ACALETICS ® and Predicting Mathematics Achievement With Racially Diverse and Economically Disadvantaged Students

Abstract

Math programming that includes assessments to predict standardized mathematics scores can help evaluate student performance and growth during the academic year. ACALETICS^® is a highly interactive, culturally inclusive mathematics program that utilizes posttests as continuous comprehensive assessments to evaluate student mathematical knowledge. ACALETICS^® also seeks to mitigate demographic student factors that may influence outcomes. However, the ACALETICS^® posttest has not been examined to determine if it is predictive of standardized mathematics scores. The purpose of this research is to explore how much variance is accounted for by the ACALETICS^® posttest scores with the Florida Standards Assessment Mathematics test scores among 427 racially diverse and economically disadvantaged urban elementary school students after controlling for gender, grade level, and race. Findings indicated that the ACALETICS^® posttest significantly explained variance in standardized mathematics scores among a diverse sample and can be used as a tool to monitor and predict mathematics outcomes.

Keywords

math assessment standardized tests culturally inclusive

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

ACALETICS. (2020). ACALETICS^® mathematics program. http://www.acaletics2.com

Aftab

Tariq

Aftab

(2018). Continuous assessment as a good motivational tool in medical education. Acta Medica Academica, 47(1), 76–81. https://doi.org/10.5644/ama2006-124.216

Anthony

Hunter

(2017). Grouping practices in New Zealand mathematics classrooms: Where are we at and where should we be? New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 52(1), 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40841-016-0054-z

Battey

Franke

(2015). Integrating professional development on mathematics and equity: Countering deficit views of students of color. Education and Urban Society, 47(4), 433–462. https://doi.org.10.1177/0013124513497788

Biccard

(2018). Primary school mathematics teacher reflection through a modelling-based professional development programme. Africa Education Review, 15(2), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/18146627.2016.1241672

Blums

Belsky

Grimm

Chen

(2017). Building links between early socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, and math and science achievement. Journal of Cognition and Development, 18(1), 16–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248372.2016.1228652

Boyd

(1996). The principal as teacher: A model for instructional leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 80(580), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/019263659608058009

Burris

C. C.

Heubert

J. P.

Levin

H. M.

(2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using heterogeneous grouping. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 137–154. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312043001105

Claessens

Engel

(2013). How important is where you start? Early mathematics knowledge and later school success. Teachers College Record, 115(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811311500603

10.

Crabtree

Richardson

S. C.

Lewis

(2019). The gifted gap, STEM education, and economic immobility. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19829749

11.

Cvencek

Meltzoff

Greenwald

Cvencek

(2011). Math-gender stereotypes in elementary school children. Child Development, 82(3), 766–779. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01529.x

12.

Dalton

(1990). Adventures in thinking: Creative thinking and cooperative talk in small groups. Thomas Nelson.

13.

Damodar

Lingaraj

S., & C, S.

(2009). Performance-based stratified grouping to enhance peer learning. Medical Education, 43(11), 1092–1093. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03481.x

14.

Duncan

G. J.

Magnuson

R. J.

(2011). The nature and impact of early achievement skills, attention skills, and behavior problems. In Duncan

G. J.

Murnane

R. J.

(Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 47–69). Russell Sage Foundation.

15.

Ediger

(2009). The principal in the teaching and learning process. Education, 129(4), 574–579. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A201209721/AONE?u=anon~f219998f&sid=googleScholar&xid=944cc93aFlorida

16.

Florida Department of Education. (2020). Florida standards assessments. http://www.fldoe.org/accountability/assessments/k-12-student-assessment/fsa.stml

17.

Fox

Gong

Attoh

(2015). The impact of principal as authentic leader on teacher trust in the K-12 educational context. Journal of Leadership Studies, 8(4), 6–18. https://doi.org/10.1002/jls.21341

18.

Galindo

Sonnenschein

(2015). Decreasing the SES math achievement gap: Initial math proficiency and home learning environments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 43, 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.08.003

19.

Gelman

Hill

(2007). Data analysis using regression analysis and multilevel/hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press.

20.

Grouws

Cooney

(1988). Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

21.

