What TIMSS Tells Us about Instructional Practice in K-12 Mathematics Education

Abstract

Effort to determine teachers’ effects on student has been continuously made with national data. However, paucity of research has been conducted on how teachers’ instructional strategies impact on student learning with national data, although instructional theories suggest a direct relationship between instructional strategies and learning outcomes. Therefore, the relationship between teachers’ use of instructional strategies and learning outcomes should be examined with national data. This study investigates how much teacher’s instructional strategies explain student learning in mathematics and what instructional strategies are positively related to student learning outcomes. Revised Bloom’s taxonomy was used to define instructional strategies that support different levels of cognitive processes. The U.S. 8th grade mathematics data from the 2007 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study was analyzed using multilevel modeling. As results, teachers’ instructional strategies explained approximately 12% at the individual level and 17% at the teacher level of the learning outcome. Also, asking student to write equations and functions to represent relationships and to decide on their own procedures for solving complex problems were positively and significantly related to student learning outcomes.

Keywords

• Instructional strategies, TIMSS, Mathematics education, Academic achievement, Multilevel modeling

References

1. Bell, S. (2010). Project-based learning for the 21st century: Skills for the future. Clearing House, 83(2), 39-43. doi: 10.1080/00098650903505415
2. Borich, G. (1996) Effective teaching methods (3rd ed.). New York : Macmillan.
3. Brophy, J. (1986) Teaching and learning mathematics: Where research should be going. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 17(5), 323-346.
4. Brophy, J. & Good, T. L. (1986) Teacher behaviour and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York : MacMillan.
5. Brown, J.S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.
6. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (Working Paper No. 17699). National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17699
7. Cindy, E., Duncan, R.G., & Clark, A.C. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99-107.
8. Evertson, C. M., Anderson, C. W., Anderson, L. M., & Brophy, J. E. (1980). Relationships between classroom behaviors and student outcomes in junior high mathematics and english classes. American Educational Research Journal, 17(1), 43-60.

9. Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., DeWayne, A. M., Slavings, R. J., & Cramer, C. (1990) An observational study of small-group mathematics instruction in elementary school. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 735-782.
10. Good, T. L., Grouws, D. A., & Ebmeier, H. (1983) Active mathematics teaching. New York: Longman.
11. Griffin, G. A. & Barnes, S. (1986). Using research findings to change school and classroom practice: Results of an experimental study. America Educational Research Journal, 23(4), 572-586.
12. Hmelo-Silver, C. E. (2004). Problem-based learning: What and how do students learn? Educational Psychology Review, 16(3), 235-266.
13. Joncas, M. (2008). TIMSS 2007 sampling weights and participation rates. In J. Olson, M. Martin & I. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS 2007 Technical Report. Chestnut Hills, MA: TIMSS & PIRL International Study Center, Boston Collge.
14. Kirschner, P.A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R.E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
15. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
16. Lampert, M. (1988). What can research on teacher education tell us about improving quality in mathematics education? Teaching and Teacher Education, 4(2), 157-170.
17. Mason, D. A. & Good, T. L. (1993) Effects of two-group and whole- class teaching on regrouped elementary students’ mathematics achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 328-360.
18. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29-45.
19. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Rote versus meaningful learning. Theory into Practice, 41(4), 226-232.
20. Merrill, M. D. & Boutwell, R. C. (1973). Instructional development: Methodology and research. In F. N. Kerlinger (Ed.), Review of research in education (pp. 95-131). Itasca, IL: Peacock Publishers.
21. Merrill, M. D., Olsen, J. B, & Coldeway, N. A. (1976). Research support for the instructional strategy diagnostic profile. Provo, UT: Courseware Incorporated.
22. Merrill, M. D., Tennyson, R. D, & Posey, L. O. (1992). Teaching concepts: An instructional design guide. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
23. Merrill, M. D. & Wood, N. D. (1974). Instructional strategies: A preliminary taxonomy. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
24. Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2010). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice (3rd ed.). London, UK: Sage.
25. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Ruddock, G. J., O'Sullivan, C. Y., Arora, A., & Erberer, E. (2005). TIMSS 2007 assessment framework. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS& PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
26. National Center for Education Statistics. (n.d.). Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Retreived from https://nces.ed.gov/TIMSS/results11_math11.asp.
27. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
28. Ravitz, J. (2009). Introduction: Summarizing findings and looking ahead to a new generation of PBL research. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 2.
29. Reigeluth, C. M. (1999). What is instructional-design theory and how is it changing? . In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models: A new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 5-29). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
30. Reigeluth, C. M. & Merrill, M. D. (1979). Classes of instructional variables. Educational Technology, 19, 5-24.
31. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525-1567.
32. Ruddok, G. J., O'Sullivan, C. Y., Arora, A., & Erberer, E. (2008). Developing the TIMSS 2007 mathematics and science assessments and scroing guides. In J. Olson, M. Martin & I. Mullis (Eds.), TIMSS 2007 Technical Report. Chestnut Hills, MA: TIMSS & PIRL International Study Center, Boston Collge.
33. Secada, W. G. (1992) Race, ethnicity, social class, language and achievement in mathematics, In D. A. Grouws, (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. New York : MacMillan.
34. Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-23.
35. Snijders, T. A. B. & Bosker, R. J. (2012a). Imperfect hierarchies. In T.A.B. Snijders & R.J. Bosker (Eds.), Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2 ed., pp. 205-215). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
36. Snijders, T. A. B. & Bosker, R. J. (2012b). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevle modeling (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
37. Strobel, J. & van Barneveld, A. (2009). When is PBL more effective? A meta-synthesis of meta- analyses comparing PBL to conventional classrooms. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problembased Learning, 3(1).
38. Walberg, H. J. (1986) Syntheses of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. New York: MacMillan.
39. Walker, A. & Leary, H. (2009). A problem based learning meta analysis: Differences across problem types, implementation types, disciplines, and assessment levels. Interdisciplinary Journal of Problem-based Learning, 3(1), 6-28.
40. Correspondence: Dabae Lee, Doctoral Candidate in the Department of Instructional Systems
41. Technology, School of Education, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA