Advertisement

Classroom observation and mathematics education research

  • Jonathan BosticEmail author
  • Kristin Lesseig
  • Milan Sherman
  • Melissa Boston
Article

Abstract

Classroom observations have become an integral part of research related to mathematics education. In this qualitative study, we describe the current state of the mathematics education field with regard to the use of classroom observation. The research question was: How is classroom observation being used to measure instructional quality in mathematics education research? In all, 114 peer-reviewed manuscripts published between 2000 and 2015 that involved classroom observation as part of an empirical study were examined using a cross-comparative methodology. Seventy (61%) did not use a formalized classroom observation protocol (COP), 21 (18%) developed their own COP, and 23 (20%) used a previously developed COP. Of the implemented COPs, 44% have published validity evidence in a peer-reviewed journal. We perceive the great variety of research approaches for classroom observation as necessary and potentially challenging in moving mathematics education forward with respect to research on instructional contexts.

Keywords

Classroom observation Instruction Qualitative Validity 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to share our sincere appreciation to Timothy Folger, Maria Nielsen, and Davis Gerber at Bowling Green State University, and Dan Chibnall at Drake University for their assistance throughout this project.

References

  1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (US). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  3. Arbaugh, F., Lannin, J., Jones, D. L., & Park-Rogers, M. (2006). Examining instructional practices in Core-Plus lessons: Implications for professional development. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(6), 517–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baker, J. A. (1999). Teacher-student interaction in urban at-risk classrooms: Differential behavior, relationship quality, and student satisfaction with school. The Elementary School Journal, 100(1), 57–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., & Rowan, B. (2004). Introduction: Measuring instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Berry, III, R. Q., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Ottmar, E. M., Walkowiak, T. A., & Merritt, E. (2010). The Mathematics Scan (M-Scan): A measure of mathematics instructional quality. Unpublished measure, University of Virginia.Google Scholar
  7. Blank, R. K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in Mathematics & Science. Results from Survey of Enacted Curriculum Project. Final Report. Council of Chief State School Officers, Attn: Publications, One Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20001-1431.Google Scholar
  8. Borasi, R., Fonzi, J., Smith, C., & Rose, B. J. (1999). Beginning the process of rethinking mathematics instruction: A professional development program. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 2, 49–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bostic, J. (2017). Moving forward: Instruments and opportunities for aligning current practices with testing standards. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 9(3), 109–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bostic, J. (2018). Improving test development reporting practices. In L. Venenciano & A. Sanogo (Eds.), Proceedings of the 45th Annual Meeting of the Research Council on Mathematics Learning (pp. 57–64). Baton Rouge, LA.Google Scholar
  11. Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., Sherman, M., & Boston, M. (2017). Classroom observation protocols: Choose your own tool. Research report presented at the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Research Conference, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  12. Bostic, J., Matney, G., & Sondergeld, T. (2019). A lens on teachers’ promotion of the Standards for Mathematical Practice. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 11(1), 69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Boston, M. D. (2012a). Assessing the quality of mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal, 113, 76–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Boston, M. (2012b). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Boston, M., Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., & Sherman, M. (2015a). A comparison of mathematics classroom observation protocols. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3, 154–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Boston, M., Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., & Sherman, M. (2015b). Classroom Observation tools to support the work of mathematics teacher educators. Invited Manuscript for Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3, 154–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2009). Transforming secondary mathematics teaching: Increasing the cognitive demands of instructional tasks used in teachers’ classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 119–156.Google Scholar
  18. Boston, M. D., & Wilhelm, A. G. (2015). Middle school mathematics instruction in instructionally-focused urban districts. Urban Education, 52(7), 829–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Briars, D. J., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Standards, assessments… and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement. Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  20. Brigham Young University Department of Mathematics Education. (2008). Report on venue study. Retrieved from https://nctm.confex.com/nctm/…/BYU%20Study%20for%20Journal%20Rankings.pdf.
  21. Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher influences on student achievement. American Psychologist, 41, 1069.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Brown, J. C., & Crippen, K. J. (2016). The growing awareness inventory: Building capacity for culturally responsive science and mathematics with a structured observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 116(3), 127–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Capobianco, B. M., & Rupp, M. (2014). STEM teachers’ planned and enacted attempts at implementing engineering design-based instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 258–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Charalambous, C. Y., & Praetorius, A. K. (2018). Studying mathematics instruction through different lenses: Setting the ground for understanding instructional quality more comprehensively. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50, 355–366.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-018-0914-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Danielson, C. (2013). The framework for teaching: Evaluation instrument. Princeton, NJ: Danielson Group.Google Scholar
