Because this observation protocol is designed to observe classroom culture, the primary theoretical lenses through which we viewed the classes we observed is sociocultural. These perspectives provide tools for observing and interpreting how students use external resources such as classmates and calculators.
Vygotsky (1978) provides the idea of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is often used to justify collaborative approaches in classrooms. The theory is that a student can solve a larger set of problems in collaboration than they can independently. Vygotsky (in translation) defines the Zone of Proximal Development as “The distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86).
Vygotsky had a much larger learning theory about how work in the ZPD eventually becomes internalized so that the student can work a larger set of problems independently, but the larger theory of internalization is not relevant to this project. Instead, if we take as fact that students can solve a larger set of problems in collaboration than independently, then the ZPD defines our area of study. When a student working independently reaches a point in a problem that they cannot solve on their own, they must turn to another for help. The purpose of the COSI observation protocol is to record what the student chooses to do in these circumstances: Do they turn to a peer or to the teacher?
A classmate might not be the only resource available. The theory of distributed cognition or distributed intelligence (Pea, 1997) extends the ZPD to include interactions with artifacts in addition to interactions with other people. Artifacts in distributed intelligence is quite broadly defined to include tools such as calculators, but also symbolic representations such as pictures and text. Choice of artifact can greatly impact the types of problems that students can solve. The observation protocol both tracks and distinguishes between different sources of help: the teacher, another student, or an object (artifact) such as a calculator or notes.
Design of observation protocols
In our review of literature, observation protocols fell into two primary categories. Observation protocols in mathematics education tend to observe the class as a whole, and rate the teacher and or class in various dimensions using a Likert scale (Boston et al., 2015; Judson, 2013). Observation protocols in science education tend toward a different format of counting observable student or teacher behaviors and tracking those behaviors in time (Erdogan et al., 2010; Smith et al., 2015). Forbes et al. (2013) took a hybrid approach of rating observable student behaviors on a Likert scale.
For the development of our protocol, we decided to choose a more science education based approach of recording and tracking observable student and teacher behaviors in time. This is due in part to the narrow focus of the protocol question. Having a narrow focus allows us to track only a few behaviors, and tracking these behaviors in time gives better resolution into the particular structure of a class.
Depth of knowledge
When measuring for depth of knowledge (DOK), the cohort employed the Cognitive Rigor Matrix (Hess, 2009). In brief, the DOK levels can be described as follows:
| Level 1 | Recall and Reproduction | Recall of a fact, term, principle, concept; perform a routine procedure; locate details |
| Level 2 | Skills and Concepts
|
Use of information; conceptual knowledge; select appropriate procedures for a given task; two or more steps with decision points along the way; routine problems; organize/display data; interpret/use simple graphs; summarize; identify main idea; explain relationships; make predictions |
| Level 3 | Short-term Strategic Thinking | Requires reasoning, or developing a plan or sequence of steps to approach problem; requires decision making or justification; abstract, complex, or non-routine; often more than one possible answer; support solutions or judgments with text evidence |
| Level 4 | Extended Thinking | An investigation or application to real world; requires time to research, problem solve, and process multiple conditions of the problem or task; non-routine manipulations; synthesize information across disciplines/content areas/multiple sources |
| Adapted from the Cognitive Rigor Matrix (Hess, 2009) | ||
