{"title":"探索数学教练的话语差异性","authors":"Ryan Gillespie, Julie Amador, Jeffrey Choppin","doi":"10.1177/00224871241231537","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research on how coaches talk with teachers during coaching cycles is underdeveloped. We analyzed 1,649 discourse moves from 24 mathematics content-focused coaching cycles to determine the extent to which coaches’ discursive tendencies vary. We explored variation between coaches, between planning and debriefing conversations, and between cycles for the same coach–teacher pair. Findings indicate there existed significant variability in the coaches’ discourse moves during coaching cycles. We also found discursive differences from planning to debriefing meetings, noting that coaches were more directive and less reflective in planning conversations compared with debriefing conversations. Across multiple coaching cycles, we found variation across coaches, with one coach increasing the prevalence of directive moves across four planning conversations and another increasing the prevalence of reflective moves across four debriefing conversations. Although we focus on mathematics coaches, the findings and methodology may be applicable to other disciplines.","PeriodicalId":17162,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Teacher Education","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring the Discursive Variability of Mathematics Coaches\",\"authors\":\"Ryan Gillespie, Julie Amador, Jeffrey Choppin\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00224871241231537\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Research on how coaches talk with teachers during coaching cycles is underdeveloped. We analyzed 1,649 discourse moves from 24 mathematics content-focused coaching cycles to determine the extent to which coaches’ discursive tendencies vary. We explored variation between coaches, between planning and debriefing conversations, and between cycles for the same coach–teacher pair. Findings indicate there existed significant variability in the coaches’ discourse moves during coaching cycles. We also found discursive differences from planning to debriefing meetings, noting that coaches were more directive and less reflective in planning conversations compared with debriefing conversations. Across multiple coaching cycles, we found variation across coaches, with one coach increasing the prevalence of directive moves across four planning conversations and another increasing the prevalence of reflective moves across four debriefing conversations. Although we focus on mathematics coaches, the findings and methodology may be applicable to other disciplines.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17162,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Teacher Education\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Teacher Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871241231537\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Teacher Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00224871241231537","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Exploring the Discursive Variability of Mathematics Coaches
Research on how coaches talk with teachers during coaching cycles is underdeveloped. We analyzed 1,649 discourse moves from 24 mathematics content-focused coaching cycles to determine the extent to which coaches’ discursive tendencies vary. We explored variation between coaches, between planning and debriefing conversations, and between cycles for the same coach–teacher pair. Findings indicate there existed significant variability in the coaches’ discourse moves during coaching cycles. We also found discursive differences from planning to debriefing meetings, noting that coaches were more directive and less reflective in planning conversations compared with debriefing conversations. Across multiple coaching cycles, we found variation across coaches, with one coach increasing the prevalence of directive moves across four planning conversations and another increasing the prevalence of reflective moves across four debriefing conversations. Although we focus on mathematics coaches, the findings and methodology may be applicable to other disciplines.
期刊介绍:
The mission of the Journal of Teacher Education, the flagship journal of AACTE, is to serve as a research forum for a diverse group of scholars who are invested in the preparation and continued support of teachers and who can have a significant voice in discussions and decision-making around issues of teacher education. One of the fundamental goals of the journal is the use of evidence from rigorous investigation to identify and address the increasingly complex issues confronting teacher education at the national and global levels. These issues include but are not limited to preparing teachers to effectively address the needs of marginalized youth, their families and communities; program design and impact; selection, recruitment and retention of teachers from underrepresented groups; local and national policy; accountability; and routes to certification. JTE does not publish book reviews, program evaluations or articles solely describing programs, program components, courses or personal experiences. In addition, JTE does not accept manuscripts that are solely about the development or validation of an instrument unless the use of that instrument yields data providing new insights into issues of relevance to teacher education (MSU, February 2016).