, Volume 48, Issue 1–2, pp 167–183 | Cite as

Using multimedia questionnaires to study influences on the decisions mathematics teachers make in instructional situations

  • Patricio Herbst
  • Daniel Chazan
  • Karl W. Kosko
  • Justin Dimmel
  • Ander Erickson
Original Article


This paper describes instruments designed to use multimedia to study at scale the instructional decisions that mathematics teachers make as well as teachers’ recognition of elements of the context of their work that might influence those decision. This methodological contribution shows how evidence of constructs like instructional norm and professional obligation can be elicited with multimedia questionnaires by describing the construction of items used to gauge recognition of a norm in “doing proofs” and an obligation to the discipline of mathematics. The paper also shows that the evidence can be used in regression models to account for the decisions teachers make in instructional situations. The research designs described in this article illustrate how the usual attention to individual resources in the research on teacher decision making can be complemented by attention to resources available to teachers from the institutional context of instruction.


Mathematics Teacher Multinomial Logistic Regression Mathematical Work Individual Resource Professional Obligation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



This work has been done with the support of NSF Grant DRL-0918425 to Herbst and Chazan. All opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Foundation.


  1. Ariely, D. (2010). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Battista, M. T. (1994). Teacher beliefs and the reform movement in mathematics education. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 462–470.Google Scholar
  4. Bishop, A. J. (1976). Decision-making, the intervening variable. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 7, 41–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bishop, A. J., & Whitfield, R. C. (1972). Situations in teaching. London: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Borko, H., Roberts, S. A., & Shavelson, R. (2008). Teachers’ decision making: From Alan J. Bishop to today. In P. Clarkson & N. Presmeg (Eds.), Critical issues in mathematics education: Major contributions of Alan Bishop (pp. 37–67). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Brousseau, G. (1997). Theory of didactical situations in mathematics: Didactique des mathématiques, 1970–1990. (Edited and translated by N. Balacheff, M. Cooper, R. Sutherland, & V. Warfield). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  9. Brown, L., & Coles, A. (2011). Developing expertise: How enactivism re-frames mathematics teacher development. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(6–7), 861–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chazan, D. (2013). substantive structures of mathematics, processes on objects, instructional situations, and curricular approaches: An exploration on a school algebra theme. In P. Andrew & T. Rowland (Eds.), Masterclass in mathematics education (pp. 125–135). London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
  11. Chazan, D., & Herbst, P. (2012). Animations of classroom interaction: Expanding the boundaries of video records of practice. Teachers’ College Record, 114(3), 1–34.Google Scholar
  12. Chazan, D., Herbst, P., & Clark, L. (in press). Research on the teaching of mathematics: A call to theorize the role of society and schooling in mathematics. In C. Bell & D. Gitomer (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed.). Washington, DC: AERA.Google Scholar
  13. Chazan, D., & Lueke, M. (2009). Exploring relationships between disciplinary knowledge and school mathematics: Implications for understanding the place of reasoning and proof in school mathematics. In D. A. Stylianou & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades (pp. 21–39). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Chazan, D., Sela, H., & Herbst, P. (2012). Is the role of equations in the doing of word problems in school algebra changing? Initial indications from teacher study groups. C&I, 30(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
  15. Cirillo, M., & Herbst, P. (2012). Moving toward more authentic proof practices in geometry. The Mathematics Educator, 21(2), 11–33.Google Scholar
  16. Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 25(2), 119–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Collins, H. (2010). Tacit and explicit knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  18. Doyle, W., & Ponder, G. (1977). The practicality ethic in teacher decision making. Interchange, 8(3), 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statistical power analysis using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hammond, K. R., Stewart, T. R., Brehmer, B., & Steinmann, D. O. (1986). Social judgment theory. In H. Arkes & K. Hammond (Eds.), Judgment and decision making: An interdisciplinary reader (pp. 56–76). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Herbst, P., Aaron, W.A., Dimmel, J.K., & Erickson, A.W. (2013). Expanding students’ involvement in proof problems: Are geometry teachers willing to depart from the norm? Paper presented at AERA, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  22. