You are here:

Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student achievement
ARTICLE

Economics of Education Review Volume 48, Number 1, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Recent investigations into the education production function have moved beyond traditional teacher inputs, such as education, certification, and salary, focusing instead on observational measures of teaching practice. However, challenges to identification mean that this work has yet to coalesce around specific instructional dimensions that increase student achievement. I build on this discussion by exploiting within-school, between-grade, and cross-cohort variation in scores from two observation instruments; further, I condition on a uniquely rich set of teacher characteristics, practices, and skills. Findings indicate that inquiry-oriented instruction positively predicts student achievement. Content errors and imprecisions are negatively related, though these estimates are sensitive to the set of covariates included in the model. Two other dimensions of instruction, classroom emotional support and classroom organization, are not related to this outcome. Findings can inform recruitment and development efforts aimed at improving the quality of the teacher workforce.

Citation

Blazar, D. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 48(1), 16-29. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved March 24, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2015.05.005

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Allen, J.P., Pianta, R.C., Gregory, A., Mikami, A.Y., & Lun, J. (2011). An interaction-based approach to enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement. Science, 333, pp. 1034-1037.
  2. Anderson, L.M., Evertson, C.M., & Brophy, J.E. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first-grade reading groups. The Elementary School Journal, 79(4), pp. 193-223.
  3. Bell, C.A., Gitomer, D.H., McCaffrey, D.F., Hamre, B.K., Pianta, R.C., & Qi, Y. (2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17(2-3), pp. 62-87.
  4. Blazar, D., Braslow, D., Charalambous, C.Y., & Hill, H.C. (2015). Attending to general and content-specific dimensions of teaching: exploring factors across two observation instruments. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Teacher Effectiveness, Harvard University.
  5. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), pp. 176-216.
  6. Boyd, D.J., Grossman, P.L., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher preparation and student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), pp. 416-440.
  7. Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., Hilger, N., Saez, E., Schazenbach, D.W., & Yagan, D. (2011). How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project Star. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), pp. 1593-1660.
  8. Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., & Rockoff, J.E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), pp. 2633-2679.
  9. Clark, M.A., Chiang, H.S., Silva, T., McConnell, S., Sonnenfeld, K., & Erbe, A. (2013). The effectiveness of secondary math teachers from Teach For America and the Teaching Fellows programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  10. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness. Journal of Human Resources, 41(4), pp. 778-820.
  11. Decker, P.T., Mayer, D.P., & Glazerman, S. (2004). The effects of Teach for America on students: Findings from a national evaluation. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
  12. Duncan, A. (2010). Back to school: Enhancing U.S. education and competitiveness. Foreign Affairs, 89(6), pp. 65-74.
  13. Epstein, D., & Miller, R.T. (2011). Slow off the Mark: elementary school teachers and the crisis in STEM education. Education Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 77(1), pp. 4-10.
  14. Fryer, R. (2013). Teacher incentives and student achievement. Evidence from New York City public schools. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(2), pp. 373-427.
  15. Garet, M.S., Wayne, A.J., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., & Walters, K. (2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study: findings after the second year of implementation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
  16. Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2012). Is it just a bad class? Assessing the long‐term stability of estimated teacher performance. Economica, 80(319), pp. 589-612.
  17. Grossman, P., Loeb, S., Cohen, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). Measure for measure: the relationship between measures of instructional practice in middle school English language arts and teachers’ value-added. American Journal of Education, 119(3), pp. 445-470.
  18. Hanushek, E.A. (2009). Teacher deselection. Creating a new teaching profession, pp. 165-180. Washington, D C: Urban Institute Press.
  19. Harris, D.N., & Sass, T.R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7), pp. 798-812.
  20. Hickman, J.J., Fu, J., & Hill, H.C. (2012). Technical report: creation and dissemination of upper-elementary mathematics assessment modules. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
  21. Hill, H.C., Blazar, D., & Lynch, K. (2015). Resources for teaching: examining personal and institutional predictors of high-quality instruction. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Teacher Effectiveness, Harvard University.
  22. Hill, H.C., Charalambous, C.Y., Blazar, D., McGinn, D., Kraft, M.A., Beisiegel, M., (2012). Validating arguments for observational instruments: attending to multiple sources of variation. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), pp. 88-106.
  23. Hill, H.C., Charalambous, C.Y., & Kraft, M.A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researchers, 41(2), pp. 56-64.
  24. Hill, H.C., Schilling, S.G., & Ball, D.L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. Elementary School Journal, 105, pp. 11-30.
  25. Ho, A.D., & Kane, T.J. (2013). The reliability of classroom observations by school personnel. Seattle, WA: Measures of Effective Teaching Project, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
