Using Formative Assessment to Identify and Address Mathematics Learning Gaps in Grades 6–8 Instruction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.63084/algora.v1i01.118Keywords:
mathematics, curriculum-based measurement, formative assessment, Grades 6–8, mathematics learning gaps, effect size, progress monitoring, predictive validityAbstract
Mathematics learning gaps in the middle grades are a major barrier to students' academic achievement. This paper presents a quantitative synthesis of the background regarding the use of formative assessments to identify and remediate mathematics learning gaps in Grades 6-8. The synthesis shows that formative assessments improve students' mathematics skills. For example, the sample-weighted effect sizes of the interventions that were studied ranged from 0.16 to 0.52, with a weighted mean of 0.28. Criterion-related validity coefficients between the formative assessments and the state-wide mathematics assessments ranged from 0.61 to 0.80. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves also showed an area under the curve of 0.82, indicating high classification accuracy for students based on their mathematics skills. Four tables in the paper present the results of the literature synthesis on the use of formative assessments in mathematics classrooms. These tables show that the most common learning gaps in mathematics in Grades 6-8 relate to fractions, place value, proportional reasoning, and pre-algebraic thinking. Overall, the results show that using formative assessments in mathematics classrooms is a workable way to reduce learning gaps among students in Grades 6-8.
References
Anderson, D., Irvin, P. S., Patarapichayatham, C., Alonzo, J., & Tindal, G. (2012). The development and scaling of the easyCBM CCSS middle school mathematics measures (Technical Report No. 1207). Behavioral Research and Teaching, University of Oregon.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0969595980050102
Codding, R. S., Mercer, S. H., Connell, J. E., Fiorello, C. A., & Kleinert, W. L. (2016). Mapping the relationships among basic facts, concepts and application, and Common Core curriculum-based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 45(1), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45-1.19-38
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Confrey, J., Gianopulos, G., McGowan, W., Shah, M., & Belcher, M. (2017). Scaffolding learner-centered curricular coherence using learning maps and diagnostic assessments designed around mathematics learning trajectories. ZDM Mathematics Education, 49(5), 717–734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-017-0869-1
Foegen, A. (2008). Progress monitoring in middle school mathematics: Options and issues. Remedial and Special Education, 29(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932507309716
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81–112. https://doi.org/10.3102/003465430298487
Helwig, R., Anderson, L., & Tindal, G. (2002). Using a concept-grounded, curriculum-based measure in mathematics to predict statewide test scores for middle school students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36(2), 102–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669020360020501
Huf, V. B. S., Huf, S. F., Pinheiro, N. A. M., & Burak, D. (2019). Avaliação diagnóstica no 6º ano: O que ela mostra em relação aos conteúdos matemáticos [Diagnostic evaluation in the 6th year: What it reveals about mathematical content]. Brazilian Journal of Development, 5(12), 30600–30613. https://doi.org/10.34117/BJDV5N12-176
Johnson, E. S., Galow, P. A., & Allenger, R. (2013). Application of algebra curriculum-based measurements for decision making in middle and high school. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 39(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508412461435
Koedinger, K. R., McLaughlin, E. A., & Heffernan, N. T. (2010). A quasi-experimental evaluation of an on-line formative assessment and tutoring system. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(4), 489–510. https://doi.org/10.2190/EC.43.4.D
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). NAEP 2022 mathematics: National results overview. U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/mathematics/
National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. U.S. Department of Education.
Phelan, J., Kang, T., Niemi, D., Vendlinski, T. P., & Choi, K. (2009). Some aspects of the technical quality of formative assessments in middle school mathematics (CRESST Report No. 750). National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, UCLA.
Roschelle, J., Feng, M., Murphy, R., & Mason, C. A. (2016). Online mathematics homework increases student achievement. AERA Open, 2(4), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416673968
Scafide, K. (2004). Effects of I Can Learn on math achievement in Gwinnett County middle school [Unpublished manuscript]. https://scispace.com/papers/effects-of-i-can-learn-on-math-achievement-in-gwinnett-wikwx9pnce
Stecker, P. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2000). Effecting superior achievement using curriculum-based measurement: The importance of individual progress monitoring. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15(3), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1207/SLDRP1503_2
Strait, G. G., Smith, B. H., & McQuillin, S. D. (2018). Aggregated randomly generated math curriculum-based measurements for middle school students: Reliability, predictive validity, and cut score precision. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 44(1), 58–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534508418761231
Vladescu, C. (2023). The relationship between mastery learning models and academic achievement in mathematics. International Electronic Journal of Mathematics Education, 18(4), em0741. https://doi.org/10.29333/iejme/13705
Wiliam, D. (2011). Embedded formative assessment. Solution Tree Press.
Yang, H., Wang, H., Wang, H., Liang, M., & Huang, T. (2020). The cognitive diagnosis based on the framework of junior high school mathematics knowledge and ability. In Proceedings of the 2020 International Symposium on Educational Technology (pp. 253–257). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISET49818.2020.00064
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Chisom Gabrielle Ezechukwu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
