Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching,Standards-Based Mathematics Teaching Practices,and Student Achievement in the Context of the Responsive Classroom Approach
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online August, 2015
Mathematical Knowledge for Teaching,Standards-Based Mathematics Teaching Practices,and Student Achievement in the Context of the Responsive Classroom Approach
This study investigates the effectiveness of the Responsive Classroom (RC) approach, a social and emotional learning intervention, on changing the relations between mathematics teacher and classroom inputs (mathematical knowledge for teaching [MKT] and standards-based mathematics teaching practices) and student mathematics achievement. Work was conducted in the context of a randomized controlled trial. Participants were 88 third-grade teachers and their 1,533 students. A multigroup path analysis accounting for fidelity of implementation revealed no direct or indirect effects linking MKT to student achievement in the RC or control condition. The same analysis revealed different findings for the RC versus control teachers. In the RC group only: (a) Teachers trained in RC who used more RC practices showed higher use of standards-based mathematics teaching practices, and (b) higher use of standards-based mathematics teaching practices related to greater improvements in math achievement. No comparable findings were evident in the control condition. Results demonstrate the importance of building social and emotional capacity in teachers by helping create a supportive classroom that helps teachers provide stronger mathematics teaching practices that lead to improved student learning.
AbryT.BrewerA.NathansonL.SawyerB.Rimm-KaufmanS.E. (2010). Classroom practices observation measure (Unpublished measure). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
2.
AbryT.Rimm-KaufmanS. E.LarsenR. A.BrewerA. J. (2013). The influence of fidelity of implementation on teacher–student interaction quality in the context of a randomized controlled trial of the Responsive Classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 51(4), 437–453.
3.
AdalbjarnardottirS.SelmanR. L. (1997). “I feel I received a new vision”: An analysis of teachers professional development as they work with students on interpersonal issues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 409–428.
4.
BakkerA. B.HakanenJ. J.DemeroutiE.XanthopoulouD. (2007). Job resources boost work engagement, particularly when job demands are high. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 274–284.
5.
BallD. L.HillH. C.BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching. American Educator, 29(3), 14.
6.
BallD.ThamesM.PhelpsG. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special?Journal of Teacher Education, 59, 389–407.
7.
BentlerP. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.
8.
BerryR. Q.Rimm-KaufmanS. E.OttmarE. R.WalkowiakT. A.MerrittE. G. (2010). The Mathematics-Scan coding guide (Unpublished measure). Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
9.
BoalerJ. (2002). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
BorkoH.PutmanR. (1995). Expanding a teachers’ knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on professional development. In GuskeyT. R.HubermanM. (Eds.), Professional development in education: New paradigms & practices (pp. 35–65). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
11.
BorkoH.StecherB. M.AlonzoA. C.MoncureS.McClamS. (2005). Artifact packages for characterizing classroom practice: A pilot study. Educational Assessment, 10(2), 73–104.
12.
BormanG.OvermanL. (2004). Academic resilience in mathematics among poor and minority students. The Elementary School Journal, 104(3), 177–195.
13.
BrockL.NashidaT.ChiongC.GrimmK.Rimm-KaufmanS. (2008). Children’s perceptions of the classroom environment and social and academic performance: A longitudinal analysis of the Responsive Classroom approach. Journal of School Psychology, 46(2), 129–149.
14.
BrownJ.JonesS.LaRussoM.AberL. (2010). Improving classroom quality: Teacher influences and experimental impacts of the 4R’s program. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(1), 153–167.
15.
ChapinS.O’ConnorC. (2012). Project Challenge: Using challenging curriculum and mathematical discourse to help all students learn. In Dudley-MarlingC.MichaelsS. (Eds.), High expectation curricula: Helping all students succeed with powerful learning (pp. 113–127). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
16.
ChapinS.O’ConnorC.AndersonN. (2009). Classroom discussions: Using math talk to help students learn, grades K–6 (2nd ed.). Sausalito, CA: Math Solutions Publications.
17.
CharalambousC. (2010). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and task unfolding: An exploratory study. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 247–278.
18.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ.RockoffJ. (2011). The long-term impacts of teachers: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood (NBER Working Paper 17699). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17699.pdf
19.
CobbP.WoodT.YackelE.NichollsJ.WheatleyG.TrigattiB.PerlwitzM. (1991). Assessment of a problem-centered second-grade mathematics project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 3–29.
20.
CohenD. K. (1996). Standards-based school reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In LaddH. F. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable (pp. 99–127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for conduct problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(5), 648–657.
