Impact of Organizational Supports for Math Instruction on the Instructional Quality of Beginning Teachers

Laura L. Neergaard & Thomas Smith (Vanderbilt University) & Eric Hochberg (University of Pennsylvania)

The research reported here was supported by the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grants R305B070554 and R305B040110 to Vanderbilt University. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent views of the U.S. Department of Education.

Recent math instructional reforms have prioritized instruction characterized by cognitively demanding tasks and opportunities for student explanation of math content (Cohen & Ball, 1990; Hiebert, 2003; NCTM, 2000; Smith, Desimone, & Ueno, 2005). Research has established a relationship between reform-oriented math instruction and improved student achievement (Hamilton et al., 2003; Stein & Lane, 1996; Supovitz, 2001; Wenglinsky, 2002). This study aims to contribute an understanding of which supports provided by the organizations in which teachers work are likely to help beginning teachers adopt these types of instructional practices, which we view as an integral step toward improving math achievement. We examine what accounts for the quality of beginning teachers’ math instruction, whether teachers’ math instruction improves over time, and the extent to which organizational supports for math instruction are associated with teachers’ math instructional quality. This work is part of a four-year longitudinal study of beginning middle school math teachers’ professional development, induction, and mentoring experiences.

Supports for Math Instruction ResultsBackground & Purpose

Constant Supports•National Science Foundation curriculum (42% of teachers)•Degrees held: Math (8%), Math-education (24%), Education (42%); for the primary analyses, math education were counted as math degrees

Time Varying Supports•Mentoring hours devoted to math-specific instructional support (includes support from both formal and informal mentors) •PD hours devoted to math-specific instructional support

IQA Scores Over Time by DegreeData

• Intended for use with math lessons that involve students in a problem-solving activity and subsequent whole-class discussion (Matsumura et al., 2006)

• Assesses the quality of observed classroom instruction on three dimensions: (1) task potential, (2) task implementation, (3) class discussion (five-point scale)

• 62 teachers from 11 districts in 4 states • Data from 3 cohorts of teachers (07-08, 08-09, 09-10)• Surveys and classroom observations administered at four points: winter of first year & spring of first, second, and third years

Method: Hierarchical linear growth models with four repeated measures of the IQA nested within teachers. Time is measured in months.

• Used highest coders’ IQA scores•For discussion, time is positive & significant•Education degree still positive for task •Math degree still negative for implementation•Ed degree still negative for discussion

• Used math knowledge for teaching (MKT) scores as proxy for degree •Positive impact of MKT over time on implementation

• Coded math education degree holders as having education degrees rather than having math degrees

•Positive impact of education degree on initial task quality reduced•Negative impact of math degree on implementation no longer significant

Score Description

3 or 4 Instruction characterized by open-ended tasks, multiple representations of math concepts, and connections among math ideas

2 Instruction emphasizing unambiguous application of procedures and single representations of concepts

1 Instruction emphasizing facts and memorization

0 Absence of mathematical activity or discussion

*p< 0.1 , ** p <0.05, ***p < 0.01

Instructional Quality Assessment

• Positive impact of NSF curriculum on task IQA ratings• Impact of degrees on initial IQA ratings

•Positive for task & education degree•Negative for implementation & math degree (not controlling for NSF)•Negative for discussion and education degree

• Results indicate that organizational supports, as they are currently delivered, are not sufficient for increasing beginning teachers’ instructional quality growth.

IQA SCORES1st Yr. Winter(N=59)

1st Yr. Spring(N=58)

2nd Yr. Spring(N=31)

3rd Yr. Spring(N=13)

IQA - Task2.33(.59)

2.31(.55)

2.39(.62)

2.29(.59)

IQA - Implementation

2.08(.41)

2.07(.40)

2.21(.49)

2.11(.56)

IQA - Discussion1.20(.68)

1.12(.73)

1.10(.71)

1.44(.84)

Conclusions

For more information, please contact laura.neergaard@vanderbilt.edu.

Green = EducationRed= Math EducationBlue = Mathematics

Purple = No Math or Ed.

Sensitivity Analyses

1 2 3 4

Mentoring Math Hours15.59

(24.75)10.37

(15.44)5.64

(5.29)4.42

(3.88)

PD Math Hours5.65

(5.95)5.81

(11.25)6.83

(3.15)7.67

(1.87)

Task Implementation Discussion

1st Yr. Supports * TIME

Supports * TIME

1st Yr. Supports * TIME

Supports * TIME

1st Yr. Supports * TIME

Supports * TIME

IQA Month -0.002(0.01)

-0.005(0.01)

-0.003(0.01)

-0.001(0.01)

-0.002(0.01)

-0.004(0.01)

Math Degree -0.074(0.12)

-0.084(0.13)

-0.180(0.10)

-0.196(0.10)

-0.221(0.18)

-0.284(0.19)

Ed Degree 0.342**

(0.11)0.305*

(0.12)0.093(0.09)

0.081(0.10)

-0.360*

(0.17)-0.430*

(0.18)

NSF Curriculum

0.201*(0.09)

0.216*(0.10)

0.086(0.08)

0.144(0.08)

0.123(0.14)

0.186(0.15)

Mentoring Hours

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

PD Hours 0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

0.000(0.00)

Constant 2.117***

(0.11)2.140***

(0.13)2.073***

(0.08)2.097***

(0.09)1.327***

(0.17)1.384***

(0.18)

Task-Implementation Maintenance

• Most teachers in Low-Low in all four time periods

• More teachers in High-High in 2nd & 3rd years

High-High: 3 or 4 on Task & 3 or 4 on ImplementationHigh-Low: 3 or 4 on Task & 2 or lower on ImplementationLow-Low: 2 or lower on Task & 2 or lower on Implementation