Researchers have approached to teacher change in different ways: as a learner, as a teacher, and as a colleague. This study aims to analyze teachers’ pedagogical changes within the professionally collaborated training program supported with on-the-job visits in their teaching environments. Five elementary mathematics teachers were involved in the study which was organized as a longitudinal professional program aiming at teachers’ classroom practices. By analyzing teaching practices and interviews through Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP), the results show that teachers had various characteristics in terms of enacting their pedagogical goals. The study concludes that sample classroom implementations and pedagogical discussions have impact on teachers’ beliefs about putting pedagogical goals into practice.

• Akkuş, R., & Hand, B. (2011). Examining teachers’ struggles as they attempt to implement dialogical interaction as part of promoting mathematical reasoning within their classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 9(4), 975-998. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-010-9266-8
• Akpınar, Y. (2003). Öğretmenlerin yeni bilgi teknolojileri kullanımında yükseköğretimin etkisi: İstanbul okulları örneği [The effect of higher education on the use of new information technologies by teachers: Istanbul schools example]. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 2(2), 79-96.
• Alger, C. L. (2009). Secondary teachers’ conceptual metaphors of teaching and learning: Changes over the career span. Teaching and Teacher Education, 25(5), 743-751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2008.10.004
• Babadogan, C., & Olkun, S. (2006). Program development models and reform in Turkish primary school mathematics curriculum. International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 1-6.
• Bağcı, N., & Şimşek, S. (2000). Milli Eğitim personeline yönelik hizmet içi eğitim faaliyetlerine genel bir bakış [An overview of in-service training activities for National Education personnel]. Millî Eğitim Dergisi, 146, 9-12.
• Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2010). What does it take to make a teacher? Phi Delta Kappan, 92(2), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172171009200203
• Ball, D., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497-511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479
• Baştürk, R. (2012). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin hizmetiçi eğitime yönelik algı ve beklentilerinin incelenmesi [Examining the perceptions and expectations of primary school teachers towards in-service education]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi,42(42), 96-107.
• Boydak Özan, M., & Dikici, A. (2001). Hizmet içi eğitim programlarının etkililiğinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of the effectiveness of in-service training programs]. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 11(2), 225-240.
• Bryk, A., Gomez, L., Grunow, A., & LeMahieu, P. (2015). Learning to improve: How America’s schools can get better at getting better. Boston, MA: Harvard Education Publishing.
• Castle, K., & Aichele, D. B. (1994). Professional development and teacher autonomy. In D. Aichele and A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 Yearbook (pp. 1-8). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Chazan, D., & Ball, D. (1995). Beyond Exhortations Not To Tell: The Teacher’s Role in Discussion-Intensive Mathematics Classes. NCRTL Craft Paper 95-2.
• Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1984). Teachers’ thought processes. Occasional paper no. 72. Michigan: Michigan State University
• Clarke, D. (1994). Ten key principles from research for the professional development of mathematics teachers. In D. Aichele and A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 Yearbook (pp. 37-48). Reston, VA: NCTM
• Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00053-7
• Coburn, C., & Penuel, W. (2016). Research-practice partnerships: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-51. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16631750
• Cohen, D. K., & Barnes, C. A. (1993). Conclusion: A new pedagogy for policy. In D. K. Cohen, M. W. McLaughlin and J. E. Talbert (Eds.), Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice (pp. 240-275). San-Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119-142. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119
• Cooney, T. J. (1994). Teacher education as an exercise in adaptation. In D. Aichele and A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 Yearbook (pp. 9-22). Reston, VA: NCTM
• Demirkol, M. (2010). İlköğretim okullarında öğretmenlere yönelik okul-temelli hizmetiçi eğitim etkinliklerinin değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of school-based in-service training activities for teachers in primary schools]. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, (188), 158-173.
• Doğan, N., Çakıroğlu, J., Çavuş, S., Bilican, K., & Arslan, O. (2011). Öğretmenlerin Bilimin Doğası Hakkındaki Görüşlerinin Geliştirilmesi: Hizmetiçi Eğitim Programının Etkisi [Improving Teachers’ Views on the Nature of Science: The Effect of In-Service Training Program]. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 127-139.
• Eğitim Reformu Girişimi (ERG) (2015). Eğitim İzleme Raporu 2014-2015 [Training Monitoring Report 2014-2015]. İstanbul.
• Eraslan, A. (2009). Finlandiya’nın PISA’daki başarısının nedenleri: Türkiye için alınacak dersler [Reasons for the success of Finland’s PISA: lessons to be learned for Turkey]. Necatibey Eğitim Fakültesi Elektronik Fen ve Matematik Eğitimi Dergisi (EFMED), 3(2), 238-248.