Darling-HammondL. (2002). How teacher education matters. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 166–173.
25.
DurlakJ. A.WeissbergR. P.DymnickiA. B.TaylorR. D.SchellingerK. B. (2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82(1), 405–432.
26.
FennemaE.CarpenterT. P.FrankeM. L.LeviL.JacobsV. R.EmpsonS. B. (1996). A longitudinal study of learning to use children’s thinking in mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 403–434.
27.
FennemaE.FrankeM. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In GrouwsD. (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 147–164). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
28.
GoldringR.GrayL.BittermanA. (2013). Characteristics of public and private elementary and secondary school teachers in the United States: Results from the 2011-2012 schools and staffing survey (NCES 2013-314). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
29.
GoodwinB. (2011). Bullying is common and subtle. Educational Leadership, 69(10), 82–84.
30.
GrossmanP.SchoenfeldA.LeeC. (2005). Teaching subject matter. In Darling-HammondL.BransfordJ. (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world (pp. 201–231). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
HagelskampC.BrackettM.RiversS.SaloveyP. (2013). Improving classroom quality with the RULER approach to social and emotional learning: Proximal and distal outcomes. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(3), 530–543.
32.
Harcourt Educational Measurement. (2002). Stanford achievement test (10th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Author.
33.
HiebertJ. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington, DC: NCES.
34.
HiebertJ.GrouwsD. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In LesterF. K. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
35.
HiebertJ.StiglerJ. W. (2000). A proposal for improving classroom teaching: Lessons from the TIMSS video study. The Elementary School Journal, 101(1), 3–20.
36.
HillH.BallD. (2004). Learning mathematics for teaching: Results from California’s mathematics professional development institutes. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 330–351.
37.
HillH.KapitulaL.UmlandK. (2011). A validity argument approach to evaluating teacher value-added scores. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 794–831.
38.
HillH. C.BallD. L.BlunkM.GoffneyI. M.RowanB. (2007). Validating the ecological assumption: The relationship of measure scores to classroom teaching and student learning. Measurement: Interdisciplinary Research and Perspectives, 5(2), 107–117.
39.
HillH. C.BlunkM. L.CharalambousC. Y.LewisJ. M.PhelpsG. C.SleepL.BallD. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511.
40.
HillH. C.RowanB.BallD. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.
41.
HillH. C.SchillingS. G.BallD. L. (2004). Developing measures of teachers’ mathematics knowledge for teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 11–30.
42.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.
43.
HughesJ.KwokO. (2007). Influence of student-teacher and parent-teacher relationships on lower achievement readers’ engagement and achievement in the primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(1), 39–51.
44.
JonesS.BrownK.AberJ. (2011). Two-year impacts of a universal school-based social-emotional and literacy intervention: An experiment in translational developmental research. Child Development, 82, 533–554.
45.
KazemiE. (1998). Discourse that promotes conceptual understanding. Teaching Children Mathematics, 4, 410–414.
46.
KerstingN.GIvvinK.SoteloF.StiglerJ. (2010). Teachers’ analyses of classroom video predict student learning of mathematics: Further explorations of a novel measure of teacher knowledge. Journal of Teacher Education, 61, 172–181.
47.
KerstingN. B.GivvinK. B.ThompsonB. J.SantagataR.StiglerJ. W. (2012). Measuring usable knowledge: Teachers’ analyses of mathematics classroom videos predict teaching quality and student learning. American Educational Research Journal, 49(3), 568–589.
48.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49.
MoyerP. S. (2001). Are we having fun yet? How teachers use manipulatives to teach mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 47(2), 175–197.
50.
MuthenL. K.MuthenB. O. (2010). Mplus user’s guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
51.
MuthénB.SatorraA. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267–316.
52.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011 (NCES 2012–458). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
53.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
54.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
55.
Northeast Foundation for Children, Inc. (2007). Responsive classroom level 1 resources book. Turners Falls, MA: Author.
56.
Northeast Foundation for Children, Inc. (2009). Responsive classroom level 2 resources book. Turners Falls, MA: Author.
57.
NyeB.KonstantopoulosS.HedgesL. V. (2004). How large are teacher effects?Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(3), 237–257.
58.
OstermanK. F.KottkampR. B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
59.
OttmarE. R.Rimm-KaufmanS. E.BerryR. Q.LarsenR. A. A. (2013). Results from a randomized controlled trial: Does the Responsive Classroom approach affect the use of standards-based mathematics teaching practices?Elementary School Journal, 113(3), 434–457.
