and school systems that claims than in practice and anyone Iremain as relevant today as they were armed with a red pen can make deci- almost a decade ago. In particular, sions with devastating instructional his clarion calls was to “de-privatize consequences. teaching” and to “elevate and invest Although we don’t encourage in instructional leadership of the micromanagement of school grading principal” (p. 58). But although there policies, we insist that Fullan is right is now no scarcity of administrators, that there are a number of things coaches, and other staff who have school leaders should fight for—or acquired titles suggesting instruc- against. And we are not bothered tional leadership, it is still difficult by the terminology’s suggestion of to find examples of instructors being entering into conflict. No professional led through a coherent set of policies educator would hesitate to fight for the and practices that routinely improve safety of a student, or to protect a child student achievement. from physical harm. Some commonly We find this disconnect particularly used grading policies, we believe, rise glaring in the area of grading. Whether to this level of urgency in that they the issue is classroom scores on daily threaten the emotional well-being work or final report card grades and academic outcomes of children.
    [Show full text]
  • End of Course Exams
    www.ecs.org/per End-of-Course Exams A growing trend in high school-level assessments APRIL In recent years, criticism of high school graduates’ lack of readiness for college and work has led 20 2 No. 11, Vol. a number of states to raise high school graduation requirements — particularly in terms of the number and rigor of courses students must pass. Yet states have found that without a common end- of-course measure, it is impossible to ensure that a course labeled “Algebra I” holds students to the same expectations statewide.1 At the same time, states with exit exams have evaluated these high- 10 stakes assessments, wondering if new approaches such as end-of-course exams might provide fairer and more accurate accountability measures for students, schools and the state as a whole. Both of these state policy trends have resulted in the increasing adoption of end-of-course assessments at the high school level. This issue of The What’s Inside Progress of Education Reform will address the following questions: Is there a trend What are end-of-course exams (EOCs), and how do they differ toward end-of-course from the assessments many states have been administering to exams? date? Why the trend toward EOCs? Why end-of-course How many states administer EOCs? exams? For what purposes are these assessments used, including: What “best practices” • Are these tests aligned with “college-ready” indicators? can improve end- • Are they used as exit exams? of-course exam What has been the impact on students of the transition to end-of- programs? course assessments? What does the research say? Are there “best practices” other states can learn from? THE PROGRESS OF OF THE PROGRESS Education Reform 1 www.ecs.org/per What are end-of-course exams? End-of-course exams are pretty much what they sound like—they test students, at the end of an academic course, on content expected to have been covered during that course.
    [Show full text]
  • A Landscape Paper Science Reform a Survey of Mathematics in the Southeast AND
    A Survey OF Mathematics AND Science Reform IN THE Southeast A Landscape Paper A Survey OF Mathematics AND Science Reform IN THE Southeast: A Landscape Paper SERC @ SERVE Dr. Francena D. Cummings, Director 1203 Governors Square Boulevard, Suite 400 • Tallahassee, FL 32301 • 800-854-0476 Proprietary Document—Written permission required for duplication or use. Associated with the School of Education University of North Carolina at Greensboro First Printing, 2003 Edited by Donna Nalley, SERVE Publications Director Karen DeMeester, SERVE Senior Program Specialist Designed by Tracy Hamilton, SERVE Art Director Photography by This document was produced Shelley Call, Barbara Davis, Donna Nalley, and Tracy Hamilton with funding from the Dwight D. Eisenhower National Programs from Mathematics and Science Select photographs used in this magazine are from Comstock Klips, Corbis, Creatas, Regional Consortia Program, EyeWire Images, Image 100, and/or PhotoDisc. Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, under contact no. R319A000011. Additional photographs provided by Penny Gilmer and classroom teachers (masters and doctoral students at Florida State University). The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect Photographs may not be reproduced without written permission from the photographer or the views or policies of the Institute of Education Sciences, the stock photography company. U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Implementation of the K-12 Education Reform in Qatar's Schools
    THE ARTS This PDF document was made available CHILD POLICY from www.rand.org as a public service of CIVIL JUSTICE the RAND Corporation. EDUCATION ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Jump down to document6 HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit NATIONAL SECURITY research organization providing POPULATION AND AGING PUBLIC SAFETY objective analysis and effective SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY solutions that address the challenges SUBSTANCE ABUSE facing the public and private sectors TERRORISM AND HOMELAND SECURITY around the world. TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND WORKFORCE AND WORKPLACE Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore the RAND-Qatar Policy Institute View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non-commercial use only. Unauthorized posting of RAND PDFs to a non-RAND Web site is prohibited. RAND PDFs are protected under copyright law. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please see RAND Permissions. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Implementation of the K--12 Education Reform in Qatar’s Schools Gail L.
