Improving Teachers’ Equitable Mathematics Instruction Through Integrating Automated Feedback and Coaching: A Randomized Controlled Trial

In this study, we will explore the efficacy of two coaching approaches, reflective and directive, through a randomized controlled trial. In the reflective coaching model, teacher self-reflection guides the coaching conversation. Goker (2021) defines reflection as “a reaction to past experience and includes deliberate recall and analysis of that experience and decision-making and as a reference for further plans and actions” (p. 425). By giving teachers the space to think critically about their practice and to take the lead in analyzing their own instruction, teachers feel empowered to make changes to their practice. Literature on adult learning theory shows that self-direction is crucial for adults to change their behavior (Knowles et al., 2011; Merriam, 2001). Soisangwarn and Wongwanich (2014) find that teacher self-reflection through peer coaching improves teachers’ motivation to improve their teaching skills in Thailand. Additionally, a study of pre-service teachers in Turkey shows that reflective coaching improves teachers’ instructional skills in lesson planning and implementation (Goker, 2021).

Because teachers’ self-reflections are sometimes inaccurate and biased (e.g., teachers might think they are using an instructional talk move more than they are in reality), some recommend a more directive approach to coaching (Hammond & Moore, 2018). In the directive coaching model, the instructional coach leads the conversation with the teacher by providing more explicit guidance and specific advice. Ippolito (2010) defines directive coaching as “coaching for the implementation of particular practices” (p. 164). In the directive approach, the instructional coach takes the role of the expert to guide the teacher toward executing certain instructional moves with less teacher input than the reflective approach. Directive coaching may be more beneficial for novice teachers, while responsive coaching may foster more trusting relationships between the teacher and coach (Ippolito, 2010). Both coaching models utilize structured routines to encourage PL, but the approaches vary in the level of coach direction and teacher self-reflection. In practice, many coaching conversations incorporate both approaches, and many coaches switch between the two models depending on the teacher and the context of the PL (Ippolito, 2010). While both approaches seem valuable, determining which coaching model is more successful in improving effective and equitable mathematics instruction will allow practitioners to maximize PL impacts in the future.

2024-09-01

2026-06-30

Teacher practices including teacher uptake of student ideas, focusing questions, student reasoning; student responses to surveys about engagement and belonging; teacher responses to surveys

Teacher practices are all created by applying natural language processing to transcripts of classroom recordings

Student academic achievement

Half of teachers will be assigned to reflective coaching, and the other half will be assigned to directive coaching. Randomization will be done within coaches.

Stata (stratarand)

Coach

No

We will have 15-25 coaches. We will complete this study in different waves, so some coaches will participate in multiple waves.

180 teachers, assuming 25 students per teacher (4500 students)

90 teachers in the reflective condition and 90 teachers in the directive condition

Analysis Plan