Learning Lessons from Instruction: Descriptive Results from an Observational Study of Urban Elementary Classrooms

Abstract

Background For nearly three decades, policy makers and researchers in the United States have promoted more intellectually rigorous standards for mathematics teaching and learning. Yet, to date, we have limited descriptive evidence on the extent to which reform-oriented instruction has been enacted at scale. Purpose The purpose of the study is to examine the prevalence of reform-aligned mathematics instructional practices in five U.S. school districts. We also seek to describe the range of instruction students experience by presenting case studies of teachers at high, medium, and low levels of reform alignment. Participants We draw on 1,735 video-recorded lessons from 329 elementary teachers in these five U.S. urban districts. Research Design We present descriptive analyses of lesson scores on a mathematics-focused classroom observation instrument. We also draw on interviews with district personnel, rater-written lesson summaries, and lesson video to develop case studies of instructional practice. Findings We find that teachers in our sample do use reform-aligned instructional practices, but they do so within the confines of traditional lesson formats. We also find that the implementation of these instructional practices varies in quality. Furthermore, the prevalence and strength of these practices corresponds to the coherence of district efforts at instructional reform. Conclusions Our findings suggest that, unlike other studies in which reform-oriented instruction rarely occurred, reform practices do appear to some degree in study classrooms. In addition, our analyses suggest that implementation of these reform practices corresponds to the strength and coherence of district efforts to change instruction.

Strengthening the Research Base That Informs STEM Instructional Improvement Efforts: A Meta-Analysis

“…Yet, observational studies have shown that instruction in U.S. STEM classrooms tends to be lacking in disciplinary concepts and low in student cognitive demand (e.g., Banilower, Smith, Weiss, & Pasley, 2006; Hiebert et al, 2005; H. C. Hill, Litke, & Lynch, 2018; Kane, Kerr, & Pianta, 2014).…”

Improving Mathematics Teaching Using Observational Instruments: The Case for a Content-Specific Tool

“…Kane & Staiger, 2012), while others rely on standardized protocols to describe instructional practice (e.g. Hill, Litke, & Lynch, 2017). Observational instruments are frequently integrated into observation systems in order to tie instructional quality to student learning outcomes (Gitomer et al, 2014).…”

“…Recently, researchers and instrument developers in mathematics education have begun to use observation tools in service of instructional improvement by featuring them in professional development efforts (e.g. Beisiegel, Mitchell, & Hill, 2017;Hill, Kraft, & Herlihy, 2016;Schoenfeld, 2018). While early evaluation efforts have been promising, these instruments focus on instructional practices in mathematics broadly speaking.…”

Teaching Mathematics in Kindergarten: How Does Instruction Differ by Classroom Ability?

“…Although the most appropriate and effective balance of traditional and ambitious mathematics practices is unknown and debated, the mathematics education field calls for greater amounts of ambitious mathematics instruction across K-12 (e.g., NCTM, 2014b; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (NGA/CCSSO), 2010; National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008), and research finds an incorporation of ambitious mathematical practices into teachers' practice is necessary for student improvement, especially during the earlier years of schooling (Barnett, 1995;Chetty et al, 2010;Currie & Thomas, 2000;Kilpatrick et al, 2001). Nonetheless, take-up of ambitious mathematical practices has been modest (e.g., Hiebert et al, 2005;Hill et al, 2018;Kane & Staiger, 2012;Weiss et al, 2003). Though limited in scope, the research base suggests that this take-up may differ based on classroom or school characteristics, such as performance levels of students and demographics of the student population (Boston & Wilhelm, 2017;Desimone & Long, 2010;Smith et al, 2001;Stipek, 2004).…”