Microteaching Experiments as a Vehicle for Professional Development
Keywords:professional development, reflection, teachers, teaching experiments, mathematical knowledge for teaching
This study used design experiments, specifically microteaching experiments (MTE) as a catalyst for practice-based professional development. The MTE incorporated research-based characteristics of effective professional development: it was embedded in the teachers’ daily work of planning and enacting lessons and co-constructed with the researcher to build upon students’ knowledge. Pedagogical and mathematical content knowledge was integrated into the planning, implementation, and analysis of these MTEs. In this study, we investigated: To what extent can teachers, and to what extent, engage in a MTE as an intentional method for improving teaching? Case studies were used to analyze ways teachers engaged in MTEs and how their teaching was impacted as the result of this experience.
Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based
theory of professional education. In G. Sykes and L. Darling-Hammond (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3-32). San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Peterson, P., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematical thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531.
Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the classroom. Auckland, N.Z.: Ashton Scholastic.
Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. E. Kelley & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307-334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R. & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32 (1), 9-13.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher learning that supports student learning. Educational Leadership, 55 (5) 6-11.
Darling-Hammond, L., (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence [online]. Available from: Educational Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1), Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392/515 Accessed February 2015.
Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook. Piscataway, NJ: Aldine Transaction.
Edmondson, S. (2009). IRIS Connect: Teacher coaching technology.
Guskey, T. R. (1999). Making the most of professional development. In: J. H. Block, S. T. Everson, and T. R. Guskey, (Eds.) Comprehensive school reform: A comprehensive school reform: A program perspective. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Gravemeijer, K. (2004). Local instruction theories as means of support for teachers in reform mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 105-128.
Gravemeijer, K., & Cobb, P. (2006) Design research from the learning design perspective. In J. van den Akker, K. Gravemeijer, S. McKenney, & N. Nieveen (Eds.), Educational design research (pp. 17-51). London: Routledge.
Hamilton, L., (2011). Case studies in educational research. British Educational Research Association. Retrieved from: http://www.bera.ac.uk
Hiebert, J., Morris, A. & Glass, B. (2003). Learning to learn to teach: An “experiment” model for teaching and teacher preparation in mathematics. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 201-222.
Heuser, D. (2002). Reworking the workshop: Math and science reform in the primary grades. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Hoffer, W. (2012). Minds on mathematics: Using math workshop to develop deep understanding in grades 4-8. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Keene, E., & Zimmerman, S. (1997). Mosaic of thought: Teaching comprehension in a reader’s workshop. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lesh, R. & Kelly, A. (2000). Multi-tiered teaching experiments. In A. E. Kelley & R.A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Loucks-Horsley, S. Stiles, K. Mundry, S. Love, N. & Hewson, P. (2010). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
McLaughlin, M.W. & Talbert, J.E. (1993). Contexts that matter for teaching and learning: Strategic
opportunities for meeting the nation’s education goals. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Research on the Context of Secondary Schools.
Merriam, S. B., 2009. Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation approach. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Sanders, W.L. & Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy. Journal For Research In Mathematics Education. 26, 114-145.
Smith, M. S. (2001). Practice-based professional development for teachers of mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Wedekind, K, (2011). Math exchanges. Portland ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.