Studying instructional quality by using a content-specific lens: the case of the Mathematical Quality of Instruction framework

ZDM - Mathematics Education

Volumn 50, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 445-460

  Charalambous, Charalambos Y ^a   Litke, Erica ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CYPRUS   (Cyprus)

^b UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE   (United States)

Author keywords

Content specific framework; Elementary grades; Instructional quality; Mathematical quality; Mathematics teaching; Observational instruments

Indexed keywords

EID: 85048048209     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-018-0913-9     Document Type: Article

References (45)

1. 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. 10.1177/0022487108324554.
2. Berlin, R., & Cohen, J. (2018). Understanding instructional quality through a relational lens. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3). (this issue).
3. Blazar, D. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 48, 16–29. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.05.005.
4. Blazar, D., Braslow, D., Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2017). Attending to general and mathematics-specific dimensions of teaching: Exploring factors across two observation instruments. Educational Assessment, 22(2), 71–94. 10.1080/10627197.2017.1309274.
5. Blazar, D., & Kraft, M. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146–170. 10.3102/0162373716670260.
6. Blazar, D., Litke, E., & Barmore, J. (2016). What does it mean to be ranked a “high” or “low” value-added teacher? Observing differences in instructional quality across districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 324–359. 10.3102/0002831216630407.
7. Borko, H., Eisenhart, M., Brown, C., Underhill, R., Jones, D., & Agard, P. C. (1992). Learning to teach hard mathematics: Do novice teachers and their instructors give up too easily? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23(3), 194–222. 10.2307/749118.
8. Boston, M. D. (2012). Assessing the quality of mathematics instruction. Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76–104. 10.1086/666387.
9. Brophy, J., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd edn., pp. 328–375). New York, NY: Macmillan.
10. Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 443–466. 10.1080/00220272.2011.650215.
11. Charalambous, C. Y., & Praetorius, A.-K. (2018). Studying instructional quality in mathematics through different lenses: In search of common ground. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3). (this issue).
12. Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 1–24. 10.3102/01623737025002119.
13. Cohen, D. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. London: Routledge.
15. Delaney, S. (2012). A validation study of the use of mathematical knowledge for teaching measures in Ireland. ZDM, 44(3), 427–441. 10.1007/s11858-012-0382-5.
16. Hawkins, D. (2002). The informed vision: Essays on learning and human nature. New York: Algora Publishing. (originally published 1967).
17. Hill, C. K., Umland, K., Litke, E., & Kapitula, L. R. (2012c). Teacher quality and quality teaching: Examining the relationship of a teacher assessment to practice. American Journal of Education, 118(4), 489–519. 10.1086/666380.
18. Hill, H. C. (2010). The Mathematical Quality of Instruction: Learning Mathematics for Teaching. Paper presented at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
19. Hill, H. C., Blazar, D., & Lynch, K. (2015). Resources for teaching. AERA Open, 1(4), 1–23. 10.1177/2332858415617703.
20. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J., 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. 10.1080/07370000802177235.
21. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., Blazar, D., McGinn, D., Kraft, M., Beisiegel, M., & Lynch, K. (2012a). Validating arguments for observational instruments: Attending to multiple sources of variation. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 1–19. 10.1080/10627197.2012.715019.
22. Hill, H. C., Charalambous, C. Y., & Kraft, M. (2012b). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the G-study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64. 10.3102/0013189X12437203.
23. Hill, H. C., Kapitula, L., & Umland, K. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831. 10.3102/0002831210387916.
24. Hill, H. C., Kraft, M., & Herlihy, C. (2016). Developing common core classrooms through rubric-based coaching: Early findings report. http://cepr.harvard.edu/files/cepr/files/mqi-coaching-research-findings.pdf. Accessed 10 Feb 2017.
25. Hill, H. C., Litke, E., & Lynch, K. (2018). Learning lessons from instruction: Descriptive results from an observational study of urban elementary classrooms. Teachers College Record. (in press).
26. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. http://www.metproject.org/reports.php. Accessed 30 May 2013.
27. Kraft, M. A., & Hill, H. C. (2017). Developing ambitious mathematics instruction through web-based coaching: An experimental trial. Harvard University Working Paper.
28. Kyriakides, L., Creemers, B. P. M., & Panayiotou, A. (2018). Using educational effectiveness research to promote quality of teaching: The contribution of the dynamic model. ZDM Mathematics Education, 50(3). (this issue).
29. Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14(1), 25–47. 10.1007/s10857-010-9140-1
30. Litke, E. (2015). The state of the gate: A description of instructional practice in algebra in five urban districts. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
31. Lynch, K., Chin, M., & Blazar, D. (2017). Relationships between observations of elementary mathematics instruction and student achievement: Exploring variability across districts. American Journal of Education, 123(4), 615–646. 10.1086/692662.
32. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
33. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophical and practical guide. London: The Falmer Press.
34. Mitchell, R. N., & Marin, K. A. (2015). Examining the use of a structured analysis framework to support prospective teacher noticing. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 18(6), 551–575. 10.1007/s10857-014-9294-3.
35. Muijs, D., Kyriakides, L., van der Werf, G., Creemers, B., Timplerley, H., & Earl, L. (2014). State of the art—teacher effectiveness and professional learning. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 231–256. 10.1080/09243453.2014.885451.
36. Muijs, D., & Reynolds, D. (2000). School effectiveness and teacher effectiveness in mathematics: Some preliminary findings from the evaluation of the mathematics enhancement program (primary). School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 273–303. 10.1076/0924-3453(200009)11:3;1-G;FT273
37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
38. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards (mathematics). Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
39. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd edn.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
40. Shaughnessy, M., Ball, D. L., Mann, L., & Garcia, N. (2015). (How) can explicitness about mathematical practices support equitable instruction? Paper presented at the NCSM Annual Conference. Boston, MA. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/577fc4e2440243084a67dc49/t/578d1e8759cc687748192f60/1468866184299/041315_NCSM.pdf. Accessed 10 Sept 2016.
41. Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. 10.3102/0013189X015002004.
42. Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404–411.
43. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: Free Press.
44. Thompson, P. W., & Thompson, A. G. (1994). Talking about rates conceptually, Part I: A teacher’s struggle. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25(3), 279–303. 10.2307/749339.
45. Walkowiak, T. A., Berry, R. Q., Meyer, J. P., Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Ottmar, E. R. (2014). Introducing an observational measure of standards-based mathematics teaching practices: Evidence of validity and score reliability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(1), 109–128. 10.1007/s10649-013-9499-x.