Advertisement

ZDM

, Volume 50, Issue 3, pp 427–444 | Cite as

The Instructional Quality Assessment as a tool for reflecting on instructional practice

  • Melissa D. Boston
  • Amber G. Candela
Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

The Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA) identifies the nature and quality of classroom instruction by considering students’ opportunities to engage in cognitively demanding mathematical work and discussions. The IQA assesses ambitious mathematics instruction based on the following dimensions: potential of the task, task implementation, rigor of the discussion, teacher’s questions, and accountable talk (e.g., teacher’s and students’ talk moves related to linking and press). The IQA rubrics have been tested for reliability and validity by the IQA team and external researchers. The IQA has previously been used in research to assess ambitious mathematics instruction. Through looking at three episodes of classroom instruction, this article will highlight how the IQA can go beyond assessing instruction and serve as a tool to enhance instruction by providing formative feedback to mathematics teachers targeted towards planning and implementing cognitively demanding tasks. While the IQA’s specific focus on assessing ambitious mathematics instruction may limit its applicability in research, when used as a professional learning tool, the IQA rubrics can provide explicit pointers to frame teachers’ learning, self-reflection, and instructional change.

Keywords

Classroom observation Instructional quality Cognitive demand Teacher reflection Professional development 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Baumert, J., Kunter, M., Blum, W., Brunner, M., Voss, T., Jordan, A., … Tsai, Y. M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boaler, J., & Staples, M. (2008). Creating mathematical futures through an equitable teaching approach: The case of Railside School. Teachers College Record, 110, 608–645.Google Scholar
  3. Boston, M., Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., & Sherman, M. (2015). A comparison of mathematics classroom observation protocols. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3, 154–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boston, M. D. (2012). Assessing the quality of mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal, 113, 76–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boston, M. D., & Colby, G. (2011). Identifying meaningful aspects of mathematics instruction. In: Paper presentation at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  6. Boston, M. D., Henrick, E. C., Gibbons, L. K., Berebitsky, D., & Colby, G. T. (2016). Investigating how to support principals as instructional leaders in mathematics. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 12(3), 183–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. Boston, M. D., & Smith, M. S. (2011). A ‘task-centric approach’ to professional development: Enhancing and sustaining mathematics teachers’ ability to implement cognitively challenging mathematical tasks. ZDM: International Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 43, 965–977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Boston, M. D., & Wilhelm, A. G. (2015). Middle school mathematics instruction in instructionally-focused urban districts. Urban Education, 52, 829–861.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cai, J., Moyer, J. C., Wang, N., Hwang, S., Nie, B., & Garber, T. (2013). Mathematical problem posing as a measure of curricular effect on students’ learning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 83, 57–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Candela, A. G. (2016). Using the Instructional Quality Assessment observation tool in a professional development capacity. In: M. B. Wood, E. E. Turner, M. Civil, & J. A. Eli (Eds). Proceedings of the 38th annual meeting for the North American Chapter for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (p. 418), Tucson, AZ.Google Scholar
  12. Candela, A. G. (2017). Mathematics teachers’ perspectives on trofessional development around implementing high cognitive demand tasks. In: C. Martin, D. Polly (Eds.). Handbook of research on teacher education and professional development (pp. 538–560). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Henningsen, M. A., & 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, 524–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Steele, M. D., & Cirillo, M. (2013). (Developing) teacher discourse moves: A framework for professional development. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 1, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., Chui, A. M., Wearne, D., Smith, M., Kersting, N., Manaster, A., Tseng, E. A., Etterbeek, W., Manaster, C., & Stigler, J. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 Video Study. No. 2003-013). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics: NCES Rep.Google Scholar
  16. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., 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, 430–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  18. Klieme, E., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In: T. Janik, T. Seidel (Eds.). The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). New York: Waxmann.Google Scholar
  19. Kotsopoulos, D., Lee, J., & Heide, D. (2011). A pair-wise analysis of the cognitive demand levels of mathematical tasks used during classroom instruction and those assigned for homework. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 11(4), 348–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. (2008). Toward measuring instructional interactions ‘at-scale.’. Educational Assessment, 13, 267–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mehan, H. (1979). Learning Lessons: Social Organization in the Classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Matsumura, L. C., Slater, S. C., Junker, B., Peterson, M., Boston, M., Steele, M., & Resnick, L. (2006). Measuring reading comprehension and mathematics instruction in urban middle schools: a pilot study of the instructional quality assessment. National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) Report #681.Google Scholar
  23. Michaels, S., O’Connor, M. C., Hall, M. W., & Resnick, L. B. (2010). Accountable Talk® sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Institute for Learning.Google Scholar
  24. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: NCTM.Google Scholar
  25. National Governors Association (2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Common Core State Standards (College- and Career-Readiness Standards and K–12 Standards in English Language Arts and Math). Washington, D.C.: NGA Center and CCSSO: http://www.corestandards.org.
  26. National Research Council (2011). Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Public Education. Committee on Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Public Education, M. Hout & S. W. Elliott (Eds.), Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  27. Praetorius, A. K., Pauli, C., Reusser, K., Rakoczy, K., & Klieme, E. (2014). One lesson is all you need? Stability of instructional quality across lessons. Learning and Instruction, 31, 2–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quint, J. C., Akey, T. M., Rappaport, S., & Willner, C. J. (2007). Instructional leadership, teaching quality, and student achievement: Suggestive evidence from three urban school districts. New York: MDRC. http://www.mdrc.org/publications/470/execsum.html. Accessed 15 May 2017
  29. Resnick, L. B., & Hall, M. W. (2001). The principles of learning: Study tools for educators. Pittsburgh, PA: Learning Research and Development Center, Institute for Learning. Retrieved 24 January 2017 from http://ifl.pitt.edu/what-we-do-2/principles-of-learning/.
  30. Schlesinger, L., & Jentsch, A. (2016). Theoretical and methodological challenges in measuring instructional quality in mathematics education using classroom observations. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48, 29–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10, 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stein, M. K., Grover, B., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stein, M. K., & Matsumura, L. C. (2008). Measuring instruction for teacher learning. In D. Gitomer (Ed.), Measurement issues and the assessment of teacher quality (pp. 179–205). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  34. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J., & Smith, M. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  35. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–17.Google Scholar
  36. Sztajn, P., Wilson, P. H., Edgington, C., & Confrey, J. (2011). Learning trajectories and key instructional practices. In L. R. Wiest & T. d. Lamberg (Eds). Proceedings of the 33rd annual meeting for the North American Chapter for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (pp. 434–442), Reno, Nevada.Google Scholar
  37. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. (2008). The impact of middles grades mathematics curricula on student achievement and the classroom learning environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.Google Scholar
  38. Wagner, D., & Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2009). Re-mythologizing mathematics through attention to classroom positioning. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 72, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. D. (2004). What is high-quality instruction? Educational Leadership, 61, 24–28.Google Scholar
  40. 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, 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Duquesne UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.College of EducationUniversity of Missouri-St. LouisSt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options