• Even, R. & Tirosh, D. (2002). Teacher knowledge and understanding of students’ mathematical learning. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education, (pp. 219-240). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Franke, M. L., Fennema, E., & Carpenter, T. (1997). Teachers creating change: Examining evolving beliefs and classroom practice. In E. Fennema and B. Nelson (Eds.). Mathematics teachers in transmission (pp. 255-282). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Geiger, V., Muir, T., & Lamb, J. (2016). Video-stimulated recall as a catalyst for teacher professional learning. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 19, 457-475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-015-9306-y
• Glesne, C. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd Ed.). New York, NY: Longman.
• Gökmenoğlu, T., Clark, C. M., & Kiraz, E. (2016). Professional development needs of Turkish teachers in an era of national reforms. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 41(1), 112-125. https://doi.org/10.14221/ajte.2016v41n1.7
• Goldsmith, L., & Schifter, D. (1997). Understanding teachers in transition: Characteristics of a model for developing teachers. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 19-54). Mahwah, New Jersey. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Goos, M., & Geiger, V. (2010). Theoretical perspectives on mathematics teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(6), 499-507. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9166-4
• Gültekin, M., Çubukçu, Z., & Dal, S. (2010). İlköğretim öğretmenlerinin eğitim öğretimle ilgili hizmetiçi eğitim gereksinimleri [In-service training requirements of primary education teachers regarding education]. Selçuk Üniversitesi Ahmet Keleşoğlu Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 29, 131-152.
• Günel, M., & Tanrıverdi, K. (2014). In-service teacher training from international and national perspectives: The retention and loss of institutional and academic memories. Education and Science, 39(175), 73-94. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2014.2949
• Günel, M., Akkuş, R., Özer-Keskin, M., & Keskin-Samanci., N. (2013). Improving Students’ Conceptual Understanding of Science Through Argument Based Science Inquiry Implementations: A Case of Nationwide Professional Development Project. Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Immersion Approaches to Argument-based Inquiry (ABI) for Science Classrooms, Busan, Korea. 4-7 February 2013.
• Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5-12. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015005005
• Hand, B., Norton-Meier, L. A., Gunel, M., & Akkus, R. (2016). Aligning teaching to learning: A 3-year study examining the embedding of language and argumentation into elementary science classrooms. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 14(5), 847-863. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-015-9622-9
• Harris, K. R., Lane, K. L., Graham, S., Driscoll, S. A., Sandmel, K., Brindle, M., & Schatschneider, C. (2012). Practice-based professional development for selfregulated strategies development in writing: A randomized controlled study. Journal of Teacher Education, 63(2), 103-119. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487111429005
• Jones, D. (1997). A conceptual framework for studying the relevance of context to mathematics teachers’ change. In E. Fennema & B. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transmission (pp. 131-154). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Jones, G. A., Lubinski, C. A., Swafford, J. O., & Thornton, C. A. (1994). A framework for the professional development of K-12 mathematics teachers. In D. Aichele & A. Coxford (Eds.). Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 23-36). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Kıldan, O., & Temel, F. (2008). The effects of in-service training practices for preschool teachers in line with the constructivist approach to determine teachers’ perceptions. Kastamonu Education Journal, 16(1), 25-36.
• Knight, S. L., Lloyd, G. M., Arbaugh, F., Gamson, D., McDonald, S. P., Nolan, J., & Whitney, A. E. (2015). School-Based Teacher Learning. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(4), 301-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487115596828
• Küçüksüleymanoğlu, R. (2006). In service training of ELT teachers in Turkey between 1998-2005. Uludag University Education Faculty Journal, 19(2), 359-369
• Lesh, R. (2002). Research design in mathematics education: Focusing on design experiments. In L. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 27-49). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Llinares, S., & Krainer, K. (2006). Mathematics (student) teachers and teacher educators as learners. In A. Gutie´rrez and P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future (pp. 429-459). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_016
• Martin, A. M., & Hand, B. (2009). Factors affecting the implementation of argument in the elementary science classroom. A longitudinal case study. Research in Science Education, 39(1), 17-38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9072-7
• Mewborn, D. S. (2003). Teaching, teachers’ knowledge, and their professional development. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin & D. Schifter (Eds). A research companion to Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (pp. 45-52). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Ministry of National Education-MoNE (2012a). Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı-MEB (2012a).19.05.2012 tarihli “12 Yıllık Zorunlu Eğitime Yönelik Uygulamalar” konulu, B.08.0.ÖKM. O.OO-00.00/401 sayılı genelge [Instructions for the 12-Year compulsory education, document number B.08.0.ÖKM. O.OO-00.00/401]. Ankara: MoNE.
• Ministry of National Education-MoNE (2012b). Meslekiçi eğitim ihtiyacını belirleme anketi genel değerlendirme sonuçları [The general results of survey for inservice education needs]. Ankara: MoNE.
• National Council of Mathematics (NCTM) (1991). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
• National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.
• Nelson, B. S. (1997). Learning about teacher change in the context of mathematics education reform: Where have we come from? In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 3-15). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
• Omar, S. (2004). Inservice teachers’ implementation of science writing heuristic as a tool for professional growth (Unpublished PhD dissertation). Ames: Iowa State University, USA.