  26. Doabler, C. T., Baker, S. K., Kosty, D. B., Smolkowski, K., Clarke, B., Miller, S. J., et al. (2015). Examining the association between explicit mathematics instruction and student mathematics achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 115(3), 303–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Donovan, M. S., & Bransford, J. D. (2005). How students learn: History, mathematics, and science in the classroom. Committee on How People Learn: A Targeted Report for Teachers National Research Council. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  28. Farmer, J. D., Gerretston, H., & Lassak, M. (2003). What teachers take from professional development: Cases and implications. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 6, 331–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Fraivillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 148–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L., & Fennema, E. (2001). Capturing teachers’ generative change: A follow-up study of professional development in mathematics. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 653–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Franke, M., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Understanding teaching and classroom practice in mathematics. In F. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  32. Good, T., & Brophy, J. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6th ed., pp. 209–262). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  33. Hall, A., & Miro, D. (2016). A study of student engagement in project-based learning across multiple approaches to STEM education programs. School Science and Mathematics, 116(6), 310–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hamre, B., Pianta, R., Burchinal, M., Field, S., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Downer, J., et al. (2012). A course on effective teacher-child interactions: Effects on teacher beliefs, knowledge, and observed practice. American Educational Research Journal, 49(1), 88–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J. W., Jacobs, J. K., Givvin, K. B., Garnier, H., Smith, M., et al. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hill, H., & Shih, J. (2009). Examining the quality of statistical mathematics education research. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 241–250.Google Scholar
  38. Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding whole-class discussions in middle-grades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jong, C., Pedulla, J. J., Reagan, E. M., Salomon-Fernandez, Y., & Cochran-Smith, M. (2010). Exploring the link between reformed teaching practices and pupil learning in elementary school mathematics. School Science and Mathematics, 110(6), 309–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Judson, E. (2013). Development of an instrument to assess and deliberate on the integration of mathematics into student-centered science learning. School Science and Mathematics, 113(2), 56–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kane, M. T. (2006). Valildation. In R. L. Brennan, National Council on Measurement in Education, & American Council on Education (Eds.), Educational measurement. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  43. Kane, M. T. (2016). Validation strategies: Delineating and validating proposed interpretations and uses of test scores. In S. Lane, M. Raymond, & T. M. Haladyna (Eds.), Handbook of test development (Vol. 2nd). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Kane, T. J. & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Research paper. MET Project. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kersting, N. B., Sutton, T., Kalinec-Craig, C., Stoehr, K. J., Heshmati, S., Lozano, G., et al. (2016). Further exploration of the classroom video analysis (CVA) instrument as a measure of usable knowledge for teaching mathematics: Taking a knowledge system perspective. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(1–2), 97–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Khan, S., & VanWynsberghe, R. (2008). Cultivating the under-mined: Cross-case analysis as knowledge mobilization. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 9, 1–21.Google Scholar
  48. Le, V., Lockwood, J. R., Stecher, B. M., Hamilton, L. S., & Martinez, J. F. (2009). A longitudinal investigation of the relationship between teachers’ self-reports of reform-oriented instruction and mathematics and science achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31, 200–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Lubienski, S. T. (2008). On” gap gazing” in mathematics education: The need for gaps analyses. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 350–356.Google Scholar
  51. Marshall, J., Smart, J., & Horton, R. (2010). The design and validation of EQUIP: An instrument to assess inquiry-based instruction. International Journal of Science & Mathematics Education, 8(2), 299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Marshall, J. C., Smart, J., Lotter, C., & Sirbu, C. (2011). Comparative analysis of two inquiry observational protocols: Striving to better understand the quality of teacher-facilitated inquiry-based instruction. School Science and Mathematics, 111(6), 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. (2008). Toward measuring instructional interactions ‘at-scale’. Educational Assessment, 13, 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A. (2001). Interactions among instructional, practices, curriculum, and student achievement: The case of Standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. McCaslin, M., Good, T. L., Nichols, S., Zhang, J., Wiley, C. R., Bozack, A. R., et al. (2006). Comprehensive school reform: An observational study of teaching in grades 3 through 5. The Elementary School Journal, 106(4), 313–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Mendez, E. P., Sherin, M. G., & Louis, D. A. (2007). Multiple perspectives on the development of an eighth-grade mathematical discourse community. The Elementary School Journal, 108(1), 41–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Morrell, P. D., Wainwright, C., & Flick, L. (2004). Reform teaching strategies used by student teachers. School Science and Mathematics, 104(5), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Morrone, A. S., Harkness, S. S., D’ambrosio, B., & Caulfield, R. (2004). Patterns of instructional discourse that promote the perception of mastery goals in a social constructivist mathematics course. