In this study, we consider the implications of using mathematics-specific observation frameworks versus a synthesized list of indicators when measuring teaching quality. We compare how three mathematics-focused observation frameworks measure teaching quality across three focal lessons and consider the merits of using a synthesized list of indicators such as those presented in the MAIN-TEACH model. We find that the mathematics-specific frameworks: identify similar constructs, but assess them differently; reach similar conclusions regarding overall instructional quality, but for different reasons; and do not capture aspects of instruction that are not mathematics-specific. A synthesized framework could provide a broader set of indicators, promote a common vision of high-quality instruction, and provide a common basis for looking across studies. However, a synthesized framework may remove nuances that allow researchers to capture distinct constructs (or important differences in similar constructs), specifically at a grain size useful for instructional improvement. We also consider methodological concerns raised by the use of a synthesized framework.

在这项研究中，我们考虑在测量教学质量时使用特定于数学的观察框架与综合指标列表的含义。我们比较了三个以数学为中心的观察框架在三个重点课程中如何衡量教学质量，并考虑了使用综合指标列表（如在MAIN-TEACH模型中显示的指标）的优点。我们发现特定于数学的框架：识别相似的构造，但是对它们进行不同的评估；在总体教学质量上得出相似的结论，但原因不同；并且不会捕获非数学特定的教学方面。综合的框架可以提供更广泛的指标集，促进高质量教学的共识，并为跨学科研究提供共同的基础。但是，合成的框架可能会消除细微差别，使研究人员可以捕获不同的构造（或相似构造中的重要差异），特别是在对教学改进有用的粒度上。我们还考虑了使用综合框架引起的方法论问题。