60.
ParkN.HuebnerE. S. (2005). A cross-cultural study of the levels and correlates of life satisfaction among adolescents. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 444–456.
61.
PiantaR.BelskyJ.HoutsR.MorrisonF. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315, 1795–1796.
62.
PiantaR.HamreB. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38, 109–119.
63.
PiantaR. C.La ParoK. M.HamreB. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring System [CLASS] manual: Pre-k. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
64.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E.ChiuY. I. (2007). Promoting social and academic competence in the classroom: An intervention study examining the contribution of theResponsive Classroom approach. Psychology in the Schools, 44(4), 397–413.
65.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E.FanX.ChiuY. I.YouW. (2007). The contribution of the Responsive Classroom approach on children’s academic achievement: Results from a three year longitudinal study. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 401–421.
66.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E.LarsenR. A.BaroodyA. E.CurbyT. W.KoM.ThomasJ .B.. . . DeCosterJ. (2014). Efficacy of the Responsive Classroom approach: Results from a 3-year longitudinal randomized controlled trial. American Educational Research Journal, 51(3), 567–603.
67.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E.StormM.SawyerB.PiantaR. C.La ParoK. (2006). The Teacher Belief Q-Sort: A measure of teachers’ priorities and beliefs in relation to disciplinary practices, teaching practices, and beliefs about children. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 141–165.
68.
RivkinS.HanushekE.KainJ. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417–458.
69.
RockoffJ. E.JacobB. A.KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2008). Can you recognize an effective teacher when you recruit one? (NBER Working Paper 14485). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
70.
RowanB.CorrentiR.MillerR. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the prospects study of elementary schools. The Teachers College Record, 104(8), 1525–1567.
71.
RyanA.PatrickH. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460.
72.
SantagataR.KerstingN.GivvenK. B.StiglerJ. W. (2011) Problem implementation as a lever for change: An experimental study of the effects of a professional development program on students’ mathematics learning. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 4, 1–24.
73.
SawadaD.PiburnM. (2002). Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP): Training Guide. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Board of Regents.
74.
ScheuellT. J. (1996). Teaching and learning in a classroom context. In BerlinerD. C.CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 726–764). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster MacMillian.
75.
ShechtmanN.RoschelleJ.HaertelG.KnudsenJ. (2010). Investigating links from teacher knowledge to classroom practice to student learning in the instructional system of the middle school mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 28(3), 317–359.
76.
SherinM. G. (2002). When teaching becomes learning. Cognition and Instruction, 20(2), 119–150.
77.
ShulmanL. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.
78.
SilvermanJ.ThompsonP. W. (2008). Toward a framework for the development of mathematical knowledge for teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 499–511.
79.
SimonM.TzurR.HeinzK.KinzelM. (2004). Explicating a mechanism for conceptual learning: Elaborating the construct of reflective abstraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 305–329.
80.
SivoS. A.FanX.WittaE. L.WillseJ. (2006). The search for “optimal” cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267–288.
81.
SkibbeL.DeckerL.Rimm-KaufmanS. (2006, June). The contribution of the responsive classroom approach to classroom quality and teaching practices. Poster presented at the Institute for Education Sciences, Washington, DC.
82.
SpillaneJ. P.ZeuliJ. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reforms. Educational Evaluation and Policy, 21(1), 1–27.
83.
SteinM. K.GroverB. W.HenningsenM. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 33(2), 455–488.
84.
SteinM. K.SmithM. S.HenningsenM. A.SilverE. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
85.
StuhlmanM.HamreB.DownerJ.PiantaR. (2009). A practitioner’s guide to conducting classroom observations: What the research tells us about choosing and using observational systems. New York, NY: W. T. Grant Foundation.
86.
TabachnickB.FidellL. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). New York, NY: Harper Collins.
87.
TurnerJ.WarzonK.ChristensenA. (2011). Motivating mathematics learning: Changes in teachers’ practices and beliefs during a nine-month collaboration. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 718–762.
WalkowiakT. (2010). Third grade mathematics instructional quality, mathematical knowledge for teaching, and mathematics teaching self-efficacy: A quantitative and qualitative analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
90.
WalkowiakT. A.BerryR. Q.MeyerJ. P.Rimm-KaufmanS. E.OttmarE. R. (2014). Introducing an observational measure of standards-based mathematics teaching practices: Evidence of validity and score reliability. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 85(1), 109–128.
91.
YackelE.CobbP.WoodT. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 2–33.
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.
