How Elementary Teachers With Different Ratings of Mathematics Instructional Quality Differ in Planning Mathematics

• In Event: Early Career Elementary Teachers' Efforts to Plan and Enact Ambitious Mathematics Instruction

Abstract

Objectives. Instructional quality is often measured by observing classroom practice and analyzing student learning outcomes. Yet, teachers’ practice is more than classroom instruction. A key component of understanding lesson enactment is investigating how teachers plan tasks in the teacher-intended curriculum (Remillard & Heck, 2014; Stein et al., 1996). Thus, this study examined how three ECTs with high ratings of mathematics instructional quality differed in their planning practices from three teachers with low ratings.
Perspective. We drew on Kennedy (2016) who identified five persistent challenges that early career teachers (ECTs) confront when planning and enacting instruction; these challenges involve curriculum, student participation, student thinking, student behavior, and teachers’ own needs. Kennedy contended that the ways ECTs attempt to resolve each individual challenge have implications for their efforts to attend to other challenges.
Data and Methods. We analyzed interviews collected from six early career elementary teachers after two observations of their mathematics instruction in the fall and spring of one school year. The interviews focused on how they planned observed lessons. We used the TRU Math observation rubric (Schoenfeld, Floden, & the Algebra Teaching Study, 2014) to evaluate instructional quality, generating ratings for the mathematics; cognitive demand; agency, authority and identity; and uses of assessment. We analyzed interviews of three teachers who had TRU Math scores in the top 10 overall (from a sample of 137), and three teachers whose scores were among the 10 lowest.
We drew on Kennedy’s framework to apply codes to analyze teachers’ descriptions of their planning processes. We conducted initial calibration of raters to reliably apply codes, and then analyzed all transcripts. To generate themes, we first examined two transcripts (one high scorer and one low scorer) and developed themes before examining additional transcripts to refine themes apparent in high scorers’ interview responses compared to low scorers’ responses (Miles et al., 2020).
Findings. The three high TRU Math scorers reported using their curriculum as a resource for differentiating instruction and addressing student needs while maintaining curricular rigor. In contrast, the three low TRU Math scorers made mathematical tasks easier by deviating from their curriculum’s proposed instructional methods and lowering the rigor of the material. The three high TRU Math scorers’ classroom management practices were proactive tools that they used to maintain student engagement and meet their own needs as teachers. In contrast, the three low TRU Math scorers struggled with managing student behavior and did not use management practices to promote engagement or to address their own needs. Finally, the three high TRU Math scorers demonstrated much more agency in making planning decisions, which was directly associated with their high level of responsiveness to student needs.
Significance. Our study is among the first to apply Kennedy’s (2016) framework to empirical data. Our results indicate that mathematics instructional coaches and formal mentors should work with ECTs to help them understand how their responses to individual challenges in teaching have implications for how they might respond to other challenges and how they are able to address their own needs.

Authors

• Sarah Lilly, University of Virginia

• Kristen Bieda, Michigan State University

• Peter A. Youngs, University of Virginia