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2012). On the instructional triangle and sources of justification for actions in mathematics teaching. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 44(5), 601–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Herbst, P., & Chazan, D. (2015). Using multimedia scenarios delivered online to study professional knowledge use in practice. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 38(3), 272–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Herbst, P., Chazan, D., Chen, C., Chieu, V. M., & Weiss, M. (2011). Using comics-based representations of teaching, and technology, to bring practice to teacher education courses. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 43(1), 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Herbst, P., Chen, C., Weiss, M., & González, G., Nachlieli, T., Hamlin, M., & Brach, C. (2009).“Doing proofs” in geometry classrooms. In D. A. Stylianou & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Teaching and learning proof across the grades (pp. 250–268). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Herbst, P., & Kosko, K. (2014). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and its specificity to high school geometry instruction. In J. Lo, K. R. Leatham, & L. R. Van Zoest (Eds.), Research trends in mathematics teacher education (pp. 23–45). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and measuring teachers’ topic-specific knowledge of students. JRME, 39(4), 372–400.Google Scholar
  28. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hsu, H. Y., & Silver, E. A. (2014). Cognitive complexity of mathematics instructional tasks in a Taiwanese classroom: An examination of task sources. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education45(4), 460–496.Google Scholar
  30. Kahneman, D. (2002). Maps of bounded rationality (No. 2002-4). Nobel Prize Committee.Google Scholar
  31. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 47(2), 263–291.Google Scholar
  32. Kisa, Z., & Correnti, R. (2014). Examining implementation fidelity in America’s choice schools a longitudinal analysis of changes in professional development associated with changes in teacher practice. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 0162373714557519.Google Scholar
  33. Kosko, K. W. (2013). Teacher questioning: Does MKT and supporting student autonomy predict it? PME-NA.Google Scholar
  34. Kosko, K., & Herbst, P. (2012). Evaluating Teachers’ decisions in posing a proof problem. PME-NA.Google Scholar
  35. Lakatos, I. (1976). Proofs and refutations. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Liu, X., Spybrook, J., Congdon, R., Martinez, A., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2009). Optimal design software for multi-level and longitudinal research (Version 3.01) [Computer Software]. Accessed 31 July 2015.
  37. March, J. G. (1994). A primer on decision making: How decisions happen. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
  38. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  39. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  40. Nicolini, D. (2012). Practice theory, work, and organization: An introduction. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Olson-Buchanan, J. B., & Drasgow, F. (2006). Multimedia situational judgment tests: The medium creates the message. In J. A. Weekly & R. E. Ployhart (Eds.), Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application (pp. 253–278). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  42. Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Remillard, J., & Heck, D. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM - The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 46(5), 705–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2011). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  46. Shavelson, R. J., & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgments, decisions, and behavior. Review of Educational Research, 51(4), 455–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Skott, J. (2004). The forced autonomy of mathematics teachers. ESM, 55(1–3), 227–257.Google Scholar
  48. Stipek, D. J., Givvin, K. B., Salmon, J. M., & MacGyvers, V. L. (2001). Teachers’ beliefs and practices related to mathematics instruction. TTE, 17(2), 213–226.Google Scholar
  49. Stoffels, N. T. (2005). “There is a worksheet to be followed”: A case study of a science teacher’s use of learning support texts for practical work. African Journal of Research in Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 9(2), 147–157.Google Scholar
  50. Weekley, J. A., & Ployhart, R. E. (Eds.). (2013). Situational judgment tests: Theory, measurement, and application. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© FIZ Karlsruhe 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patricio Herbst
    • 1
  • Daniel Chazan
    • 2
  • Karl W. Kosko
    • 3
  • Justin Dimmel
    • 4
  • Ander Erickson
    • 1
  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  3. 3.Kent State UniversityKentUSA
  4. 4.University of MaineOronoUSA

Personalised recommendations