Classroom observations in theory and practice

ZDM - International Journal on Mathematics Education

Volumn 45, Issue 4, 2013, Pages 607-621

  Schoenfeld, Alan H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Classroom observations; Coding scheme; Decision making; Rubric; Teaching quality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892897108     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-012-0483-1     Document Type: Article

References (47)

1. Algebra Teaching Study (2013, in preparation). Beyond the numbers: What really counts in classroom evaluation schemes? Berkeley, CA, and East Lansing, MI: University of California and Michigan State University, Algebra Teaching Study.
2. American Association of University Women. (1992). How schools shortchange girls. Washington, DC: AAUW and NEA.
3. Beeby, T., Burkhardt, H., & Caddy, R. (1980). SCAN: Systematic classroom analysis notation for mathematics lessons. Nottingham: England Shell Centre for Mathematics Education.
4. Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-74.
5. Cohen, D. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs Oublier. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 311-329.
6. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies for heterogeneous classrooms (Revised ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
7. Common Core State Standards Initiative (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Downloaded June 4, 2010 from http://www. corestandards. org/the-standards.
8. PACT Consortium (2012) Performance Assessment for California Teachers. (2012) A brief overview of the PACT assessment system. Downloaded April 1, 2012, from http://www. pacttpa. org/_main/hub. php?pageName=Home.
9. Danielson, C. (2011) The framework for teaching evaluation instrument, 2011 Edition. Downloaded April 1, 2012, from http://www. danielsongroup. org/article. aspx?page=FfTEvaluationInstrument.
10. de Lange, J. (1999). A framework for classroom assessment in mathematics (Unpublished manuscript). Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Assessment Study Group.
11. Engle, R. A. (2011). The productive disciplinary engagement framework: Origins, key concepts and developments. In D. Y. Dai (Ed.), Design research on learning and thinking in educational settings: Enhancing intellectual growth and functioning (pp. 161-200). London: Taylor & Francis.
12. 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.
13. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Understanding teaching and classroom practice in mathematics. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the national council of teachers of mathematics (Vol. 1, pp. 225-256). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
14. Franke, M., & Webb, N. (2010). Supporting student explanations: Variability in teacher practice across classrooms. Manuscript in preparation. Available from authors, University of California, Los Angeles.
15. Franke, M., Webb, N., Chan, A., Ing, M., Freund, D., & Battey, D. (2009). Teacher questioning to elicit students' mathematical thinking in elementary school classrooms. Journal of Teacher Education, 60, 380-392.
16. González, N., Andrade, R., Civil, M., & Moll, L. (2001). Bridging funds of distributed knowledge: Creating zones of practices in mathematics. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 6(1-2), 115-132.
17. Henningsen, M., & 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(5), 524-549.
18. Institute for research on learning (2011). Accountable talk. Downloaded November 26, 2011 from http://ifl. lrdc. pitt. edu/ifl/index. php/resources/principles_of_learning/.
19. Institute for Research on Policy Education and Practice. (2011). PLATO (Protocol for language arts teaching observations). Stanford, CA: Institute for Research on Policy Education and Practice.
20. Junker, B., Matsumura, L. C., Crosson, A., Wolf, M. K., Levison, A., Weisberg, Y., & Resnick, L. (2004). Overview of the Instructional Quality Assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
21. Marder, M., & Walkington, C. (2012) UTeach Teacher Observation Protocol. Downloaded April 1, 2012, from https://wikis. utexas. edu/pages/viewpageattachments. action?pageId=6884866&sortBy=date&highlight=UTOP_Physics_2009. doc. &.
22. Mathematics Assessment Project (2012). Resources for assessment. Downloaded January 10, 2012, from (http://map. mathshell. org/materials/index. php).
23. Measures of Effective Teaching (2012). Retrieved on July 4, 2012, from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation website: http://www. gatesfoundation. org/united-states/Pages/measures-of-effective-teaching-fact-sheet. aspx.
24. Moses, R. P. (2001). Radical equations: Math literacy and civil rights. Boston MA: Beacon Press.
25. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
26. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
27. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1995). Assessment standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
28. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. In J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford, & B. Findell (Eds.), Mathematics Learning Study Committee, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. National Research Council. (2005). How students learn: Mathematics in the classroom. Committee on how people learn, a targeted report for teachers. In M. S. Donovan & J. D. Bransford (Eds.), Division of behavioral and social sciences and education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
30. Oakes, J., Joseph, R., & Muir, K. (2001). Access and achievement in mathematics and science. In J. A. Banks & C. A. McGee Banks (Eds.), Handbook of research on multicultural education (pp. 69-90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31. Pianta, R., La Paro, K., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
32. Resnick, L., O'Connor, C., & Michaels, S. (2007). Classroom discourse, mathematical rigor, and student reasoning: An accountable talk literature review. Downloaded January 10, 2010, from http://www. learnlab. org/research/wiki/index. php/Image: Accountable_Talk_Lit_Review. pdf.
33. Schoenfeld, A. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. New York: Academic Press.
34. Schoenfeld, A. (1992). Learning to think mathematically: Problem solving, metacognition, and sense-making in mathematics. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 334-370). New York: Macmillan.
35. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 13-25.
36. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2010). How we think: A theory of goal-oriented decision making and its educational applications (p. 2010). New York: Routledge.
37. Schoenfeld, A. H. (in press). American schools, today and tomorrow. In: O. L. Davis, Jr. & M. Kysilka (Eds.), Schools for tomorrow's America. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
38. Schraw, G., & Olafson, L. (2002). Teachers' epistemological world views and educational practices. Issues in Education, 8(2), 99-148.
39. Secada, W. (1992). Race, ethnicity, social class language, and achievement in mathematics. In: D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning, pp. 623-660.
40. Shafer, M. C. & Romberg, T. A. (1999). Assessment in classrooms that promote understanding. In: E. Fennema & T. A. Romberg (Eds), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 159-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
41. Shepard, L. A. (2000). The role of classroom assessment in teaching and learning. (CSE Technical Report 517). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
42. 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.
43. 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(2), 455-488.
44. Swan, M. (2006). Collaborative learning in mathematics: A challenge to our beliefs and practices. London, England: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy, and Leicester, England: National Institute of Adult Continuing Education.
45. University of Michigan (2006). Learning mathematics for teaching. A coding rubric for measuring the mathematical quality of instruction (Technical Report LMT1. 06). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, School of Education.
46. Webb, N., and Romberg, T. A. (1992). Implications of the NCTM Standards for Mathematics Assessment. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Mathematics Assessment and Evaluation: Imperatives for Mathematics Education, (pp. 37-60). Albany: State University of New York Press.
47. Zevenbergen, R. (2000). "Cracking the code" of mathematics classrooms: School success as a function of linguistic, social, and cultural background. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematical teaching and learning (pp. 201-224). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.