  26. Jacob, B.A., & Lefgren, L. (2008). Can principals identify effective teachers? Evidence on subjective performance evaluation in education. Journal of Labor Economics, 20(1), pp. 101-136.
  27. Johnson, C. (2012). Implementation of STEM education policy: challenges, progress, and lessons learned. School Science and Mathematics, 112(1), pp. 45-55.
  28. Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O. (2013). Have we identified effective teachers? Validating measures of effective teaching using random assignment. Seattle: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
  29. Kane, T.J., Rockoff, J.E., & Staiger, D.O. (2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), pp. 615-631.
  30. Kane, T.J., & Staiger, D.O. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
  31. Kane, T.J., Taylor, E.S., Tyler, J.H., & Wooten, A.L. (2011). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), pp. 587-613.
  32. Koedel, C., & Betts, J.R. (2011). Does student sorting invalidate value-added models of teacher effectiveness? An extended analysis of the Rothstein critique. Education Finance and Policy, 6(1), pp. 18-42.
  33. Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Baumert, J., Richter, D., Voss, T., & Hachfeld, A. (2013). Professional competence of teachers: Effects on instructional quality and student development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), pp. 805-820.
  34. Lockwood, J.R., McCaffrey, D.F., Hamilton, L.S., Stecher, B., Le, V., & Martinez, J.F. (2007). The sensitivity of value-added teacher effect estimates to different mathematics achievement measures. Journal of Educational Measurement, 44(1), pp. 47-67.
  35. Lynch, K., Chin, M., & Blazar, D. (2015). How well do teacher observations of elementary mathematics instruction predict value-added? Exploring variability across districts. Cambridge, MA: National Center for Teacher Effectiveness, Harvard University.
  36. McCollum, J.A., Hemmeter, M.L., & Hsieh, W. (2011). Coaching teachers for emergent literacy instruction using performance-based feedback. Topics in Early Childhood Education, 20(10), pp. 1-10.
  37. Metzler, J., & Woessmann, L. (2012). The impact of teacher subject knowledge on student achievement: evidence from within-teacher within-student variation. Journal of Development Economics, 99(2), pp. 486-496.
  38. Murnane, R.J., & Cohen, D.K. (1986). Merit pay and the evaluation problem: why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Educational Review, 56(1), pp. 1-18.
  39. Murnane, R.J., & Willett, J.B. (2011). Methods matter: Improving causal inference in educational and social science research. New York: Oxford University Press.
  40. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  41. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM.
  42. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
  43. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
  44. Nye, B., Konstantopoulos, S., & Hedges, L.V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), pp. 237-257.
  45. Papay, J.P. (2011). Different tests, different answers: the stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Educational Research Journal, 48(1), pp. 163-193.
  46. Pianta, R.C., & Hamre, B.K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), pp. 109-119.
  47. Porter, A.C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), pp. 3-14.
  48. Porter, A., McMaken, J., Hwang, J., & Yang, R. (2011). Common core standards: the new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), pp. 103-116.
  49. Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: applications and data analysis methods. Second Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  50. Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., & Kain, J.F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), pp. 417-458.
  51. Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: evidence from panel data. American Economic Review, 94(2), pp. 247-252.
  52. Rockoff, J.E., & Speroni, C. (2010). Subjective and objective evaluations of teacher effectiveness. American Economic Review, pp. 261-266.
  53. Rockoff, J.E., Staiger, D.O., Kane, T.J., & Taylor, E.S. (2012). Information and employee evaluation: evidence from a randomized intervention in public schools. American Economic Review, 102(7), pp. 3184-3213.
  54. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), pp. 175-214.
  55. Sadler, P.M., Sonnert, G., Coyle, H.P., Cook-Smith, N., & Miller, J. L (2013). The influence of teachers’ knowledge on student learning in middle school physical science classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), pp. 1020-1049.
  56. Schochet, P.Z., & Chiang, H.S. (2013). What are error rates for classifying teacher and school performance using value-added models?. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38(2), pp. 142-171.
  57. Springer, M.G., Ballou, D., Hamilton, L., Le, V., Lockwood, J.R., & McCaffrey, D.F. (2010). Teacher pay for performance: experimental evidence from the project on incentives in teaching.
  58. Star, J.R., & Rittle-Johnson, B. (2009). It pays to compare: an experimental study on computational estimation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102(4), pp. 408-426.
  59. Stronge, J.H., Ward, T.J., & Grant, L.W. (2011). What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. Journal of Teacher Education, 62(4), pp. 339-355.
  60. Taylor, E.S., & Tyler, J.H. (2012). The effect of evaluation on teacher performance. The American Economic Review, 102(7), pp. 3628-3651.
  61. U.S. Department of Education (2010). A blueprint for reform: reauthorization of the elementary and secondary education act. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development.
  62. Wayne, A.J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: a review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), pp. 89-122.
  63. Woessmann, L., & West, M. (2006). Class-size effects in school systems around the world: evidence from between-grade variation in TIMSS. European Economic Review, 50, pp. 695-736.
  64. Yoon, K.S., Duncan, T., Lee, S.W.Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References