Advertisement

The Inquiry-Oriented Instructional Measure

  • George Kuster
  • Estrella JohnsonEmail author
  • Rachel Rupnow
  • Anne Garrison Wilhelm
Article
  • 76 Downloads

Abstract

Here we report on the development process of the Inquiry Oriented Instructional Measure (IOIM), an instrument for scoring a lesson along seven inquiry-oriented instructional practices. The development of the IOIM was a multi-phase, iterative process that included reviewing K-16 research literature, analyzing videos of classroom instruction, and pilot testing. This process resulted in the identification of instructional practices that support the successful implementation of inquiry-oriented instruction (IOI) at the undergraduate level. These practices, which comprise the IOIM, provide an empirically grounded description of IOI. In addition, the IOIM provides a rubric for evaluating the degree to which an instructor’s classroom instruction is reflective of these practices. As a proof of concept for the IOIM, we present the results of a pilot test – in which data from a large professional development program designed to support undergraduate mathematics instructors in implementing inquiry-oriented instruction was scored using the IOIM.

Keywords

Inquiry-oriented instruction Instructional measure Teaching 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by NSF award numbers #1431595, #1431641, and #1431393. The opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

40753_2019_89_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (391 kb)
ESM 1 (PDF 391 kb)

References

  1. Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational Researcher, 33(8), 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boston, M. D. (2014). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics classrooms through collections of students’ work. In Transforming mathematics instruction (pp. 501–523). Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  3. Boston, M., Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., & Sherman, M. (2015). A comparison of mathematics classroom observation protocols. Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3(2), 154–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brendehur, J., & Frykholm, J. (2000). Promoting mathematical communication in the classroom: Two preservice teachers’ conceptions and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 3, 125–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  7. Cobb, P. (2000). Conducting classroom teaching experiments in collaboration with teachers. In A. Kelly & R. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 307–334). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, B. (1997). Listening for differences: An evolving conception of mathematics teaching. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(3), 355–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eddy, S. L., & Hogan, K. A. (2014). Getting under the hood: How and for whom does increasing course structure work? CBE—Life Sciences Education, 13(3), 453–468.Google Scholar
  10. Engle, R. A., & Conant, F. R. (2002). Guiding principles for fostering productive disciplinary engagement: Explaining an emergent argument in a community of learners classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 20(4), 399–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferrini-Mundy, J., & Güçler, B. (2009). Discipline-based efforts to enhance undergraduate STEM education. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2009(117), 55–67.Google Scholar
  12. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., Okoroafor, N., Jordt, H., & Wenderoth, M. P. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410–8415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Freudenthal H. (1973) Mathematics as an Educational Task, D. Reidel, Dordrecht.Google Scholar
  14. Gravemeijer, K., & Doorman, M. (1999). Cotext problems in realistic mathematics education: A Calculus course as an example. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 39, 111–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gwet, K. L. (2010). Handbook of Inter-Rater Reliability (Second ed.). Gaithersburg: Advanced Analytics, LLC.Google Scholar
  16. Hiebert, J., & Wearne, D. (1993). Instructional tasks, classroom discourse, and students’ learning in second-grade arithmetic. American Educational Research Journal, 30(2), 393–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hill, H. C., Blunk, M. L., Charalambous, C. Y., Lewis, J. M., Phelps, G. C., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hufferd-Ackles, K., Fuson, K. C., & Sherin, M. G. (2004). Describing levels and components of a math-talk learning community. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 81–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jackson, K., Garrison, A., Wilson, J., Gibbons, L., & Shahan, E. (2013). Exploring relationships between setting up complex tasks and opportunities to learn in concluding whole-class discussions in middle-grades mathematics instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44(4), 646–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson, E. (2013). Teachers’ mathematical activity in inquiry-oriented instruction. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 761–775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johnson, E. M., & Larsen, S. P. (2012). Teacher listening: The role of knowledge of content and students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 31(1), 117–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnson, E., Andrews-Larson, C., Keene, K., Melhuish, K., Keller, R., & Fortune, N. (in press). Inquiry and inequity in the undergradaute mathematics classroom. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.Google Scholar
  23. Kogan, M., & Laursen, S. L. (2014). Assessing long-term effects of inquiry-based learning: A case study from college mathematics. Innovative Higher Education, 39(3), 183–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kuster, G., Johnson, E., Keene, K., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2017). Inquiry-oriented instruction: A conceptualization of the instructional principles. PRIMUS, 28(1), 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Larsen, S., & Zandieh, M. (2008). Proofs and refutations in the undergraduate mathematics classroom. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(3), 205–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Larsen, S., Johnson, E., & Weber, K. (Eds.). (2013). The teaching abstract algebra for understanding project: Designing and scaling up a curriculum innovation. Special Issue of the Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 691–790.Google Scholar
