Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Inquiry-Oriented Instructional Measure

  • Published:
International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Here we report on the development process of the Inquiry Oriented Instructional Measure (IOIM), an instrument for scoring a lesson along seven inquiry-oriented instructional practices. The development of the IOIM was a multi-phase, iterative process that included reviewing K-16 research literature, analyzing videos of classroom instruction, and pilot testing. This process resulted in the identification of instructional practices that support the successful implementation of inquiry-oriented instruction (IOI) at the undergraduate level. These practices, which comprise the IOIM, provide an empirically grounded description of IOI. In addition, the IOIM provides a rubric for evaluating the degree to which an instructor’s classroom instruction is reflective of these practices. As a proof of concept for the IOIM, we present the results of a pilot test – in which data from a large professional development program designed to support undergraduate mathematics instructors in implementing inquiry-oriented instruction was scored using the IOIM.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. This project is supported through a collaborative grant from the National Science Foundation (NFS Awards: #1431595, #1431641, #1431393).

References

  • Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boston, M. D. (2014). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics classrooms through collections of students’ work. In Transforming mathematics instruction (pp. 501–523). Springer International Publishing.

  • Boston, M., Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., & Sherman, M. (2015). A comparison of mathematics classroom observation protocols. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3(2), 154–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brendehur, J., & Frykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two preservice teachers’ conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 125–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting classroom teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453–468.

    Google Scholar 

  • Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Güçler, B. (2009). Discipline-based efforts to enhance undergraduate STEM education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(117), 55–67.

  • Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freudenthal H. (1973) Mathematics as an Educational Task, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.

  • Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Cotext problems in realistic mathematics education: A Calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 111–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gwet, K. L. (2010). Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability (Second ed.). Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC.

  • Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(4), 430–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. (2013). Teachers’ mathematical activity in inquiry-oriented instruction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 761–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E. M., & Larsen, S. P. (2012). Teacher listening: The role of knowledge of content and students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 117–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, E., Andrews-Larson, C., Keene, K., Melhuish, K., Keller, R., & Fortune, N. (in press). Inquiry and inequity in the undergradaute mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.

  • Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2014). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39(3), 183–199.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuster, G., Johnson, E., Keene, K., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2017). Inquiry-oriented instruction: A conceptualization of the instructional principles. PRIMUS, 28(1), 13–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, S., & Zandieh, M. (2008). Proofs and refutations in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 205–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, S., Johnson, E., & Weber, K. (Eds.). (2013). The teaching abstract algebra for understanding project: Designing and scaling up a curriculum innovation. Special Issue of the Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 691–790.

  • Laursen, S.L. & Rasmussen, C. (2019). More than Meets the I: Inquiry Approaches in Undergraduate Mathematics. Proceedings of the Twenty-second Special Interest Group of the Mathematical Association of America on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Oklahoma City, OK.

  • Laursen, S. L., Hassi, M. L., Kogan, M., & Weston, T. J. (2014). Benefits for women and men of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics: A multi-institution study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 406–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 88–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles for videotape analyses of conceptual change. In Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 665–708).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, E., Johnson, E., & Larsen, S. (2013). Developing instructor support materials for an inquiry-oriented curriculum. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 776–790.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C., & Blumenfeld, H. (2007). Reinventing solutions to systems of linear differential equations: A case of emergent models involving analytic expressions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(3), 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C., & Kwon, O. N. (2007). An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(3), 189–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, C., & Marrongelle, K. (2006). Pedagogical content tools: Integrating student reasoning and mathematics in instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 388–420.

  • Rasmussen, Keene, Dunmyre & Fortune (2017) Inquiry-oriented Differential Equations. https://iode.wordpress.ncsu.edu/. Accessed 04 Arp 2019.

  • Rupnow, R., LaCroix, T., & Mullins, B. (2018). Building lasting relationships: Inquiry-oriented instructional measure practices. In A. Weinberg, C. Rasmussen, J. Rabin, M. Wawro, & S. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 1306–1311). San Diego.

  • 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 and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Speer, N. M., & Wagner, J. F. (2009). Knowledge needed by a teacher to provide analytic scaffolding during undergraduate mathematics classroom discussions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 530–562.

  • 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(4), 313–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 459–490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., Rasmussen, C., & Dreyfus, T. (2014). Knowledge shifts and knowledge agents in the classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 192–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, J. F., Speer, N. M., & Rossa, B. (2007). Beyond mathematical content knowledge: A mathematician's knowledge needed for teaching an inquiry-oriented differential equations course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(3), 247–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wawro, M. (2015). Reasoning about solutions in linear algebra: The case of Abraham and the invertible matrix theorem. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(3), 315–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wawro, M., Zandieh, M., Rasmussen, C., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2017). The inquiry-oriented linear algebra project. http://iola.math.vt.edu. Accessed 04 Arp 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilhelm, A. G., Gillespie Rouse, A., & Jones, F. (2018). Exploring differences in measurement and reporting of classroom observation inter-rater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 23(4).

  • Yackel, E., Stephan, M., Rasmusen, C., & Underwood, D. (2003). Didactising: Continuing the work of Leen Streefland. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 101–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by NSF award numbers #1431595, #1431641, and #1431393. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Christopher Newport University, Newport News, VA, USA

    George Kuster

  2. Department of Mathematics, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Estrella Johnson & Rachel Rupnow

  3. School of Education, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

    Anne Garrison Wilhelm

Authors
  1. George Kuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Estrella Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rachel Rupnow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Anne Garrison Wilhelm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Estrella Johnson.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(PDF 391 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kuster, G., Johnson, E., Rupnow, R. et al. The Inquiry-Oriented Instructional Measure. Int. J. Res. Undergrad. Math. Ed. 5, 183–204 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00089-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40753-019-00089-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation