The pursuit of multiple educational outcomes makes teaching a complex craft subject to potential conflicts and competing commitments. Using a data set in which teachers were randomly assigned to classes paired with videotaped lessons, we both document and unpack such a tradeoff. Upper-elementary teachers who excel at raising students’ math test scores often are less successful at improving student-reported engagement in class (and vice versa). Furthermore, teaching practices that improve test scores (e.g., cognitively demanding content) can simultaneously decrease engagement. At the same time, paired quantitative and qualitative analyses reveal two areas of practice that support both outcomes: active mathematics with opportunities for hands-on participation, physical movement, and peer interaction; and established routines and procedures to proactively organize the classroom. In addition to guiding practice-based teacher education, our sequential, explanatory mixed-methods analysis can serve as a model for rigorously studying and identifying dimensions of “good” teaching that promote multidimensional student development.
AinsworthM. D. S.BleharM. C.WatersE.WallS. N. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Psychology Press.
2.
BallD. L.CohenD. K. (1999). Developing practice, developing practitioners: Toward a practice-based theory of professional education. In SykesG.Darling-HammondL. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 3–22). Jossey-Bass.
3.
BallD. L.ForzaniF. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511.
4.
BallD. L.HillH. C.BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching: Who knows mathematics well enough to teach third grade, and how can we decide?American Educator, 29, 14–46.
5.
BellC. A.GitomerD. H.McCaffreyD. F.HamreB. K.PiantaR. C.QiY. (2012). An argument approach to observation protocol validity. Educational Assessment, 17(2–3), 62–87.
6.
BlazarD. (2015). Effective teaching in elementary mathematics: Identifying classroom practices that support student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 48, 16–29.
7.
BlazarD. (2018). Validating teacher effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors: Evidence from random assignment of teachers to students. Education Finance and Policy, 13(3), 281–309.
8.
BlazarD.BraslowD.CharalambousC. Y.HillH. C. (2017). Attending to general and mathematics-specific dimensions of teaching: Exploring factors across two observation instruments. Educational Assessment, 22(2), 71–94.
9.
BlazarD.KraftM. A. (2017). Teacher and teaching effects on students’ attitudes and behaviors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 146–170.
10.
BlazarD.LitkeE.BarmoreJ. (2016). What does it mean to be ranked a “high” or “low” value-added teacher? Observing differences in instructional quality across districts. American Educational Research Journal, 53(2), 324–359.
11.
BodovskiK.FarkasG. (2007). Mathematics growth in early elementary school: The roles of beginning knowledge, student engagement, and instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 115–130.
12.
CallejoM. L.ZapateraA. (2017). Prospective primary teachers’ noticing of students’ understanding of pattern generalization. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 20(4), 309–333.
13.
CharalambousC. Y.DelaneyS. (2020). Mathematics teaching practices and practice-based pedagogies. In PotariD.ChapmanO. (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics teacher education. Vol. 1: Knowledge, beliefs, and identity in mathematics teaching and teaching development (2nd ed., pp. 355–390).
14.
CohenD. K. (2011). Teaching and its predicaments. Harvard University Press.
15.
CohenD. K.HillH. C. (2008). Learning policy: When state education reform works. Yale University Press.
16.
ConnellJ. P.WellbornJ. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In GunnarR.SroufeL. A. (Eds.), Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
CookR. D. (1977). Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics, 19(1), 15–18.
18.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L.GutmannM. L.HansonW. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In TashakkoriA.TeddlieC. (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240).
19.
FenstermacherG. D.RichardsonV. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers College Record, 107(1), 186–213.
20.
ForzaniF. M. (2014). Understanding “core practices” and “practice-based” teacher education: Learning from the past. Journal of Teacher Education, 65(4), 357–368.
21.
GrossmanP.McDonaldM. (2008). Back to the future: Directions for research in teaching and teacher education. American Educational Research Journal, 45(1), 184–205.
22.
HanushekE. A. (2002). The long run importance of school quality (NBER Working Papers 9071). National Bureau of Economic Research.
23.
HillH. C.CharalambousC. Y.KraftM. A. (2012). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41(2), 56–64.
24.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.
25.
HolmstromB.MilgromP. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 7, 24–52.
26.
IvankovaN. V.CreswellJ. W.StickS. L. (2006). Using mixed-methods sequential explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.
27.
JonesL. (2007). The student-centered classroom. Cambridge University Press.
28.
KaneT. J.TaylorE. S.TylerJ. H.WootenA. L. (2011). Identifying effective classroom practices using student achievement data. Journal of Human Resources, 46(3), 587–613.
29.
KennedyM. M. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Harvard University Press.
30.
KirschnerP. A.SwellerJ.ClarkR. 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.
31.
KoedelC.MihalyK.RockoffJ. E. (2015). Value-added modeling: A review. Economics of Education Review, 47, 180–195.
32.
KraftM. A. (2019). Teacher effects on complex cognitive skills and social-emotional competencies. Journal of Human Resources, 54(1), 1–36.
33.
LampertM. (2001). Teaching problems and the problems of teaching. Yale University Press.
34.
Learning Mathematics for Teaching Project. (2011). Measuring the mathematical quality of instruction. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 14, 25–47.
35.
LeinhardtG. (1989). Math lessons: A contrast of novice and expert competence. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(1), 52–75.
36.
LortieD. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. University of Chicago Press.
37.
LynchK.ChinM.BlazarD. (2017). Relationships between observations of elementary mathematics instruction and student achievement: Exploring variability across districts. American Journal of Education, 123(4), 615–646.
38.
McDonaldM.KazemiE.KavanaghS. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386.
39.
MilnerH. R.IVTenoreF. B. (2010). Classroom management in diverse classrooms. Urban Education, 45(5), 560–603.
40.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to actions: Ensuring mathematical success for all.
41.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
42.
ParisS. G.ParisA. H. (2001). Classroom applications of research on self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 36, 89–101.
43.
PiantaR. C.HamreB. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119.
44.
PiantaR. C.La ParoK. M.HamreB. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system™: Manual upper-elementary. Paul H. Brookes.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561.
47.
SpillaneJ. P.ThompsonC. L. (1997). Reconstructing conceptions of local capacity: The local education agency’s capacity for ambitious instructional reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 185–203.
48.
StockardJ.WoodT. W.CoughlinC.Rasplica KhouryC. (2018). The effectiveness of direct instruction curricula: A meta-analysis of a half century of research. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 479–507.
49.
StrongeJ. H.WardT. J.GrantL. 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), 339–355.
50.
VeenmanM. V.KokR.BlöteA. W. (2005). The relation between intellectual and metacognitive skills in early adolescence. Instructional Science, 33(3), 193–211.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
