Predicting student growth in mathematical content knowledge

Journal of Educational Research

Volumn 95, Issue 5, 2002, Pages 288-298

  Wilkins, Jesse L M ^a   Ma, Xin ^b  

^a VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Growth; Longitudinal studies; Mathematics education; Secondary education

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044533207     PISSN: 00220671     EISSN: 19400675     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/00220670209596602     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Blank, R. K., & Dalkilic, M. (1990). State indicators of science and mathematics education, 1990. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers
2. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992) Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
3. Burrill, G., Burrill, J. C., Coffield, P., Davis, G., de Lange, J., & Resnick, D., et al. (1991) Data analysis and statistics across the curriculum. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
4. Campbell, P. F., & Fey J. T. (1988). New goals for school mathematics. In R. S. Brandt (Ed.), Content of the curriculum (pp. 53-73). Washington: DC: U.S. Government: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
5. Czujko, R., & Bernstein, D. (1989). Who takes science? A report on student coursework in high school science and mathematics. New York: American Institute of Physics
6. Dossey, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., Lindquist, M. M., & Chambers, D. L. (1988). The mathematics report card: Are we measuring up? Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service
7. