Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 445–460 | Cite as

Studying instructional quality by using a content-specific lens: the case of the Mathematical Quality of Instruction framework

  • Charalambos Y. Charalambous
  • Erica Litke
Original Article

Abstract

In this study, we use Mathematical Quality of Instruction (MQI), a content-specific observation framework, to examine the mathematical quality of instruction of three focal lessons in order to examine the instructional aspects illuminated by this framework as well as discuss those aspects not captured by MQI. While prior work provides evidence on the validity and reliability of the MQI measures, no prior work systematically explores the strengths and limitations of MQI in capturing instructional quality. Our analysis points to the affordances of MQI for highlighting differences within lessons across instructional dimensions related to the mathematics of the lesson, as well as for comparing across lessons with respect to the depth and quality of the mathematics instruction provided to students. We discuss how the depth of information provided by MQI may guide instructional improvement efforts. In addition, we explore three categories of instructional aspects not highlighted when examining instruction through the lens of MQI, addressing areas in which MQI in particular, and observation instruments in general, might be limited in their capacity to support teachers in instructional improvement efforts.

Keywords

Content-specific framework Elementary grades Instructional quality Mathematical quality Mathematics teaching Observational instruments 

References

  1. 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.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berlin, R., & Cohen, J. (2018). Understanding instructional quality through a relational lens. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3). (this issue).Google Scholar
  3. Blazar, D. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 48, 16–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blazar, D., Braslow, D., Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2017). Attending to general and mathematics-specific dimensions of teaching: Exploring factors across two observation instruments. Educational Assessment, 22(2), 71–94.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2017.1309274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146–170.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716670260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blazar, D., Litke, E., & Barmore, J. (2016). What does it mean to be ranked a “high” or “low” value-added teacher? Observing differences in instructional quality across districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 324–359.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216630407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boston, M. D. (2012). Assessing the quality of mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76–104.  https://doi.org/10.1086/666387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edn., pp. 328–375). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  10. Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 443–466.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2011.650215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Charalambous, C. Y., & Praetorius, A.-K. (2018). Studying instructional quality in mathematics through different lenses: In search of common ground. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3). (this issue).Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1–24.  https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025002119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Delaney, S. (2012). A validation study of the use of mathematical knowledge for teaching measures in Ireland. ZDM, 44(3), 427–441.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-012-0382-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hawkins, D. (2002). The informed vision: Essays on learning and human nature. New York: Algora Publishing. (originally published 1967).Google Scholar
  17. Hill, C. K., Umland, K., Litke, E., & Kapitula, L. R. (2012c). Teacher quality and quality teaching: Examining the relationship of a teacher assessment to practice. American Journal of Education, 118(4), 489–519.  https://doi.org/10.1086/666380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hill, H. C. (2010). The Mathematical Quality of Instruction: Learning Mathematics for Teaching. Paper presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.Google Scholar
  19. Hill, H. C., Blazar, D., & Lynch, K. (2015). Resources for teaching. AERA Open, 1(4), 1–23.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415617703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07370000802177235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., Blazar, D., McGinn, D., Kraft, M., Beisiegel, M., & Lynch, K. (2012a). Validating arguments for observational instruments: Attending to multiple sources of variation. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 1–19.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10627197.2012.715019.Google Scholar
  22. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. (2012b). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the G-study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X12437203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210387916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill, H. C., Kraft, M., & Herlihy, C. (2016). Developing common core classrooms through rubric-based coaching: Early findings report. http://cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr/files/mqi-coaching-research-findings.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2017.
  25. Hill, H. C., Litke, E., & Lynch, K. (2018). Learning lessons from instruction: Descriptive results from an observational study of urban elementary classrooms. Teachers College Record. (in press).Google Scholar
  26. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. http://www.metproject.org/reports.php. Accessed 30 May 2013.
  27. Kraft, M. A., & Hill, H. C. (2017). Developing ambitious mathematics instruction through web-based coaching: An experimental trial. Harvard University Working Paper.Google Scholar
  28. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Panayiotou, A. (2018). Using educational effectiveness research to promote quality of teaching: The contribution of the dynamic model. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3). (this issue).Google Scholar
  29. Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 25–47.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-010-9140-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Litke, E. (2015). The state of the gate: A description of instructional practice in algebra in five urban districts. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education.Google Scholar
  31. Lynch, K., Chin, M., & Blazar, D. (2017). Relationships between observations of elementary mathematics instruction and student achievement: Exploring variability across districts. American Journal of Education, 123(4), 615–646.  https://doi.org/10.1086/692662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  33. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  34. Mitchell, R. N., & Marin, K. A. (2015). Examining the use of a structured analysis framework to support prospective teacher noticing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(6), 551–575.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-014-9294-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timplerley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art—teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness in mathematics: Some preliminary findings from the evaluation of the mathematics enhancement program (primary). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 273–303.  https://doi.org/10.1076/0924-3453(200009)11:3;1-G;FT273 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  38. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards (mathematics). Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.Google Scholar
  39. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  40. Shaughnessy, M., Ball, D. L., Mann, L., & Garcia, N. (2015). (How) can explicitness about mathematical practices support equitable instruction? Paper presented at the NCSM Annual Conference. Boston, MA. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577fc4e2440243084a67dc49/t/578d1e8759cc687748192f60/1468866184299/041315_NCSM.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
  41. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.  https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404–411.Google Scholar
  43. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  44. Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, Part I: A teacher’s struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279–303.  https://doi.org/10.2307/749339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Walkowiak, T. A., Berry, R. Q., Meyer, J. P., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ottmar, E. R. (2014). Introducing an observational measure of standards-based mathematics teaching practices: Evidence of validity and score reliability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(1), 109–128.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-013-9499-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EducationUniversity of CyprusNicosiaCyprus
  2. 2.University of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations