Coordinating Characterizations of High Quality Mathematics Teaching: Probing the Intersection

Chapter

Abstract

We present an analysis that probed empirically the relationship among three different views of exceptional mathematics teaching: (a) the operational definition of “highly accomplished teaching” of mathematics used by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) in the United States, (b) the effective use of cognitively demanding tasks in the mathematics classroom, and (c) the use of innovative pedagogical strategies. We analyzed samples of instructional practice—lesson artifacts and teachers’ commentaries on lessons—submitted by candidates seeking NBPTS certification in the area of Early Adolescence/Mathematics. The instructional samples were systematically probed for evidence of mathematical and pedagogical features associated with the views of cognitive demand and innovative pedagogy, and the features found in the submissions of applicants who were awarded NBPTS certification are contrasted with those who were not awarded certification. Our analyses detected a fairly strong interaction between the NBPTS view of accomplished teaching and the view of effective mathematics instruction associated with cognitively demanding tasks. Nevertheless, even in these lessons that teachers selected for display as “best practice” examples of their mathematics teaching, innovative pedagogical approaches were not systematically used in ways that supported students’ engagement with cognitively demanding mathematical tasks.

Keywords

Mathematics teaching Teaching quality Cognitively demanding tasks Pedagogical innovation 

References

  1. Boaler, J. (1998). Open and closed mathematics: Student experiences and understandings. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 41–62.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(3), 608–645.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, L., Smith, T. W., Baker, W., & Hattie, J. (2000). The certification system of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards: A construct and consequential validity study. Greensboro, NC: Center for Educational Research and Evaluation.Google Scholar
  4. Borko, H., Stecher, B., & Kuffner, K. (2007). Using artifacts to characterize reform oriented instruction: The scoop notebook and rating guide (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 707). Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R707.pdf
  5. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (1999). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brownell, W. A., & Moser, H. E. (1949). Meaningful vs. mechanical learning: A study in Grade III subtraction. Duke University Research Studies in Education, No. 8. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Brownell, W. A., & Sims, V. M. (1946). The nature of understanding. In N. B. Henry (Ed.), The measurement of understanding (45th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, Part I) (pp. 27–43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., & Franke, M. (1996). Cognitively guided instruction: A knowledge base for reform in primary mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal, 97(1), 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Chiang, C. P., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge of children’s mathematical thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 499–531.Google Scholar
  10. Clare, L., & Aschbacher, P. R. (2001). Exploring the technical quality of using assignments and student work as indicators of classroom practice. Educational Assessment, 7, 39–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cohen, D. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 327–345.Google Scholar
  12. Cohen, D. K., McLaughlin, M., & Talbert, J. (Eds.). (1993). Teaching for understanding: Challenges for policy and practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  13. Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53(2), 159–199.Google Scholar
  14. Fawcett, H. P. (1938). The nature of proof: A description and evaluation of certain procedures used in a senior high school to develop an understanding of the nature of proof. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  15. Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.). (1999). Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Schram, T. (Eds.). (1997). The recognizing and recording reform in mathematics education project: Insights, issues, and implications (JRME Monograph No. 8). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  17. Fuson, K. C., & Briars, D. J. (1990). Using a base-ten blocks learning/teaching approach for first- and second-grade place-value and multidigit addition and subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 21, 180–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ginsburg, A., Cooke, G., Leinwand, S., Noell, J., & Pollock, E. (2005). Reassessing U.S. international mathematics performance: New findings from the 2003 TIMSS and PISA. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  19. Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983). Active mathematics teaching. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  20. Hakel, M. D., Koenig, J. A., & Elliott, S. W. (2008). Assessing accomplished teaching: Advanced-level certification programs. Washington: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hiebert, J., & Carpenter, T. P. (1992). Learning and teaching with understanding. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 65–97). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K., Human, P., Murray, H., et al. (1996). Problem solving as a basis for reform in curriculum and instruction: The case of mathematics. Educational Researcher, 25(4), 12–21.Google Scholar
  23. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.Google Scholar
  24. Hiebert, J., Stigler, J., Jacobs, J., Givvin, K., Garnier, H., & Smith, M., et al. (2005). Mathematics teaching in the United States today (and tomorrow): Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 111–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 393–425.Google Scholar
  26. Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahike, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., et al. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. perspective (NCES 2005-003). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: NCES.Google Scholar
  27. Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Pascal, J., & Valdés, R. (2002). Measuring instructional quality in accountability systems: Classroom assignments and student achievement. Educational Assessment, 8, 207–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003 international mathematics report: Findings from the IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.Google Scholar
  29. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (1998). Middle childhood through early adolescence/mathematics standards. Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
  30. National Center for Education Statistics [NCES]. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Result from the TIMSS video study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  31. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  32. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.Google Scholar
  33. Newmann, F. M., & Associates. (1996). Authentic achievement: Restructuring schools for intellectual quality. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  34. Romagnano, L. (1994). Wrestling with change: The dilemmas of teaching real mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  35. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1988). When good teaching leads to bad results: The disasters of “well-taught” mathematics courses. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 145–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Silver, E. A. (2003). Lessons learned from examining mathematics teaching around the world. Education Statistics Quarterly, 5(1), 20–23. Retrieved January 23, 2008, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/quarterly/Vol_5/5_1/q2_3.asp
  37. Silver, E. A., Mesa, V. M., Morris, K. A., Star, J. R., & Benken, B. M. (2009). Teaching mathematics for understanding: An analysis of lessons submitted by teachers seeking NBPTS certification. American Educational Research Journal, 46(2), 501–531. DOI: 10 3102/0002831208326559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 455–488.Google Scholar
  39. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation, 2(1), 50–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2009). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  41. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  42. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (2004). Improving mathematics teaching. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 12–16.Google Scholar
  43. Stodolsky, S. S. (1988). The subject matters: Classroom activities in math and social sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  44. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247–280.Google Scholar
  45. Weiss, I. R., & Pasley, J. P. (2004). What is high quality instruction?. Educational Leadership, 61(5), 24–28.Google Scholar
  46. Weiss, I. R., Pasley, J. D., Smith, P. S., Banilower, E. R., & Heck, D. J. (2003). Looking inside the classroom: A study of K-12 mathematics and science education in the United States. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc.Google Scholar
  47. Wilson, S. M., & Floden, R. E. (2001). Hedging bets: Standards-based reform in classrooms. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the States. Onehundredth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 193–216). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Education, University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Education, University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations