Advertisement

Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 25–47 | Cite as

Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction

  • Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project
Article

Abstract

In this article, we describe a framework and instrument for measuring the mathematical quality of mathematics instruction. In describing this framework, we argue for the separation of the mathematical quality of instruction (MQI), such as the absence of mathematical errors and the presence of sound mathematical reasoning, from pedagogical method. We argue that conceptualizing this key aspect of mathematics classrooms will enable more clarity in mathematics educators’ research questions and will facilitate study of the mechanisms by which teacher knowledge shapes instruction and subsequent student learning. The instrument we have developed offers an important first step in demonstrating the viability of the construct.

Keywords

Teacher knowledge Mathematics teaching 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by NSF grants REC-0207649, EHR-0233456, and EHR-0335411.

References

  1. Adler, J. (2001). Lessons from and in curriculum reform across contexts? The Mathematics Educator, 12, 2–5.Google Scholar
  2. Amit, M., & Fried, M. N. (2002). Research, reform, and times of change. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 355–381). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  3. Atweh, B., Clarkson, P., & Nebres, B. (2003). Mathematics education in international and global contexts. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 185–229). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2003). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In B. Davis & E. Simmt (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2002 annual meeting of the Canadian Mathematics Education Study Group (pp. 3–14). Edmonton, AB: CMESG/GDEDM.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blunk, M., & Hill, H. C. (2007). The mathematical quality of instruction (MQI) video coding tool: Results from validation and scale-building. Paper presented at the 2007 American Educational Association Annual Conference, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  7. Boaler, J. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C., Underhill, R., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behaviour and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: MacMillan.Google Scholar
  10. Charalambous, C. Y. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the unfolding of tasks in mathematics lessons: Integrating two lines of research. In O. Figueras, J. L. Cortina, S. Alatorre, T. Rojano, & A. Sepúlveda (Eds.), Proceedings of the joint meeting of PME 32 and PME-NA XXX (Vol. 2, pp. 281–288). México: Cinvestav-UMSNH.Google Scholar
  11. Christou, C., Eliophotou-Menon, M., & Philippou, G. (2009). Beginning teachers’ concerns regarding the adoption of new mathematics curriculum materials. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 223–244). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311–329.Google Scholar
  13. Cohen, D., & Ball, D. L. (2001). Making change: Instruction and its improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(1), 73–77.Google Scholar
  14. Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 379–385.Google Scholar
  15. Gearhardt, M., Saxe, G. B., Seltzer, M., Schlackman, J., Ching, C. C., Nasir, N., et al. (1999). Opportunities to learn fractions in elementary classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30(3), 286–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
  17. Good, T., Grouws, D., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  18. Henningsen, M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematical tasks and student cognition: Classroom-based factors that support and inhibit high-level mathematical thinking and reasoning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(5), 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M., Charalambous, C., Lewis, J., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., et al. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, H. C., Schilling, S. G., & Ball, D. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Horizon Research. (2000). Inside the classroom observation and analytic protocol. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  22. Jones, G., Langrall, C., Thornton, C., & Nisbet, S. (2002). Elementary students’ access to powerful mathematical ideas. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 113–141). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Dubberke, T., Baumert, J., Blum, W., & Brunner, M. (2007). Linking aspects of teacher competence to their instruction: Results from the COACTIV project. In M. Prenzel, et al. (Eds.), Studies on educational quality of schools: The final report on the DFG Priority programme (pp. 39–59). Munster, Germany: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  24. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Making mathematics meaningful in multicultural contexts. In W. G. Secada, E. Fennema, & L. B. Adajian (Eds.), New directions for equity in mathematics education (pp. 126–145). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Leinhardt, G., & Smith, D. A. (1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(3), 247–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Leung, F. K. S. (2005). Some characteristics of East Asian mathematics classrooms based on data from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 60, 199–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness in mathematics: Some preliminary findings from the evaluation of the mathematics enhancement programme (primary). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 273–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  29. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  30. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  31. Office for Standards in Education. (2009). Mathematics: Understanding the scoreimproving practice in mathematics (primary). London: Author. Retrieved March 5, 2009 from http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/Ofsted-home/Publications-and-research/Browse-all-by/Documents-by-type/Thematic-reports?query=mathematics&SearchSectionID=12.
  32. Powell, A. B., Francisco, J. M., & Maher, C. A. (2003). An analytical model for studying the development of learners’ mathematical ideas and reasoning using videotape data. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22, 405–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. RAND Mathematics Study Panel (D. L. Ball, Chair). (2003). Mathematical proficiency for all students: Toward a strategic research and development program in mathematics education. Arlington: RAND.Google Scholar
  34. Reynolds, D., & Muijs, D. (1999). The effective teaching of mathematics: A review of research. School Leadership and Management, 19(3), 273–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rosenshine, B., & Furst, N. (1986). The use of direct observation to study teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 122–183). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  36. Rowland, T. (2008). Researching teachers’ mathematics disciplinary knowledge. In P. Sullivan & T. Wood (Eds.), The international handbook of mathematics teacher education, Vol. 1: Knowledge and beliefs in mathematics teaching and teaching development (pp. 273–300). Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  37. Rowland, T., Huckstep, T., & Thwaites, A. (2005). Elementary teachers’ mathematics subject knowledge: The knowledge quartet and the case of Naomi. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8, 255–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sawada, D., & Pilburn, M. (2000). Reformed teaching observation protocol (RTOP). Arizona State University: Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers.Google Scholar
  39. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Education Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.Google Scholar
  40. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
  41. Tirosh, D., & Graeber, A. (2003). Challenging and changing mathematics teaching classroom practices. In A. Bishop, M. A. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & F. K. S. Leung (Eds.), Second international handbook of mathematics education (pp. 643–687). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  42. Weaver, D., Dick, T., Higgins, K., Marrongelle, K., Foreman, L., Miller, N., et al. (2005). OMLI classroom observation protocol. Portland, OR: RMC Research Corporation.Google Scholar
  43. Zebian, S. (2004). Sociomathematical norms in Lebanese classrooms and their relationship to higher order critical thinking in students: Some different conceptual starting points for mathematics teaching and learning. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Delta Chelsea Hotel, Toronto, ON, Canada.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project
    • 1
  1. 1.

Personalised recommendations