Algebra is critical to high school graduation and college success, but student achievement in algebra frequently falls significantly below expected proficiency levels. While existing research emphasizes the importance of quality algebra instruction, there is little research about how to conduct problem analysis for struggling secondary students. This article proposes an assessment model designed to analyze algebra skills for struggling students to assess basic skills in mathematics, algebraic thinking, and algebra content knowledge. Results of the study indicated sufficiently reliable data. Exploratory factor analysis of the data also found three separate factors (basic calculation skills, mathematics application, and algebra content knowledge) that underlie the data. Implications for the classroom, future research, and study limitations are discussed.
AdoniouM.QingY. (2014). Language, mathematics, and English language learners. Australian Mathematics Teacher, 70(3), 3–11.
2.
BerkR. A. (1986). A consumer’s guide to setting performance standards on criterion-referenced tests. Review of Educational Research, 56, 137–172.
3.
BoothJ. L.LangeK. E.KoedingerK. R.NewtonK. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24–34.
4.
BoothJ. L.NewtonK. J.Twiss-GarrityL. K. (2014). The impact of fraction magnitude knowledge on algebra performance and learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 118, 110–118.
5.
BrightG. W.JoynerJ. M.WallisC. (2003). Assessing proportional thinking. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 9, 166–172.
6.
BurnsM. K. (2010). Formative evaluation in school psychology: Informing the instructional process. School Psychology Forum, 4(1), 22-33.
7.
BurnsM. K. (2011). Matching math interventions to students’ skill deficits. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36, 210–218.
8.
BurnsM. K.WalickC.SimonsonG. R.DominguezL.HarelstadL.KincaidA.NelsonG. S. (2015). Using a conceptual understanding and procedural fluency heuristic to target math interventions with students in early elementary. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30, 52–60.
9.
ByrnesJ. P.WasikB. A. (1991). Role of conceptual knowledge in mathematical procedural learning. Developmental Psychology, 27, 777–786.
10.
CaiJ.MoyerJ. (2008). Developing algebraic thinking in earlier grades: Some insights from international comparative studies. Algebra and Algebraic Thinking in School Mathematics, 70, 169–180.
11.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255.
12.
ChristT. J.ArañasY. A. (2014). Best practices in problem analysis. In HarrisonP.ThomasA. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology VI (pp. 87–98). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
13.
ChristouK. P.VosniadouS. (2012). What kinds of numbers do students assign to literal symbols? Aspects of the transition from arithmetic to algebra. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 14, 1–27.
14.
FerrucciB. J.KaurB.CarterJ. A.YeapB. (2008). Using a model approach to enhancing algebraic thinking in the elementary school mathematics classroom. Algebra and Algebraic Thinking in School Mathematics, 70, 195–210.
15.
FoegenA.MorrisonC. (2010). Putting algebra progress monitoring into practice: Insights from the field. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46, 95–103.
16.
FoegenA.OlsonJ. R.Impecoven-LindL. (2008). Developing progress monitoring measures for secondary mathematics: An illustration in algebra. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33, 240–249.
17.
FuchsL. S.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.PowellS. R.SchumacherR. F.HamlettC. L.VukovicR. K. (2012). Contributions of domain general cognitive resources and different forms of arithmetic development to pre-algebraic knowledge. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1315–1326.
18.
FujimuraN. (2001). Facilitating children’s proportional reasoning: A model of reasoning processes and effects of intervention on strategy change. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 589–603.
19.
GaertnerM.KimJ.DesJardinsS.McClartyK. (2014). Preparing students for college and careers: The causal role of algebra II. Research in Higher Education, 55, 143–165.
20.
HalletD.NunesT.BryantP.ThorpeC. M. (2012). Individual differences in conceptual and procedural fraction understanding: The role of abilities and school experience. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 113, 469–486.
21.
HerscovicsN.LinchevskiL. (1994). A cognitive gap between arithmetic and algebra. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 27, 59–78.
22.
HiebertJ.LefevreP. (1986). Conceptual and procedural knowledge in mathematics: An introductory analysis. In HiebertJ. (Ed.), Conceptual and procedural knowledge: The case of mathematics (pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
23.
KaufmanJ. E.SchwittersK. L. (2004). Algebra for college students (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Learning.
24.
KellowJ. T.WillsonV. L. (2008). Setting standards and establishing cut scores on criterion referenced assessments. In OsborneJ. W. (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 15–28). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
25.
KinachB. M. (2014). Generalizing: The core of algebraic thinking. Mathematics Teacher, 107, 432–439.
26.
KofflerS. L. (1980). A comparison of approaches for setting proficiency standards. Journal of Educational Measurement, 17, 167–178.
27.
KraigerK.FordJ. K.SalasE. (1993). Application of cognitive, skill-based, and affective theories of learning outcomes to new methods of training evaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 311–328.
28.
LeeL.FreimanV. (2006). Developing algebraic thinking through pattern exploration. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 11, 428–433.
29.
LittleD. C.BoxJ. A. (2011). The use of a specific schema theory strategy-semantic mapping to facilitate vocabulary development and comprehension for at-risk readers. Reading Improvement, 48, 24–31.
30.
MarkworthK. A. (2012). Growing patterns: Seeing beyond counting. Teaching Children Mathematics, 19, 254–262.
31.
MayerR. E. (1982). Memory for algebra story problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 199–216.
32.
Minnesota Department of Education. (2013). Minnesota K-12 academic standards in mathematics (2007). St. Paul: Author. Available from http://education.state.mn.us/
33.
MullisI. V. S.MartinM. O.FoyP.AroraA. (2012). TIMSS 2011 international results in mathematics. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
34.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2014). NAEP data explorer—12th grade mathematics. Washington, DC: Author.
35.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Washington, DC: Authors.
36.
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: Final report of the national math advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
37.
National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
38.
NewtonK. J.StarJ. R.LynchK. (2010). Understanding the development of flexibility in struggling algebra students, mathematical thinking and learning. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 12, 282–305.
39.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2011). Technical manual for the measures of academic progress (MAP) and measures of academic progress for primary grades (MPG). Portland, OR: Author.
40.
Özgün-KocaS. A.AltayM. K. (2009). An investigation of proportional reasoning skills of middle school students. Investigations in Mathematics Learning, 2, 26–48.
PillayH.WilssL.Boulton-LewisG. (1998). Sequential development of algebra knowledge: A cognitive analysis. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 10, 87–102.
43.
PowellS. R.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2013). Reaching the mountaintop: Addressing the common core standards in mathematics for students with mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 28, 38–48.
44.
RakesC. R.ValentineJ. C.McGathaM. B.RonauR. N. (2010). Methods of instructional improvement in algebra: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 80, 372–400.
45.
Rittle-JohnsonB.SieglerR. S.AlibaliM. W. (2001). Developing conceptual understanding and procedural skill in mathematics: An iterative process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 346–362.
46.
SchoenfeldA. H. (2007). What is mathematical proficiency and how can it be assessed?Assessing Mathematical Proficiency, 53, 59–73.
47.
ShapiroE. S. (2010). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (4th ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
48.
SieglerR. S.DuncanG. J.Davis-KeanP. E.DuckworthK.ClaessensA.EngelM.ChenM. (2012). Early predictors of high school mathematics achievement. Psychological Science, 23, 691–697.
49.
StaceyK.MacGregorM. (1997). Building foundations for algebra. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 2, 252–260.
50.
StageS. A.JacobsenD. M. (2001). Predicting student success on a state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–419.
51.
ThompsonB. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
52.
WalkeyF. H.WelchG. W. (2010). Demystifying factor analysis: How it works and how to use it. Bloomington, IN: Xlibris.
53.
WitzelB.SmithS. W.BrownellM. T. (2001). How can I help students with learning disabilities in algebra?Intervention in School and Clinic, 37, 101–104.
WuH. (2001). How to prepare students for algebra. American Educator, 25(2), 10–17.
56.
ZamarianL.Lopez-RolonA.DelazerM. (2007). Neuropsychological case studies on arithmetic processing. In BerchD. B.MazzoccoM. M. M. (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 245–264). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
