miao & reynolds_bera 2014_the effectiveness of mathematics teaching project_report 3.1

A comparative study on the effectiveness of

mathematics teaching in England & China

EMT

Zhenzhen Miao & David Reynolds Z.Miao@soton.ac.uk D.Reynolds@soton.ac.uk

Learning outcomes

PISA (OECD, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2012)

TIMSS (Mullis et al., 1997, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 )

IAEP (Lapointe et al., 1989, Lapointe, et al., 1992)

WHY? Schools?

SIMS (Robitaille & Garden, 1989)

FIMS (Husén, 1967)

PISA 2009 PISA 2012

613600494492

2628 1 1

UK Shanghai

Teacher effects

School effects

Scheerens et al. (1989)

Hill & Rowe (1995)

Williams (2000)

Hattie (2003)

Reynolds & Teddlie (2000)

Scheerens & Bosker (1997)

Effective teacher behaviours identified

active whole-class

teaching

(Good & Grouws, 1979; Muijs &

Reynolds,

pupil more time on

task

(Fisher et al., 1980; Kyriakids, 2008)

proper teacher

questioning

(Kyriakids & Creemers, 2008)

lesson clarity

(Seidel & Shavelson, 2007)

and so on

a need of cross-national TER studies to tap the full range of variation

a necessity of sufficient focus on the teaching of SPECIFIC SUBJECTS, e.g. maths

a lack of multiple VOICES (QUAL) being heard and connected with NUMBERS (QUAN)

BUT, there is

Teacher behaviours

Structured lesson observation

Learning outcomes

Standardised maths test

from

Teachers

Questionnaire Interview

from

Foreigncolleagues

Focus group

from

Native colleagues

Focus group

from

theResearcher

Unstructured lesson observation

Quantitative Measurement Multiple Perspectives

Links between QM & MP

Teacher behaviours

Structured lesson observation

Academic performance

Standardised maths test

Correlating

Sampling

Average strataInternational equivalents

SOTON, EN

NANJING, CN

SES

performance

Year 5 in England & Grade 4 in China (pupils aged 9-10)

TEACHERS PUPILS (t1) PUPILS (t2)

CN 9 250 326

EN 10 231 236

TOTAL 19 481 562

The Sample

Teacher behaviours

Structured lesson observation

Instruments

OBSERVATION INSTRUMENT 1

Opportunity to learn (OTL)

(Reynolds et al. 2002)

Whole-class interaction

Whole-class lecture

Individual/group work

Classroom management

Partial-class interaction

Pupil time on task

%

OBSERVATIONINSTRUMENT 2

International System for Teacher Observation and

Feedback (ISTOF)

(Teddlie et al. 2006)

Assessment & evaluation

Clarity of Instruction

Instructional Skills

Promoting active learning &

developing metacognitive skills

Classroom Climate

Classroom Management

1 (Strongly Disagree) 5 (Strongly Agree)

Teacher behaviours

Structured lesson observation

Results

OTL EN MEAN (SD) CN MEAN (SD)

Whole-class interaction

23.8% (11.6%) 72.2% (9.3%)

Whole-class lecture

3.8% (3.2%) 0

Individual or group work

46.6% (23.9%) 27.8% (9.3%)

Classroom management

3.5% (2.4%) 0

Partial class interaction

22.3% (25.4%) 0

Pupil time on task

92.8% (4.8%) 99.7% (0.7%)

***

***

**

*

*

***

***

*** Whole-class interaction

** Whole-class lecture

* Individual/group work

*** Classroom management

* Partial-class interaction

*** Pupil time on task 99.7%

0%

0%

27.8%

0%

72.2%

92.8%

22.3%

3.5%

46.6%

3.8%

23.8%

ENCN OTL

ISTOF EN MEAN (SD) CN MEAN (SD)

Assessment & evaluation

12.8 (2.3) 19.4 (1)

Clarity of Instruction

16.4 (4.4) 27.9 (1.7)

Instructional skills

11.4 (5.1) 23.2 (1.7)

Promoting AL & developing MS

21.7 (6.9) 47.3 (2.9)

Classroom climate

22.8 (6) 38.8 (1.1)

Classroom management

18.1 (6.4) 34.2 (1.7)

***

***

***AL:Active learning MS: metacognitive skills

***

***

***

AL = Active learning MS = metacognitive skills

*** Assessment & evaluation

*** Clarity of instruction

*** Instructional skills

*** Promoting AL & MS

*** Classroom climate

*** Classroom management 34.2

38.8

47.3

23.2

27.9

19.4

18.1

22.8

21.7

11.4

16.4

12.8

ENCN ISTOF

Academic performance

Standardised maths test

Instrument

LEARNING OUTCOME 1

40 TIMSS 2003 items

from IEA (2007)

10%15%

20%15%

40%

NumberPatterns & RelationshipMeasurementGeometryData

TIMSS 2003 Framework for the 4th GradeContent Domains (maths)

Martin et al. (2004, p.29)

20%

40%20%

20%

Knowing Facts and ProceduresUsing ConceptsSolving Routine ProblemsReasoning

TIMSS 2003 Framework for the 4th GradeCognitive Domains (maths)

Martin et al. (2004, p.29)

Academic performance

Standardised maths test

Results

Nation MEAN SD

EN 56.2 20.6

CN 82.5 9.7

Test 1

t=-17.7 df= 320.6 p=0.000<0.001 d=1.74 (strong)

Nation MEAN SD

EN 65.9 19

CN 86.7 9.8

Test 2

t=-15.4 df= 325.4 p=0.000<0.001 d=1.44 (strong)

Ceiling Effect

top 40%

80-84 85-89 90-94 95-99 100

0.2%

5.6%

11.2%

14.7%

11%

0%

2.6%2.6%

5.6%

2.6%

EN CN

Test 1

86.3-89 90-94 95-99 100

4.1%

11.9%

16.1%

8.2%

0%

2.5%

7.1%

3.3%

EN CN

Test 2

42.7%

13.4%

40.3%

12.9%

EN CN

Test 1 Test 2

80-100 86.3-10086.3-97.580-97.5

POOLED TOP 40%

Teacher behaviours

Structured lesson observation

Academic performance

Standardised maths test

Results

Test 1 Test 2

0.910.95

&0.58&0.62 &0.68&0.77 &0.75&0.81 &0.92&0.91

0.910.97

Pearson correlation coefficients (OTL)

Whole-class interaction Whole-class lectureIndividual/group work Classroom managementPartial-class interaction Pupil time on task

Test 1 Test 2

0.900.94 0.940.97 0.930.990.89

0.97 0.910.970.90

0.97

Assessment & evaluation Clarity of instructionInstruction skills Promoting AL & Developing MSClassroom climate Classroom management

Pearson correlation coefficients (ISTOF)

* AL:Active learning MS: metacognitive skills

*

Conclusion

It replicated findings from previous TER studies

It pointed out possible ways to improve maths

teaching within and across countries

Large-scale studies are needed for generalisation

Thanks for listening

Q & A