Relationship Between School and District Supports for Adopting an Inquiry-Oriented Curriculum and Change in the Quality of Teaching

• In Event: Roundtable Session 118
  In Roundtable Session: Instructional Materials-Based Mathematics Education Reform in Urban Districts

Abstract

Effective use of inquiry-oriented curricula require significant learning for most teachers as many are not prepared to implement the teaching practices intended by the curriculum developers (Elmore, Peterson, & McCarthey, 1996; Schoenfeld, 2002). This paper examines the relationship between change in the quality of classroom instruction of 154 randomly selected 6th to 8th grade teachers in 24 schools in three large urban school districts and yearly changes in the supports provided these teachers as they implemented the Connected Mathematics Project 2 (CMP2) curriculum.
How we measure instructional quality
Each study year, we documented the classroom practices of approximately 30 teachers in each district by video-recording two consecutive lessons in February or March. Each subsequent summer, we assessed the quality of mathematics teachers’ instruction using the Instructional Quality Assessment (IQA), a classroom observation protocol developed at the University of Pittsburgh’s Learning Research and Development Center (Boston & Wolf, 2006; Matsumura et al., 2006). This analysis focuses on two important dimensions of mathematics instruction (captured by 8 IQA rubrics): the academic rigor of the task (2 rubrics) and the whole-class discussion (6 rubrics). As scores on the rubrics are highly correlated with each other and the majority of the rubrics are discussion-related, we calculate an average score that gives equal weight to the academic rigor of the task and the whole-class discussion.
How we measure instructional supports
Participating teachers completed on-line surveys each March that asked about their sources of instructional support. Scales were developed for the following: 1) amount of time scheduled for collaboration; 2) frequency of participation in high depth activities with other mathematics teachers (e.g., discussed/clarified the key mathematical ideas in a particular lesson or unit; discussed different ways in which students solve a particular problem); 3) level of principal expectations for improved instruction (14 items such as adhering to pacing, improving test scores, having whole-class discussions, and using the adopted curriculum; alpha .85); and 4) hours of participation in math-focused professional development.
Statistical models and preliminary results
Based on 3 years of data, we modeled the teachers’ IQA scores using a multilevel approach to growth-curve analysis (Raudenbush & Bryk, 1992). These models allow us to predict change in teachers’ instructional quality that are associated with time varying predictors (e.g., quantity of participation in math-focused professional development; focus on high depth activities in collaborative time). These models showed no statistically significant change in average aggregate IQA score over a three year period, although there was significant variation in growth within schools. Neither yearly change in hours of participation in math-focused PD nor principal expectations for improved instruction were associated with change in IQA scores, although schools where teachers’ collaborative time increased in both time and the depth of activities engaged in saw an associated change in IQA scores. These preliminary analyses suggest that focusing on high-depth activities when collaborating in scheduled collaboration time may influence instructional practice more than increased hours in district-level professional development.

Authors

• Thomas M. Smith, Vanderbilt University

• Rebecca Anne Schmidt, Vanderbilt University

• Daniel Berebitsky, Vanderbilt University

• Anne Garrison, Vanderbilt University

• Adrian Mohamed Larbi-Cherif, Vanderbilt University

• Paul A. Cobb, Vanderbilt University