Differentiating High-Leverage Teaching Practices for English Language Arts and Mathematics

• In Event: Learning to Swim on a Sidewalk? Practice-Based Education for Teachers of Language Learners

Abstract

Perspective
Over the past five years, a small but growing strand of research has investigated ways of focusing teachers’ professional training more squarely on critical skills and practices of teaching (e.g., Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman, Compton, Igra, Ronfeldt, Shahan, and Williamson, 2009; Lampert et al, 2013). One line of this work has focused on identifying elements of teaching that are essential for novices to become capable at before they are permitted to assume independent responsibility for a classroom (e.g., Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman et al, 2009; Lampert, Beasley, Ghousseini, Kazemi, & Franke, 2010; Windshitl, Thompson, Braaten, & Stroupe, 2012). With some exceptions, this work has taken place in the context of particular academic subjects, often mathematics. As a result, there is little understanding of how ubiquitous teaching practices such as leading discussions and eliciting and interpreting student thinking might differ in important ways across subjects.
Objectives
The purpose of this presentation is to investigate how two high-leverage teaching practices – making content explicit through explanation, modeling, representations, and examples and leading whole class discussions – differ in English language arts and mathematics. Participants will leave the session with detailed articulations of both practices, both at a generic level and in each of the two subject-areas, with additional attention to grade-level differences.
Method and Data Sources
Initial definitions of “making content explicit” and “discussion” in English language arts and mathematics were developed through a combination of conceptual analysis and literature review. Video records of teachers carrying out the practices were then analyzed to identify differences in the features and function of the practices in the two subject-areas.
Results
Conceptual and empirical analysis suggest that in the case of both practices, there are core areas of work that are common across subject-areas. Teachers leading whole-class discussions, for example, must manage student participation, make contributions to the discourse themselves, and bring the discussion to a close no matter what subject they are teaching. However, there are also important differences across subject-areas that reflect differences in the nature of the subject-area.
Significance of the Work
This work stands to sharpen the ways in which practices of making content explicit and leading whole class discussions are articulated in both research studies and teacher education. In addition, developing a clear and common understanding of what high-leverage practices look like and what they enable in specific subject-areas and grade levels is critical for elementary school teachers, who often work across subjects with linguistically diverse learners and must shift instructional approaches to take account of the epistemic features of each discipline and the language demands created by each discipline. It also has the potential to help teachers and teacher educators in all subject-areas clarify the affordances of specific instructional practices for particular subject matter-specific learning goals.

Author

• Francesca Forzani, University of Michigan