Upload
zhenzhen-miao
View
151
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
A comparative study on the effectiveness of
mathematics teaching in England & China
EMT
Zhenzhen Miao & David Reynolds [email protected] [email protected]
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