• Öztürk-Akar, E. (2007). Inservice training needs of biology teachers and observed local differences. Education and Science, 32(143), 68-79.
• Pennington, M. C. (1995). The teacher change cycle. Tesol Quarterly, 29(4), 705-731. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588171
• Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Cheng, B., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation and design. Educational Researcher, 40(7), 331-337. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X11421826
• Reid, D., & Zack, V. (2010). Observing the process of mathematics teacher change—part 1. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 13(5), 371-374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9158-4
• Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Falconer, K., Turley, J., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) (ACEPT Technical Report No. IN00-1). Tempe, AZ: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.
• Schifter, D. (1998). Learning mathematics for teaching: From a teachers’ seminar to the classroom. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 1, 55-87. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009911200478
• Sherin, M. G., Sherin, B. L., & R. Madanes (2000) Exploring diverse accounts of teacher knowledge. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour 18(2), 357-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(99)00033-4
• Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145. https://doi.org/10.2307/749205
• Simon, M. (1997). Developing new models of mathematics teaching. In E. Fennema & B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transmission (pp. 55-86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Sowder, J. T., Philipp, R. A., Armstrong, B. E., & Schappelle, B. P. (1998). Middlegrade teachers’ mathematical knowledge and its relationship to instruction: A research monograph. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Steinberg, R., Empson, S., & Carpenter, T. (2004). Inquiry into children’s mathematical thinking as a means to teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 7(3), 237-267 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:JMTE.0000033083.04005.d3
• Supovitz, J. A., & Turner, H. M. (2000). The effects of professional development on science teaching practices and classroom culture. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 963-980. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-2736(200011)37:9<963::AID-TEA6>3.0.CO;2-0
• Swafford, J. O., Jones, G. A., & Thornton, C. A. (1997). Increased knowledge in geometry and instructional practice. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 467-483. https://doi.org/10.2307/749683
• Sykes, G., Bird, T., & Kennedy, M. (2010). Teacher education: Its problems and some prospects. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(5), 464-476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110375804
• Tanrıverdi, K., & Gunel, M. (2012). Öğretmen pedagojisinde kritik sorun: Değişime karşı direnç [A critical problem in teacher pedagogy: Resistance to change]. In 10^th National Conference of Science and Mathematics Education, Nigde, Turkey.
• Tanrıverdi, K., Kurt, İ., & Soysal, Y. (2014). Öğretmen mesleki gelişiminin anahtarı: pedagojik değişim [The key to teacher professional development: pedagogical change]. Öğretmen Dünyası, 414, 16-18.
• Toluk-Uçar, Z., & Demirsoy, N. H. (2010). Tension between old and new: Mathematics teachers’ beliefs and practices. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 39, 321-332.
• Verschaffel, L., Greer, B., & Torbeys, J. (2006). Numerical thinking. In A. Gutie´rrez and P. Boero (Eds.), Handbook of research on the psychology of mathematics education: Past, present and future, (pp. 51-82). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789087901127_004
• Wallace, M., Cederberg, J., & Allen, R. (1994). Teachers empowering teachers: a professional-enhancement model. In D. Aichele & A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics: 1994 Yearbook (pp. 234-245). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Walshaw, M., & Anthony, G. (2008). The teacher’s role in classroom discourse: A review of recent research into mathematics classrooms. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 516-551. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308320292
• Wasserman, N. H., & Rossi, D. (2015). Mathematics and science teachers’ use of and confidence in empirical reasoning: Implications for STEM teacher preparation. School Science and Mathematics, 115(1), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.12099
• Watters, J. J., & Diezmann, C. M. (2015). Challenges confronting career-changing beginning teachers: A qualitative study of professional scientists becoming science teachers. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 26(2), 163-192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10972-014-9413-0
• Weissglass, J. (1994). Changing mathematics teaching means changing ourselves: Implications for professional development. In D. Aichele and A. Coxford (Eds.), Professional development for teachers of mathematics (pp. 67-78). Reston, VA: NCTM.
• Wilkie, K. J. (2019). The challenge of changing teaching: investigating the interplay of external and internal influences during professional learning with secondary mathematics teachers. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 22, 95-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-017-9376-0
• Yackel, E., & Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical Norms, Argumentation, and Autonomy in Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27(4), 458-477. https://doi.org/10.2307/749877
• Yackel, E., Rasmussen, C., & King, K. (2000). Social and sociomathematical norms in an advanced undergraduate mathematics course. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19, 275-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0732-3123(00)00051-1
• Yiğit, N., & Altun, T. (2011). Effectiveness of an in-service training course: Teaching methods and techniques. Journal of National Education, 41(189), 118-131.
• Yılmaz, H., & Kocasaraç, H. (2010). A new approach to in-service teacher training: The innovative teachers program and its evaluation. Ahi Evran University Education Faculty Journal,11(3), 51-64.
• Yin, R. (1984). Case study research: Design and method. Beverly Hills, Sage Publications.

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.