    [Show full text]
  • Edsource Highlighting Strategies for Student Success
    EdSource Highlighting Strategies for Student Success REPORT MARCH 2014 Reforming Testing and Accountability Essential Principles for Student Success in California Executive California is in the midst of a fundamental remaking of its assessment Summary and accountability system that has been in place for 15 years. The state has the opportunity to play a leadership role in developing a multi-faceted assessment and accountability system that goes beyond a narrow focus on test scores and that could be a model for the nation. The transition offers California the potential to develop a more effective system that will not only assess students in more meaningful ways across more parts of the school curricu- lum, but also will provide educators with meaningful information about their students to help drive academic improvement. The changes are being driven by several significant reforms, including: n The Common Core State Standards, adopted by the State Board of Education in August 2010, and the Next Generation Science Standards adopted in September 2013; n The dramatic reform of California’s school finance system, signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown in July 2013; n The passage of Assembly Bill 484 in September 2013—introducing a new statewide assess- ment system to replace the Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program in place Authors This report was written since 1997—and Senate Bill 1458 in September 2012, reforming the Academic Performance and researched by Index (API). Louis Freedberg, Ph.D., with assistance from In addition, Gov. Brown has opened up a debate in California—likely the only such debate Richard Colvin.
    [Show full text]
  • Navigating Reform in Mathematics Teacher Education
    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Middle and Secondary Education Dissertations Department of Middle and Secondary Education 5-11-2018 Navigating Reform in Mathematics Teacher Education: Teacher Educators' Responses to edTPA and Professional Organizations' Initiatives Alesia Mickle Moldavan Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/mse_diss Recommended Citation Moldavan, Alesia Mickle, "Navigating Reform in Mathematics Teacher Education: Teacher Educators' Responses to edTPA and Professional Organizations' Initiatives." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2018. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/mse_diss/59 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Middle and Secondary Education at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Middle and Secondary Education Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ACCEPTANCE This dissertation, NAVIGATING REFORM IN MATHEMATICS TEACHER EDUCATION: TEACHER EDUCATORS’ RESPONSES TO EDTPA AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS’ INITIATIVES, by ALESIA MICKLE MOLDAVAN, was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s Dissertation Advisory Committee. It is accepted by the committee members in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, in the College of Education and Human Development, Georgia State University. The Dissertation Advisory Committee and the student’s Department Chairperson, as representatives of the faculty, certify that this dissertation has met all standards of excellence and scholarship as determined by the faculty. _________________________________ David W. Stinson, Ph.D. Committee Chair _________________________________ _________________________________ Janice B. Fournillier, Ph.D. Pier A. Junor Clarke, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member _________________________________ Joyce E.
    [Show full text]
  • PB-Exit Exams.Id
    M AY 2003 making sure graduation tests exit exams g e t a PA S S I N G G R A D E The trend is clear: By 2008, half the states are likely to have adopted high school exit exams.1 These exams, which students must pass to graduate, are part of state accountability systems, above and beyond the requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The main intent is to boost the value and credibility of a high school diploma and, in the process, motivate students to work harder. In some states, the exit exam is designed to guarantee that those who pass are prepared for college entrance; in others, it is intended to guarantee that graduates have mastered agreed-upon basic skills. Often, however, exit exams are implemented without have the most to gain from efforts to hold schools ac- adequate commitment to ensuring student success or countable. Graduation and other high-stakes tests can sufficient attention to the costs of student failure. In such focus attention on how a system is failing to serve all cases, one unplanned outcome may be high failure rates, students.3 However, critics say that a high-stakes exit exam especially for poor and minority students. Another risk places the onus, wrongly, on students, whose schools may is increased dropout rates, fueled by the frustration of not have offered them sufficient opportunities to learn what is needed to pass the exam. The worry is that poor students who have failed or who simply expect to fail.
    [Show full text]
  • The Progress of Education Reform: Defining College Readiness
    www.ecs.org/per Defining College Readiness Where are we now, and where do we need to be? Multiple catalysts are fueling states’ increased urgency to establish APRIL 20 Vol. 13, No. 2 a definition of “college readiness:” What’s Inside Common Core: Forty-six states and the District of Columbia Three options for states to have adopted the Common Core State Standards, which are define “college readiness” “aligned with college and work expectations.”1 Assessments measuring student performance against these standards are 12 Critical elements to consider under development by two assessment consortia. Twenty- three states and the District of Columbia plan to administer for each approach the PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) assessment, while 28 states have agreed Further reading on defining to administer the Smarter Balanced Assessment.2 “college readiness” NCLB waivers: States seeking waivers from No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act mandates must, among other requirements, adopt “college- and career-ready standards” in reading and math for all students, and develop and administer “annual, statewide, aligned, high-quality assessments, and corresponding academic achievement standards, that measure student growth in at least grades 3-8 and at least once in high school.”3 Race to the Top: Funds are intended to “encourage and reward States that are … ensuring student preparation for success in college and careers … and implementing ambitious plans in four core education reform areas,” including adoption of “internationally-benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success in college and the workplace[.]” Phase 2 state applications were required to demonstrate how funds would “increase the rates at which students graduate from high school prepared for college and careers.”4 High postsecondary remediation rates: Complete College America (CCA) recently reported remediation rates at two- and four-year postsecondary institutions in 33 states.
