Learning Environments Research

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 1–15 | Cite as

Convergence of observer ratings and student perceptions of reform practices in sixth-grade mathematics classrooms

Original Paper

Abstract

As part of a research project examining relationships between instructional practices and student cognitive and social outcomes in middle-school mathematics classes, external observers and students reported perceptions of teachers’ instructional practices. The extent to which students in classrooms identified by external raters as reform-oriented actually perceive instruction in ways aligned with reform principles has not been established. A 25-item observation protocol aligned with the reform practices called for in the Standards of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) was used to develop a quantitative profile of instructional practices across two lessons in each of 28 classes of 15 participating teachers. Students in each of the observed classes completed a 49-item survey of their perceptions of instructional practices. As items for both the observation protocol and Student Survey were designed to measure alignment with the same dimensions of reform practice, the convergence of these two data sets was examined as a means to confirm the observation ratings. The findings show moderately strong correlations between ratings of external observers and perceptions of sixth-grade students across three dimensions (pedagogy, tasks and mathematical interactions) of reform-oriented teacher practice in mathematics classrooms. Implications of these findings for future research are discussed.

Keywords

Instruction Learning environment Mathematics teaching Observation Reform Student perceptions 

References

  1. Anderman, E. M., & Young, A. J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31, 811–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briars, D. J., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Standards, assessments—and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement. Los Angeles, CA: National Center on Education, Standards, and Student Assessment (CRESST).Google Scholar
  3. Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Carpenter, T. P., & Lehrer, R. (1999). Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. In E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 19–32). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  5. Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical & modern test theory. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. DeJong, R., & Westerhof, K. J. (2001). The quality of student ratings of teacher behavior. Learning Environments Research, 4, 51–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eisenberg, N., Zhou, Q., & Koller, S. (2001). Brazilian adolescents’ prosocial moral judgment and behavior: Relations to sympathy, perspective taking, gender-role orientation, and demographic characteristics. Child Development, 72, 518–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fisher, D. L., & Fraser, B. J. (1983). A comparison of actual and preferred classroom environment as perceived by science teachers and students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 55–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleiss, J. L. (1991). Statistical methods for rates and proportions. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Fraser, B. J. (1994). Research on classroom and school climate. In D. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching and learning (pp. 493–541). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  11. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Classroom environment instruments: Development, validity and applications. Learning Environments Research, 1, 7–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1982). Predicting students’ outcomes from their perceptions of classroom psychosocial environment. American Educational Research Journal, 19(4), 498–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horizon Research, Inc. (1998). 1997–1998 Local systemic change: Revised classroom observation protocol. Chapel Hill, NC: Author. .Google Scholar
  14. Kahle, J. B., Meece, J. L., & Scantlebury, K. (2000). Urban African-American middle school science students: Does standards-based teaching make a difference? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37(9), 1019–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Malloy, C. E., & Meece, J. L. (2007). The relation between reform instruction and student achievement in middle grades mathematics classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  16. McCaffrey, D., Hamilton, L., Stecher, B., Klein, S., Bugliari, D., & Robyn, A. (2001). Interactions among instructional practices, practices, curriculum, and student achievement: The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Meece, J. L., Herman, P., & McCombs, B. (2003). Relations of learner-centred teaching practices to adolescents’ achievement goals. International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meece, J. L., Malloy, C. E., & Hamm, J. V. (2006, April). Do students’ perceptions mediate the influence of instructional practices on mathematics learning? Paper presented at the research presession of the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
  19. Meece, J. L., & Schunk, D. H. (1992). Students’ perceptions in the classroom: Causes and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.Google Scholar
  20. NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  21. NCTM. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  22. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  23. Osterman, K. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ryan, R., & Grolnick, W. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-reports and projective assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 550–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science & Mathematics, 102, 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scantlebury, K., Boone, W. J., Kahle, J. B., & Fraser, B. J. (2001). Design, validation, and use of an evaluation instrument for monitoring systemic reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38, 646–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt, W. H., & Cogan, L. S. (1996). Development of the TIMSS context questionnaires. In M. O. Martin & D. L. Kelly (Eds.), TIMSS technical report, Volume I: Design and development. Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College. Retrieved March 17, 2006, from http://timss.bc.edu/timss1995i/TIMSSPDF/TRCHP5.PDFGoogle Scholar
  28. Shafer, M. C. (2001, April). Instructional quality in the context of reform. Paper presented at the research presession of the annual meeting of National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  29. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  32. Stigler, J. W., Gonzales, P., Kawanaka, T., Knoll, S., & Serrano, A. (1999). The TIMSS videotape classroom study: Methods and findings from an exploratory research project on eighth-grade mathematics instruction in Germany, Japan, and the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  33. Stipek, D., Salmon, J. M., Givvin, K. B., Kazemi, E., Saxe, G., & MacGyvers, V. L. (1998). The value (and convergence) of practices suggested by motivation research and promoted by mathematics education reformers. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(4), 465–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Supovitz, J. A., Mayer, D. P., & Kahle, J. B. (2000). Promoting inquiry-based instructional practice: The longitudinal impact of professional development in the context of systemic reform. Educational Policy, 14, 331–356. .CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  36. Taylor, P.C., Fraser, B. J., & Fisher, D. L. (1997). Monitoring constructivist classroom learning environments. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 293–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Walker, C. M. (1999, April). The effect of different pedagogical approaches on mathematics students’ achievement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 431011)Google Scholar
  38. Weinstein, R. (1986). Perceptions of classroom processes and student motivation: Children’s views of self-fulfilling prophecies. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Volume 3: Goals and cognition (pp. 187–221). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Education, EC-190California State University, Fullerton (CSUF)FullertonUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel HillChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations