Explicit Instruction Across Elementary Math and Language Arts

• In Event: 33.040 - Revisiting Explicit Instruction in English and Mathematics

Abstract

Purpose and Theoretical Framework
There is interest in identifying “core practices” to coordinate teacher education and professional development (McDonald, Kazemi, & Kavanagh, 2014). Some researchers are focused on identifying cross-subject core practices to prepare and support elementary teachers, who teach multiple subjects (Grossman & McDonald, 2008; Ball & Forzani, 2009).

Explicit instructional practices such as modeling which make cognitive processes visible, are candidates for cross-subject practices, but have been appropriated to differing degrees in math and English language arts (ELA). Some degree of explicit instruction is generally agreed to be valuable in balanced literacy programs, and recent studies suggest it is incorporated in the reading programs used in many classrooms (NRP, 2000; Reutzel et al., 2014). In contrast, research on explicit math instruction has focused primarily on its value for low-performing and special education students (Gersten et al., 2009; NMAP, 2008). This paper explores how three explicit instructional practices—modeling, procedural strategy instruction, and conceptual strategy instruction-- are used in math and ELA lessons and the relationship between those practices and teacher value-added measures (VAMs).

Data Sources and Methods
These data come from a subsample of 120 fourth grade teachers in one district in the Measures of Effective Teaching study (Kane & Staiger, 2012). Over 600 ELA and math lessons were coded using PLATO, a standardized observation protocol developed to assess ELA instruction and modified here to reliably score math instruction (Grossman et al., 2013).

Trained raters scored modeling, and procedural and conceptual strategy instruction on PLATO scales. Fifteen percent of lessons were double coded (κ>0.7). Logistic regressions analyzed whether higher scores on these practices were associated with an increased likelihood a teacher was in the top value-added quintile. A stratified, purposive sub-sample of lessons was reanalyzed qualitatively (Patton, 2002).

Results
Teachers used significantly more modeling and procedural strategy instruction in math than ELA, and marginally significantly more conceptual strategy instruction in ELA, though mean scores were very low in both subjects (Table 1). Modeling was associated with VAMs across subjects. Procedural strategy instruction was associated with VAMs on the state math test and conceptual strategy instruction with VAMs on the state ELA test (Table 2).

Qualitative data demonstrate teachers in math lessons use modeling and strategy instruction in the classic gradual release pattern, with instruction frequently oriented towards standardized tests. In ELA lessons, teachers provided activities with little explicit instructional support. However, the few teachers who incorporated explicit instruction featured more metacognitive modeling oriented towards more authentic literacy goals.
Significance
This study identifies potential cross-subject core practices. Explicit instruction, measured by PLATO, is associated with achievement in math and ELA. Many teachers demonstrated high-scoring modeling in math, but very few did so in ELA. This suggests the extent to which teachers already model mathematics may provide a useful bridge for modeling in ELA. Similarly, more teachers engaged in conceptual strategy instruction in ELA, suggesting math instruction might also benefit from cross-subject linkages. These data also indicate teachers need support in incorporating explicit instruction that provides intellectual scaffolding rather than procedural directives.

Author

• Julie Jackson Cohen, University of Virginia