  28. Laursen, S.L. & Rasmussen, C. (2019). More than Meets the I: Inquiry Approaches in Undergraduate Mathematics. Proceedings of the Twenty-second Special Interest Group of the Mathematical Association of America on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education Conference on Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education. Oklahoma City, OK.Google Scholar
  29. Laursen, S. L., Hassi, M. L., Kogan, M., & Weston, T. J. (2014). Benefits for women and men of inquiry-based learning in college mathematics: A multi-institution study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 45(4), 406–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Leatham, K. R., Peterson, B. E., Stockero, S. L., & Van Zoest, L. R. (2015). Conceptualizing mathematically significant pedagogical opportunities to build on student thinking. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 46(1), 88–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lesh, R., & Lehrer, R. (2000). Iterative refinement cycles for videotape analyses of conceptual change. In Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 665–708).Google Scholar
  32. Lewis, C., Perry, R., & Murata, A. (2006). How should research contribute to instructional improvement? The case of lesson study. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lockwood, E., Johnson, E., & Larsen, S. (2013). Developing instructor support materials for an inquiry-oriented curriculum. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(4), 776–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rasmussen, C., & Blumenfeld, H. (2007). Reinventing solutions to systems of linear differential equations: A case of emergent models involving analytic expressions. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(3), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rasmussen, C., & Kwon, O. N. (2007). An inquiry-oriented approach to undergraduate mathematics. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(3), 189–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rasmussen, C., & Marrongelle, K. (2006). Pedagogical content tools: Integrating student reasoning and mathematics in instruction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 388–420.Google Scholar
  37. Rasmussen, Keene, Dunmyre & Fortune (2017) Inquiry-oriented Differential Equations. https://iode.wordpress.ncsu.edu/. Accessed 04 Arp 2019.
  38. Rupnow, R., LaCroix, T., & Mullins, B. (2018). Building lasting relationships: Inquiry-oriented instructional measure practices. In A. Weinberg, C. Rasmussen, J. Rabin, M. Wawro, & S. Brown (Eds.), Proceedings of the 21st annual conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education conference on research in undergraduate mathematics education (pp. 1306–1311). San Diego.Google Scholar
  39. Sawada, D., Piburn, M. D., Judson, E., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2002). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics, 102(6), 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  41. Smith, M. S., & Stein, M. K. (2011). 5 Practices for Orchestrating Productive Mathematics Discussions. Reston: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
  42. Speer, N. M., & Wagner, J. F. (2009). Knowledge needed by a teacher to provide analytic scaffolding during undergraduate mathematics classroom discussions. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 530–562.Google Scholar
  43. Stein, M. K., Engle, R. A., Smith, M. S., & Hughes, E. K. (2008). Orchestrating productive mathematical discussions: Five practices for helping teachers move beyond show and tell. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 10(4), 313–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Stephan, M., & Rasmussen, C. (2002). Classroom mathematical practices in differential equations. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 21(4), 459–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tabach, M., Hershkowitz, R., Rasmussen, C., & Dreyfus, T. (2014). Knowledge shifts and knowledge agents in the classroom. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 33, 192–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wagner, J. F., Speer, N. M., & Rossa, B. (2007). Beyond mathematical content knowledge: A mathematician's knowledge needed for teaching an inquiry-oriented differential equations course. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 26(3), 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wawro, M. (2015). Reasoning about solutions in linear algebra: The case of Abraham and the invertible matrix theorem. International Journal of Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, 1(3), 315–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wawro, M., Zandieh, M., Rasmussen, C., & Andrews-Larson, C. (2017). The inquiry-oriented linear algebra project. http://iola.math.vt.edu. Accessed 04 Arp 2019.Google Scholar
  49. Wilhelm, A. G., Gillespie Rouse, A., & Jones, F. (2018). Exploring differences in measurement and reporting of classroom observation inter-rater reliability. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 23(4).Google Scholar
  50. Yackel, E., Stephan, M., Rasmusen, C., & Underwood, D. (2003). Didactising: Continuing the work of Leen Streefland. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 54, 101–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • George Kuster
    • 1
  • Estrella Johnson
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rachel Rupnow
    • 2
  • Anne Garrison Wilhelm
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of MathematicsChristopher Newport UniversityNewport NewsUSA
  2. 2.Department of MathematicsVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA
  3. 3.School of EducationSouthern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations