Ambitious Mathematics Instruction and Student Achievement: Evidence From Early Career Teachers

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

Abstract

Objectives and Perspective. Ambitious mathematics instruction is emphasized by NCTM reform documents and the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and considered a gold standard for teachers (Lampert et al., 2013; Newmann & Associates, 1996). However, how each aspect of ambitious mathematics instruction is associated with student achievement is less clear. We addressed this gap in the research literature by drawing on a rich set of observation data using a subject-specific observation tool, TRU Math, which was developed to measure both content and discussion patterns between teachers and students; and student test scores.
Data and Methods. This study investigated how teachers’ ambitious mathematics instruction is translated into student test scores. We drew on classroom observation, interview, and student achievement data from 35 early career teachers working in four Midwestern school districts. We rated teachers’ instruction based on a modified version of TRU Math (Teaching for Robust Understanding in Mathematics; Schoenfeld, Floden, & the Algebra Teaching Study and Mathematics Assessment Project, 2014) rubric, which includes the following dimensions: (a) the mathematics; (b) cognitive demand; (c) agency, authority and identity; and (d) formative assessment. We merged this data with students’ state-level standardized test scores; and interview data detailing how they planned their lessons.
Findings. Based on our quantitative data, we found that TRU Math dimensions 3 and 4 had a significant positive association with students’ test scores controlling for students’ prior test scores and various demographic variables. Interestingly, we did not find any evidence for heterogeneous effects of different aspects of teachers’ instructional practices by students’ backgrounds. In other words, regardless of students’ prior achievement levels or other characteristics, such as socio-economic status (SES), race/ethnicity, and gender, teachers’ ambitious instructional practices in classroom discussion were positively associated with student test scores. In addition, these findings indicate that the dimensions of TRU Math directly related to discussing student thinking translate into student test scores more than other aspects.
Next, to understand nuances in this correlation, we identified two case study teachers at two extremes (i.e., (a) high TRU Math and high growth in student test scores and (b) low TRU Math and low growth in student test scores) and analyzed their interview and observation data. These teachers taught the same grade (5th) in the same school district using the same mathematics curriculum. Their students’ characteristics were similar as well. Based on the observation and interview data, we found that compared to the high TRU Math teacher, the mathematics discussion in the low TRU Math teacher’s classroom was rather traditional where the teacher initiated questions, students responded, and the teacher evaluated their responses. Students’ opportunities to discuss their own ideas for solving problems were very limited. This kind of discourse pattern runs counter to ambitious mathematics instruction and especially to TRU Math dimensions 3 and 4.
Significance. These findings will help in determining which aspects of ambitious mathematics instruction might be most relevant for improving student achievement. Thus, the findings can also help in preparing and evaluating pre-service teachers and early career teachers.

Authors

• Jihyun Kim, Sungshin Women's University

• Serena Jean Salloum, Ball State University

• Qinyun Lin, University of Chicago