The Uses of the Classroom Observation Schedule to Improve Classroom Instruction

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511616419.004

4 - The Uses of the Classroom Observation Schedule to Improve Classroom Instruction

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 November 2009

Hersh C. Waxman and

Edited by

Roland G. Tharp and

Hersh C. Waxman: Affiliation:
Professor of Educational Leadership and Cultural Studies in the College of Education, University of Houston; Principal Researcher in the U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Research on Education, Diversity, and Excellence; Principal Investigator in the U.S. Department of Education, National Laboratory for Student Success, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Educational Laboratory
Yolanda N. Padrón: Affiliation:
College of Education, University of Houston
Hersh C. Waxman: Affiliation:
University of Houston
Roland G. Tharp: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz
R. Soleste Hilberg: Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Cruz

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Systematic classroom observation methods have been widely used in the past several decades to investigate effective teaching practices (Brophy & Good, 1986; Stallings & Mohlman, 1988; Waxman, 1995; Waxman & Huang, 1999). One of the most important uses of the method has been to determine which teaching practices improve student learning (Waxman & Huang, 1999). Most classroom observation instruments typically focus on the teacher as the unit of measurement or observation, and thus they describe a variety of instructional behaviors in which teachers engage. There are limitations, however, with teacher-based classroom observation instruments. First, teacher-focused instruments suggest that teaching practices directly impact student outcomes, without acknowledging that student behaviors impact teacher behaviors as well. Another concern with teacher-focused observation systems is that they often ignore student behaviors that have a greater impact on student outcomes than teacher behaviors.

Another limitation of teacher-based observation instruments is that they generally do not allow researchers to examine individual student behaviors, particularly differences by critical attributes such as student sex, ethnicity, or grouping classification (e.g., gifted/nongifted, resilient/nonresilient, monolingual/bilingual). A final concern with teacher-centered observation systems is that they are often very threatening to classroom teachers. Many teachers are reluctant to volunteer to participate in classroom observation research because they know the focus of attention is on the teachers and their instructional practices.

This chapter describes the uses of a systematic classroom observation instrument, the Classroom Observation Schedule (COS), that was designed to address some of the previous concerns of classroom observation by specifically focusing on individual students rather than the teacher (Waxman, Wang, Lindvall, & Anderson, 1990a, 1990b).

Type: Chapter
Information: Observational Research in U.S. Classrooms
New Approaches for Understanding Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
, pp. 72 - 96

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511616419.004 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, L. W. (1987). The classroom environment study: Teaching for learning. Comparative Education Review, 31(1), 69–87CrossRef Google Scholar

Brophy, J. E. (1979). Using observation to improve your teaching (Occasional Paper No. 21). East Lansing: Institute for Research on Teaching, Michigan State University

Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan

Doyle, W. (1977). Paradigms for research on teacher effectiveness. In L. S. Shulman (Ed.), Review of research in education (Vol. 5, pp. 163–198). Itasca, IL: Peacock

Doyle, W. (1979). Making managerial decisions in classrooms. In D. L. Duke (Ed.), Classroom management (pp. 42–74). Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education

Evertson, C., & Green, J. L. (1986). Observation as inquiry and method. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 162–207). New York: Macmillan

Fraser, B. J., Anderson, G. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1982). Assessment of learning environments: Manual for Learning Environment Inventory (LEI) and My Class Inventory (MCI) (3rd ed.). Perth: Western Australian Institute of Technology

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (2000). Looking in classrooms (8th ed.). New York: Longman

Johnson, D. W. (1974). Affective outcomes. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Evaluating educational performance (pp. 99–112). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan

Nuthall, G., & Alton-Lee, A. (1990). Research on teaching and learning: Thirty years of change. The Elementary School Journal, 90, 546–570CrossRef Google Scholar

Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (1999). Classroom observations of the Five Standards of Effective Teaching in urban classrooms with English language learners. Teaching and Change, 7(1), 79–100Google Scholar

Padrón, Y. N., Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1999). Classroom and instructional learning environment differences between resilient and non-resilient elementary school students. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk of Failure, 4(1), 63–81Google Scholar

Schunk, D. H. (1992). Theory and research on student perceptions in the classroom. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 3–23). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

Stallings, J. A., & Mohlman, G. G. (1988). Classroom observation techniques. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational research, methodology, and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 469–474). Oxford: Pergamon Press

Stallings, J. A., Needles, M. C., & Sparks. (1987). Observation for the improvement of student learning. In D. C. Berliner & B. V. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 129–158). New York: Random House

Tharp, R. G. (1997). From at-risk to excellence: Research, theory, and principles for practice (Research Report No. 1). Santa Cruz: Center for Research on Education, Diversity & Excellence, University of California

Walberg, H. J. (1986). Synthesis of research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 214–229). New York: Macmillan

Waxman, H. C. (1995). Classroom observations of effective teaching. In A. C. Ornstein (Ed.), Teaching: Theory into practice (pp. 76–93). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon

Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L.(1996). Classroom instruction differences by level of technology use in middle school mathematics. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 14, 147–159CrossRef Google Scholar

Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L.(1997). Classroom instruction and learning environment differences between effective and ineffective urban elementary schools for African American students. Urban Education, 32, 7–44CrossRef Google Scholar

Waxman, H. C., & Huang, S. L. (1999). Classroom observation research and the improvement of teaching. In H. C. Waxman & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), New directions for teaching practice and research (pp. 107–129). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan

Waxman, H. C., Huang, S. L., Anderson, L. W., & Weinstein, T. (1997). Classroom process differences in inner-city elementary schools. Journal of Educational Research, 91, 49–59CrossRef Google Scholar

Waxman, H. C., Huang, S. L., & Padrón, Y. N. (1995). Investigating the pedagogy of poverty in inner-city middle level schools. Research in Middle Level Education, 18(2), 1–22CrossRef Google Scholar

Waxman, H. C., Wang, M. C., Lindvall, C. M., & Anderson, K. A. (1990a). Classroom Observation Schedule technical manual (rev. ed.). Philadelphia: Center for Research in Human Development and Education, Temple University

Waxman, H. C., Wang, M. C., Lindvall, C. M., & Anderson, K. A. (1990b). Teacher Roles Observational Schedule technical manual (rev. ed.). Philadelphia: Temple University, Center for Research in Human Development and Education

Weinstein, R. S. (1989). Perceptions of classroom processes and student motivation: Children's views of self-fulfilling prophecies. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 187–221). San Diego, CA: Academic Press

Winne, P. H. (1985). Steps toward promoting cognitive achievements. The Elementary School Journal, 85, 673–693CrossRef Google Scholar

Book contents

4 - The Uses of the Classroom Observation Schedule to Improve Classroom Instruction

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive