Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Students’ understanding and proficiency with rational number concepts and operations is considered a key foundational skill for future success in algebra. As middle school students work with these concepts, teachers need timely data to determine whether students are making adequate progress. The purpose of this article is to document the content specifications and technical adequacy data of three experimental measures for Grades 6 to 8 that are intended to provide teachers with ongoing information about students’ development of algebra-readiness concepts and skills. Three experimental measures were administered to a total of 575 students in Grades 6 to 8 in two states. Results from a systematic content review indicate that the content assesses key algebra-readiness concepts and skills. Pilot study results suggest that the measures may provide teachers with technically adequate data.

Keywords

curriculum-based measurement math middle school

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelman

(1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Anderson

Lai

Alonzo

Tindal

(2011). Examining a grade-level math CBM designed for persistently low-performing students. Educational Assessment, 16, 15–34. doi:10.1080/10627197.2011.551084

Bolt

D. M.

Cohen

A. S.

Wollack

J. A.

(2002). Item parameter estimation under conditions of test speededness: Application of a mixture Rasch model with ordinal constraints. Journal of Educational Measurement, 39, 331–348. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.2002.tb01146.x

Booth

J. L.

Siegler

R. S.

(2008). Numerical magnitude representations influence arithmetic learning. Child Development, 79, 1016–1031. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01173.x

Chou

Wang

(2010). Checking dimensionality in item response models with principal component analysis on standardized residuals. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 70, 717–731. doi:10.1177/0013164410379322

Embretson

S. E.

Reise

S. P.

(2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Foegen

(2008). Progress monitoring in middle school mathematics: Options and issues. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 195–207. doi:10.1177/0741932507309716

Foegen

Espin

C. A.

Allinder

R. M.

Markell

M. A.

(2001). Translating research into practice: Preservice teachers’ beliefs about curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 34, 226–236. doi:10.1177/002246690103400405

Foegen

Morrison

(2010). Putting algebra progress monitoring into practice: Insights from the field. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 95–103. doi:10.1177/1053451210375302

10.

Foegen

Olson

J. R.

Impecoven-Lind

(2008). Developing progress monitoring measures for secondary mathematics: An illustration in algebra. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 240–249. doi:10.1177/1534508407313489

11.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.

12.

Geary

D. C.

Boykin

A. W.

Embretson

Reyna

Siegler

Berch

D. B.

Graban

(2008). Chapter 4: Report of the task group on learning processes. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/mathpanel/report/learning-processes.pdf

13.

Gersten

Beckmann

Clarke

Foegen

Marsh

Star

J. R.

Witzel

(2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

14.

Hambleton

R. K.

Swaminathan

Rogers

H. J.

(1991). Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

15.

Hanson

B. A.

Beguin

A. A.

(2002). Obtaining a common scale for item response theory item parameters using separate versus concurrent estimation in the common-item equating design. Applied Psychological Measurement, 26, 3–24. doi:10.1177/0146621602026001001

16.

Helwig

Anderson

Tindal

(2002). Using a concept-grounded, curriculum-based measure in mathematics to predict statewide test scores for middle school students with LD. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 102–112. doi:10.1177/00224669020360020501

17.

Kelley

Hosp

J. L.

Howell

K. W.

(2008). Curriculum-based evaluation and math: An overview. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 250–256. doi:10.1177/1534508407313490

18.

Ketterlin-Geller

L. R.

Chard

D. J.

(2011). Algebra readiness for students with learning difficulties in grades 4-8: Support through the study of number. Australian Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 65-78.

19.

Kieran

(1981). Concepts associated with the equality symbol. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 12, 317–326. doi:10.1007/BF00311062

20.

Linacre

J. M.

(2002). What do infit and outfit, mean-square and standardized mean? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(2), 878.

21.

Linacre

J. M.

(2013). Winsteps^® Rasch measurement computer program. Beaverton: Winsteps.com

22.

Milgram

(2005). The mathematics pre-service teachers need to know. Stanford, CA: Department of Mathematics, Stanford University.

23.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2013. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

24.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2014). Review of progress monitoring tools. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/progress-monitoring

25.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points for prekindergarten through Grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.

26.

National Governors Association & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.

27.

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

28.

National Science Board. (2012). Science and engineering indicators 2012 (NSB 12–01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

29.

Renaissance Learning. (2014). The research foundation for STAR assessments: The science of STAR. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author. Retrieved from http://doc.renlearn.com/KMNet/R001480701GCFBB9.pdf

30.

Schoen

H. L.

Ansley

T. N.

(2006). Iowa Algebra Readiness Assessment: Manual for test use, interpretation, and technical support. Iowa City: Iowa Testing Programs, The University of Iowa.

31.

Siegler

R. S.

Duncan

G. J.

Davis-Kean

P. E.

Duckworth

Claessens

Engel

. . . Chen

(2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 691–697. doi:10.1177/0956797612440101

32.

Siegler

R. S.

Thompson

C. A.

Schneider

(2011). An integrated theory of whole number and fractions development. Cognitive Psychology, 62, 273–296. doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2011.03.001

33.

Stecker

P. M.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

(2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. doi:10.1002/pits.20113

34.

Tan

(2009). Misuses of KR-20 and Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients. Education and Science, 34(152), 101–112.

35.

Woodward

Brown

(2006). Meeting the curricular needs of academically low-achieving students in middle grade mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 151–159. doi:10.1177/00224669060400030301

36.

Wright

B. D.

(1977). Solving measurement problems with the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Measurement, 14, 97–116. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1977.tb00031.x

37.

(2001). How to prepare students for Algebra. American Educator, 25(2), 1–7.

38.

(2010). Understanding numbers in elementary school mathematics. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.

Measuring Middle School Students’ Algebra Readiness

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References