Hancock

S. D.

Pass

M. B.

(2020). Strengthening STEM identities: Combatting curriculum trauma in African American students. In Tyler

Hancock

S. D.

Richardson

S. C.

(Eds.), Seeing the hidden minority: Increasing the talent pool through identity, socialization, and mentoring constructs (pp. 121–132). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

22.

Hernández

(2012). Does continuous assessment in higher education support student learning? Higher Education, 64(4), 489–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10734-012-9506-7

23.

Humphrey

Wechsler

Hough

(2008). Characteristics of effective alternative teacher certification programs. The Teachers College Record, 110(1), 1–63.

24.

Jaeger

(2013). Teacher reflection: Supports, barriers, and results. Issues in Teacher Education, 22(1), 89–104.

25.

Kelly

A. M.

Gninque

S. M.

Qian

(2015). First-year urban mathematics and science middle school teachers: Classroom challenges and reflective solutions. Education and Urban Society, 47(2), 132–159. https://doi.org.10.1177/0013124513489147

26.

Kurt

(2018). Instructional Practices that Motivate Students to Learn English. Journal of Education and Future, 14, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.30786/jef.408616

27.

Leonard

Brooks

Barnes-Johnson

Berry

(2010). The nuances and complexities of teaching mathematics for cultural relevance and social justice. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(3), 261–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109359927

28.

Lindberg

S. M.

Hyde

J. S.

Petersen

J. L.

Linn

M. C.

(2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276

29.

Marcos

Sanchez

Tillema

(2011). Promoting teacher reflection: What is said to be done. Journal of Education for Teaching, 37(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607476.2011.538269

30.

Martinez

Guzman

(2013). Gender and racial/ethnic differences in self-reported levels of engagement in high school math and science courses. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 35(3), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739986313495495

31.

Milner

H. R.

(2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47(3), 556–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085912447516

32.

National Assessment of Education Progress. (2019). Mathematics. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/

33.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2020). Mathematics performance. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cnc.asp

34.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.

35.

Nebesniak

Heaton

(2010). Student confidence and student involvement. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 16(2), 96–103. https://doi.org/10.5951/MTMS.16.2.0096

36.

Newton

Wallin

(2013). The teaching principal: An untenable position or a promising model? Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 59(1), 55–71. https://doi.org/10.11575/ajer.v59i1.55675

37.

Pearman

F. A.

(2019). The moderating effect of neighborhood poverty on preschool effectiveness: Evidence from the Tennessee voluntary prekindergarten experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 57(3), 1323–1357. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219872977

38.

Richardson

S. C.

Crabtree

L., M.

(2020). Strategies for using critical systems theory to support socialization of undergraduate African American students in STEM. In Tyler

Hancock

Richardson

S. C.

(Eds.), Seeing the hidden minority: Increasing the talent pool through identity, socialization, and mentoring constructs (pp. 17–38). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

39.

Robinson

J. P.

Lubienski

S. T.

(2011). The development of gender achievement gaps in mathematics and reading during elementary and middle school: Examining direct cognitive assessments and teacher ratings. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 268–302. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831210372249

40.

Rosen

Beck-Hill

(2012). Intertwining digital content and a one-to-one laptop environment in teaching and learning: Lessons from the time to know program. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 44(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2012.10782588

41.

Sharma

(2015). Promoting risk taking in mathematics classrooms: The importance of creating a safe learning environment. The Mathematics Enthusiast, 12(1), 290–306. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/tme/vol12/iss1/24

42.

Spielhagen

(2013). Disrupting inequity: How policy change can foster STEM access for underserved students (K-12). In Capraro

Capraro

Lewis

(Eds.), Improving urban schools equity and access in K-12 STEM education for all students (pp. 67–83). Information Age Publishing.

43.

Yuni

Darhim Turmudi . (2018). The attitude of risk taking Islamic junior high school (MTs) students in learning mathematics. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1013(1), 012113. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1013/1/012113

44.

Zhao

Zhang

Alterman

Zhang

(2018). Can math-gender stereotypes be reduced? A theory-based intervention program with adolescent girls. Current Psychology, 37(3), 612–624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9543-y