The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has been advocating for a change in the way mathematics in North America is taught and learned for over two decades. Among the reforms that the NCTM calls for in the document “Principles and Standards of School Mathematics” (2000) are high expectations for every child at every grade level, teachers who understand mathematical content deeply, who know what their students need to learn, who can effectively challenge their students, and students who learn mathematics with depth, who can connect content to prior knowledge, and who are able to gain knowledge actively, through experience. The NCTM envisions reform mathematics classrooms in North America as dynamic, interactive, challenging, and based on constructing deep meaning.
     This method of teaching mathematics is different from what many teachers experienced as students. Thus, teachers are being asked to teach mathematics in a way that is wholly anathema to them. This presents a great challenge for instructional change towards reform as teachers often revert back to the way they were socialized into understanding the teaching and learning process as children (Lowenberg Ball & Cohen, 1999). For teachers to use the reform methods of teaching called for by the NCTM successfully, they will have to feel comfortable with the content that they are teaching, and also have a positive disposition towards both the teaching and the learning of mathematics. To ensure the sustainability of reform efforts, Lowenberg Ball and Cohen (1999) argue, that teachers’ learning needs to occur in the types of practice that are advocated for by reform mathematicians.
Traditionally, professional development has occurred in workshops that were disconnected from the classroom and curriculum, lacked intellectual depth, and occurred in fragmented parts throughout the year (Lowenberg Ball & Cohen, 1999). Hawley and Valli (1999) indicate that this form of professional development is still common in most schools, despite the fact that teachers transfer as little as 10% of material from these experiences into the classroom (Showers & Joyce, 1996). In describing quality professional development, Loucks-Horsley, Love, Stiles, Mundry, & Hewson, 2003 (2003) indicate that it needs to be designed around an image of effective classroom learning, be research-based, use practices that will also be used with students, be based on student learning data, allow opportunities for teachers to build pedagogical content knowledge, content knowledge, and knowledge about practice, and provide opportunities for collaboration with colleagues.
    Elementary mathematics coaching has recently emerged as a form of job-embedded professional development, and coaches are becoming more common in schools. However, there is limited research related to the impact of coaching on either teacher change or student learning. McGatha’s (2009) review of the research since 1990 on mathematics coaches for the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics found only 7 studies focused on mathematics coaching. Likewise, the final report produced by the National Mathematics Advisory Panel in 2008 recommends more research be done on mathematics specialists in elementary classrooms. Despite reviewing 114 pieces of literature, the Panel indicates that there is no high quality research to show that the use of mathematics specialists improves student learning.  
     My research is a case study focused on two coaches and five teachers working in an urban school district in Ontario, Canada. The problem I am exploring in my research is to determine the perceptions held by principals, coaches, and teachers engaged in an elementary mathematics coaching program about the impact of that program, specifically in regard to the development of reform-oriented practices in the elementary school mathematics classroom. This study is expected to contribute to the demonstrated need for research in the emerging field of mathematics coaching. This is a qualitative case study aimed at addressing the following research questions:
1.    What are the mathematics teachers’ perceptions of the impact of coaching on their practice?
2.    What are the mathematics coaches’ perceptions of the impact of coaching on teachers’ practices?
3.    How do the teachers experience the coaching process?
4.    How does coaching affect elementary mathematics teachers’ beliefs about the teaching and learning of mathematics?
5.    What are the challenges that impede and the supports that enable a coaching program?
     Over the course of four months, I collected data through a series of observations, which included: mathematics lessons conducted by teachers who are working with a coach, both with and without the coach’s presence, model lessons presented by the coach, lessons co-taught by both the coach and the classroom teacher together, pre-conference planning sessions, post-lesson debriefing sessions, workshops facilitated by the coaches, and PLCs that included the teachers and coaches involved in the study. I also conducted two semi-structured interviews with each teacher and coach, and with each teacher’s principal at the beginning and again at the end of the data collection. Finally, I kept a journal throughout the course of the data collection.
     Each interview and observation has been transcribed in detail. I am currently beginning the data analysis process, but anticipate it will be completed by early 2012. I will use NVivo 9 to help me code the data and to identify patterns and generate themes related to the research questions. While I am still at the early stages, preliminary data analysis appears to indicate that all participants found the coaching program and process to be beneficial. All participants identified changes in classroom practice. These changes included the adoption of a three part lesson model, the use inquiry based problems, taking more risks with students, allowing students to guide the direction of discussions, and increased confidence in student ability. However, differences also emerged in what teachers and principals felt had the most impact on their learning, with teachers favouring co-teaching and principals preferring PLCs and text-based discussions. Additionally, some teachers found the time it took to engage in coaching interfered with their ability to ‘get through’ the mandated curriculum in time for the provincial tests. These factors will be examined further and their relation to aiding or impeding the teacher change process will be analyzed in detail as the analysis process progresses.