    [Show full text]
  • Developmental Education Reform: a Student Success and Equity
    ALLIANCE FOR COMMUNITY COLLEGE EXCELLENCE IN PRACTICE Community College Leadership for the 21st Century FEBRUARY 2020 www.ferris.edu/alliance Developmental Education Reform: Research has found that traditional A Student Success and Equity Imperative developmental Julianna Barnes, EdD illuminated our student data to create a sense of urgency education can hinder President for change, I took a bold next step. As the new college Cuyamaca College president and as a second degree black belt in karate, students in a variety El Cajon, CA I wanted to demonstrate my commitment to change. I slipped on my karate gi and black belt and in front of my of ways that could entire college community, proceeded with a punch to be improved through It’s time to say “good-bye” to developmental education try to break a board that read “Institutional barriers to as we once knew it. student success and equity.” better policy and Years ago, I focused my own doctoral research on After two attempts I did not break that board. However, practice. developmental education in the community colleges and my hand did break requiring a swift departure to the believed that students needed to take layers of remedial emergency room which left me feeling defeated and – E. Ganga, courses in math and English to gain the academic skills deflated. Upon returning to campus, I was delighted A. Mazzariello, and required to succeed in college-level coursework. Besides, to see a flurry of emails with the overarching message N. Edgecombe the tried-and-true standardized placement exams that of “Institutional barriers to success and equity are so had gone through rigorous reliability studies couldn’t entrenched that one person alone cannot break through be wrong, could they? Analysis of our data revealed them.
    [Show full text]
  • How to Teach Mathematics Third Edition Steven G
    How to Teach Mathematics Third Edition Steven G. Krantz How to Teach Mathematics Third Edition http://dx.doi.org/10.1090/mbk/089 How to Teach Mathematics Third Edition Steven G. Krantz Providence, Rhode Island 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 97D40, 97Q60, 97U20, 97U50, 97U70. Cover 4 author photograph courtesy of Steven G. Krantz. For additional information and updates on this book, visit www.ams.org/bookpages/mbk-89 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Krantz, Steven G. (Steven George), 1951- How to teach mathematics / Steven G. Krantz. –Third edition. pages cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-4704-2552-4 (alk. paper) 1. Mathematics–Study and teaching. I. Title. QA11.K776 2015 510.711—dc23 2015021663 Copying and reprinting. Individual readers of this publication, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make fair use of the material, such as to copy select pages for use in teaching or research. Permission is granted to quote brief passages from this publication in reviews, provided the customary acknowledgment of the source is given. Republication, systematic copying, or multiple reproduction of any material in this publication is permitted only under license from the American Mathematical Society. Permissions to reuse portions of AMS publication content are handled by Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. For more information, please visit: http://www.ams.org/rightslink. Send requests for translation rights and licensed reprints to [email protected]. Excluded from these provisions is material for which the author holds copyright. In such cases, requests for permission to reuse or reprint material should be addressed directly to the author(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Mathematics Coaching to Improve Teaching Practice: the Experiences of Mathematics Teachers and Coaches
    MATHEMATICS COACHING TO IMPROVE TEACHING PRACTICE: THE EXPERIENCES OF MATHEMATICS TEACHERS AND COACHES by Priscilla Bengo A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto © Copyright by Priscilla Bengo 2013 MATHEMATICS COACHING TO IMPROVE TEACHING PRACTICE: THE EXPERIENCES OF MATHEMATICS TEACHERS AND COACHES Doctor of Philosophy Degree, 2013 Priscilla Bengo Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of Toronto Abstract The purpose of the study is to determine how coaching can be used effectively to improve instruction and student achievement while exploring teachers’ specific emotions during mathematics education reform initiatives that challenge the teacher’s beliefs about teaching and learning in mathematics. It also examines how teachers incorporate the reform changes into their practice in order for the new instructional practices to have the expected effect. I explored teacher learning which refers to the correct use of reform strategies by mathematics teachers so that they have the intended effects on student achievement with the support of a coach during reform initiatives. Through questionnaires, interviews, observations and archival material, the study determines the relationship between teachers’ specific emotions, teacher learning and teacher coaching in secondary school mathematics classrooms. As a result, the study highlights the issues associated with the implementation of mathematics education reform initiatives and implications. The findings show that mathematics education reforms produce emotional responses that can be described as both negative and positive. For example, some ii emotions include pride, joy, fear, feeling drained and ineffective.
    [Show full text]