A validation process for observation protocols: Using the Revised SMPs Look-for Protocol as a lens on teachers’ promotion of the standards

References

• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Artino, Jr., A., La Rochelle, J., Dezee, K., & Gehlbach, H. (2014). Developing questionnaires for educational research: AMEE guide no 87. Medical Teacher, 36, 463–474. doi:10.3109/0142159X.2014.889814
   Google Scholar
• Bostic, J. (2015). A blizzard of a value. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 20, 350– 357.
   Google Scholar
• Bostic, J., & Matney, G. (2014). Role-playing the Standards for Mathematical Practice: A Professional Development Tool. Journal for Mathematics Education Leadership, 15(2), 3–10.
   Google Scholar
• Bostic, J., & Matney, G. (2016). Leveraging modeling with mathematics-focused instruction to promote other standards for mathematical practice. Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 17(2), 21–33.
   Google Scholar
• Boston, M., Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., Sherman, M. (2015). Classroom Observation tools to support the work of mathematics teacher educators. Invited manuscript for Mathematics Teacher Educator, 3, 154–175.
   Google Scholar
• Bostic, J., & Sondergeld, T. (2015). Measuring sixth-grade students’ problem solving: Validating an instrument addressing the mathematics Common Core. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 115, 281–291.
   Google Scholar
• Boston, M. D., & Wolf, M. K. (2006). Assessing academic rigor in mathematics instruction: The development of instructional quality assessment toolkit (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 672). Los Angeles, CA: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST).
   Google Scholar
• Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for Best Practices and Council of Chief State School Officers.
   Google Scholar
• Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2006). Introduction to classical and modern test theory (2nd ed.). Mason, OH: Wadsworth.
   Google Scholar
• Fennell, F., Kobett, E., & Wray, J. (2013, February). Using look fors to consider the Common Core content standards. Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Orlando, FL.
   Google Scholar
• Franklin, C., Kader, G., Mewborn, D., Moreno, J., Peck, R., Perry, M., & Scheaffer, R. (2007). Guidelines for assessment and instruction in statistics education report: A preK-12 framework. Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
   Google Scholar
• Gall, M., Gall, J., & Borg, W. (2007). Educational research: An introduction (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967 /2012). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason, J., & Cofer, L. D. (2014). Mathematics classroom observation protocol for practices results in undergraduate mathematics classrooms. In T. Fukawa-Connelly, G. Karakok, K. Keene, & M. Zandieh (Eds.), Proceedings of the 17th Annual Conference on Research on Undergraduate Mathematics Education (pp. 93–103). Denver, CO.
   Google Scholar
• Gleason, J., Livers, S., & Zelkowski, J. (2017) Mathematics Classroom Observation Protocol for Practices (MCOP2): A validation study, Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 9(3), 111–129.
   Google Scholar
• Hatch, A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
   Google Scholar
• 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, 430–511. doi:10.1080/07370000802177235
   Google Scholar
• James, L., Demaree, R., & Wolf, G. (1993). Rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306–309. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.306
   Google Scholar
• Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2012). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high-quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains (MET Project research paper, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation). Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540962.pdf, Retrieved May 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Kanold, T., & Larson, M. (2012). Common Core mathematics in a PLC at work: Leader’s guide. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
   Google Scholar
• Koestler, C., Felton, M. D., Bieda, K. N., & Otten, S. (2013). Connecting the NCTM Process Standards and the CCSSM Practices. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Lesseig, K., Bostic, J., Sherman, M., & Boston, M. (2017, April). Classroom observation protocols: Choose your own tool. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics research conference. San Antonio, TX.
   Google Scholar
• Matsumura, L. C., Garnier, H., Slater, S. C., & Boston, M. D. (2008). Toward measuring instructional interactions “at-scale.” Educational Assessment, 13, 267–300. doi:10.1080/10627190802602541
   Google Scholar
• National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematical success for all. Reston, VA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Ohio Department of Education. (2013). Typology of school districts. Retrieved from http://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Data/Frequently-Requested-Data/Typology-of-Ohio-School-Districts, retrieved June 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Sawada, D., Piburn, M., Turley, J., Falconer, K., Benford, R., & Bloom, I. (2000). Measuring reform practices in science and mathematics classrooms: The reformed teaching observation protocol. School Science and Mathematics Journal, 102, 245–253. doi:10.1111/j.1949-8594.2002.tb17883.x
   Google Scholar
• Smith, M., Jones, F., Gilbert, S., & Wieman, C. (2013). The classroom observation protocol for undergraduate STEM (COPUS): A new instrument to characterize university STEM classroom practices. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 12, 618–627. doi:10.1187/cbe.13-08-0154
   Google Scholar
• Sherman, M., Bostic, J., Lesseig, K., & Boston, M. (2014, February). A comparison of commonly used mathematics classroom observation protocols. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. Irvine, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. doi:10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
   Google Scholar
• Ziebarth, S., Fonger, N., & Kratky, J. (2014). Instruments for studying the enacted mathematics curriculum. In D. Thompson & Z. Usiskin (Eds.), Enacted mathematics curriculum: A conceptual framework and needs (pp. 97–120). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
   Google Scholar