Measuring Reform Practices in Science and Mathematics Classrooms: The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The National Science Foundation has funded 22 Collaboratives for Excellence in Teacher Preparation. Despite the remarkable allocation of resources to this effort, it has proven exceptionally difficult to demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative reform. In large part, this has resulted because of the difficulty of defining and measuring reform. The Reformed Teaching Observation Protocol (RTOP) was designed by the Evaluation Facilitation Group of the Arizona Collaborative for Excellence in the Preparation of Teachers (ACEPT). It is a 25‐item classroom observation protocol that is (a) standards based, (b) inquiry oriented, and (c) student centered. This instrument has provided the definition for reform and the basis for evaluation of the ACEPT collaborative. The data upon which this report is based were collected over a period of more than 2 years from 153 public school, college, and university mathematics and science classrooms. A trained team of observers consisting of two faculty members and seven graduate students was able to achieve exceptionally high levels of interrater reliability. Internal consistency, as estimated by Cronbach's alpha, was also remarkably high. Correlation coefficients ranging from 0.88 to 0.97 between RTOP scores for classrooms, and mean normalized gain scores for students in those classrooms on achievement measures demonstrate that reform, as defined by ACEPT and measured by the RTOP, has been effective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.035 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".