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 56(1), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  60. Newton, K. J. (2009). Instructional practices related to prospective elementary school teachers’ motivation for fractions. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 12(2), 89–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ottmar, E. R., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Berry, R. Q., & Larsen, R. A. (2013). Does the responsive classroom approach affect the use of standards-based mathematics teaching practices? Results from a randomized controlled trial. The Elementary School Journal, 113(3), 434–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Peters Burton, E., Kaminsky, S. E., Lynch, S., Behrend, T., Han, E., Ross, K., et al. (2014). Wayne School of Engineering: Case study of a rural inclusive STEM-Focused High School. School Science and Mathematics, 114(6), 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Vandergrift, N., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. J. (2008). Classroom effects on children’s achievement trajectories in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 365–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ross, S. M., Smith, L. J., & Alberg, M. (1998). The school observation measure (SOM VC). Memphis: Center for Research in Educational Policy, The University of Memphis.Google Scholar
  65. Rubel, L. H., & Chu, H. (2012). Reinscribing urban: Teaching high school mathematics in low income, urban communities of color. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 15(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Santagata, R., & Barbieri, A. (2005). Mathematics teaching in Italy: A cross-cultural video analysis. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 7(4), 291–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., et al. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Saxe, G. B., Gearhart, M., & Seltzer, M. (1999). Relations between classroom practices and student learning in the domain of fractions. Cognition and instruction, 17, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Schifter, D. A., & Simon, M. (1992). Assessing teachers’ development of a constructivist view of mathematics learning. Teacher and Teacher Education, 8, 187–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Schlesinger, L., & Jentsch, A. (2016). Theoretical and methodological challenges in measuring instructional quality in mathematics education using classroom observations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(1–2), 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Schoen, H. L., Cebulla, K. J., Finn, K. F., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 228–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2013). Classroom observations in theory and practice. ZDM Mathematics Education, 45(4), 607–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Sears, R., & Chavez, O. (2014). Opportunities to engage with proof: the nature of proof tasks in two geometry textbooks and its influence on enacted lessons. ZDM Mathematics Education, 46, 767–780.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Simon, M. A., & Shifter, D. (1991). Towards a constructivist perspective: An intervention study of mathematics teacher development. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 22, 309–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school mathematics: A best evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Smith, M. (2014). Tools as a catalyst for practitioners’ thinking. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3, 3–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Cooper, H. (2013). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intelligent tutoring systems on K–12 students’ mathematical learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 970–987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middle grades mathematics curricula on student achievement and the classroom learning environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.Google Scholar
  80. Toerner, G., & Arzarello, F. (2012). Grading mathematics education research journals. Newletter of the European Mathematical Society, 86, 52–54.Google Scholar
  81. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2012, February). High School Math intervention report: I CAN Learn ®. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov.
  82. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2013, January). High School Mathematics intervention report: Carnegie Learning Curricula and Cognitive Tutor ®. Retrieved from http://whatworks.ed.gov.
  83. Valli, L., & Croninger, R. (2002). High quality teaching of foundational skills in mathematics and reading (# 0115389). Washington: National Science Foundation Interdisciplinary Educational Research Initiative.Google Scholar
  84. Wainwright, C., Morrell, P. D., Flick, L., & Schepige, A. (2004). Observation of reform teaching in undergraduate level mathematics and science courses. School Science and Mathematics, 104(7), 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Walkington, C., Arora, P., Ihorn, S., Gordon, J., Walker, M., Abraham, L., & Marder, M. (2012). Development of the UTeach observation protocol: A classroom observation instrument to evaluate mathematics and science teachers from the UTeach preparation program. Unpublished paper. Southern Methodist University.Google Scholar
  86. Walkowiak, T., Berry, R., Meyer, J., Rimm-Kaufman, S., & Ottmar, E. (2014). Introducing an observational measure of standards-based mathematics teaching practices: Evidence of validity and score reliability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85, 109–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Wasserman, N., & Walkington, C. (2014). Exploring links between beginning UTeachers’ beliefs and observed classroom practices. Teacher Education & Practice, 27(2/3), 376–401.Google Scholar
  88. Wilhelm, A. G., & Kim, S. (2015). Generalizing from observations of mathematics teachers’ instructional practice using the instructional quality assessment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(3), 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Williams, S., & Leatham, K. (2017). Journal quality in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 48(4), 369–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bowling Green State UniversityBowling GreenUSA
  2. 2.Washington State University VancouverVancouverUSA
  3. 3.Drake UniversityDes MoinesUSA
  4. 4.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations