{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02767932489451477, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014177215189873417, 'mean_word_length': 5.476502732240437, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Investigating Collaborative Teacher Learning in Rural Contexts

While research demonstrates that teachers need the resources of the professional community to learn, this issue remains critically understudied in contexts where a large geographic spread exists among teachers, as is often the case in rural communities. We explore this potential through a video-based responsive professional development model (RPD) we piloted with mathematics teachers from four rural school communities. Discussion will focus on the RPD model and our methodological approaches for this research. Community-based reforms are a promising strategy for transformative teacher learning, with good reason. Professional learning communities have been linked with improved student achievement (Banerjee et. al, 2017; Langer, 2000), teacher collective efficacy (Voelkel & Chrispeels, 2017), collaborative learning of ambitious teaching practices (Bannister, 2015; Horn, 2005), among other indicators of growth. While research demonstrates that teachers need the resources of the professional community to learn (Bannister, 2015, 2018; Horn, 2005; Horn & Little, 2010), this issue remains critically understudied in contexts where a large geographic spread exists among grade-level disciplinary peers, as is often the case in rural school communities (Biddle & Azano, 2016). Here, we explore this potential by studying a video-based responsive professional development model we piloted with middle and secondary mathematics teachers from four rural communities. Discussion element #1: The RPD model as a context for rural teacher learning Following the success of a 3-year PD program that was structured around monthly video club meetings (van Es & Sherin, 2010) during the school year and content-based summer institute activities, we designed a responsive professional development model (RPD; Horn & Bannister, 2020) for and in partnership with a mathematics teacher community of middle and high school teachers from four neighboring rural districts in the United States. The RPD model prioritized opportunities for teachers to collaborate with “near peers” in discipline-based, gradelevel contexts. We kept structural aspects of the program to boost durability, although we shifted away from researcher-videoed and selected clips for use in whole-group video club settings toward self-videoed and selected clips for use in small workgroups. We hoped that these changes would increase teachers’ autonomy, opportunities to discuss their classrooms with peers, comfort and safety within these discussions, and risk-taking with their instructional practices. The process for the RPD model emerged as follows: (1) Organizing for inquiry: Each group chose a “spotlight teacher” for the next session and a target mathematical teaching practice (MTP) that they wanted to try over the next month. Each teacher agreed to take at least one turn as spotlight teacher, with encouragement to evenly distribute the number of turns. (2) Documenting practice: Spotlight teachers video recorded their lessons, then selected a brief clip to share with their group. Spotlight teachers prepared for the next session by reflecting on the focal MTP and potential student impact. The others tried the MTP and made reflective notes. (3) Spotlight on practice: At the next session, spotlight teachers briefed their groups about the lesson and the attempted MTP. The spotlight teacher played the video clip for their small group—most brought a laptop for this purpose; some played the video directly from their video camera. Many shared student work samples. Teachers discussed the clips together, with the spotlight teacher having the final word. (4) Group goal setting: Each group synthesized student contributions and bottlenecks across their lessons and discussed ways to use MTPs in ways that support what students need next. These ideas were documented in a reflective exit survey, which addressed choices, challenges, and student experiences. As teacher educators, we see teacher collaboration within the professional learning community as a promising lever for improved practice. We imagine that the RPD model will provide productive fodder for participant conversations, both within and outside of rural teacher learning contexts. Discussion element #2: Methodological approach We combined ethnographic and case study methods in our study of collaborative teacher learning in rural contexts relative to the RPD model we piloted with middle and secondary mathematics teachers (Merriam, 1998). We ICLS 2020 Proceedings 2445 © ISLS invited all mathematics teachers from four partner districts to join in. While participation was incentivized through modest stipends and video camera kits, it remained voluntary. Participation rates were consistent following RPD implementation (n≈20). We collected a variety of qualitative data over 2 years, including video/audio recordings of PD sessions, exit surveys, fieldnotes, teacher interviews, teachers’ lesson videos, and related artifacts. We first analyzed the data for content over time by “consolidating, reducing, and interpreting what people have said and what the research has seen and read” (Merriam, 1998, p. 178). Next, we organized the exit survey results in a table by date and by workgroup as a strategy for looking within and across the participant and workgroup discourse patterns over time (see Table 1). As learning scientists, we seek empirical specificity about the forms of teacher collaboration that might support transformative professional learning in rural school communities. In service of this goal, focused discussion of our methodological choices is likely to generate ideas and questions that will support the next stage of this research. Table 1: Example of exit survey responses from one teacher in the 6 grade teacher workgroup Feb 2017 Attempted MTP Challenges Student Impact What Ss Need Next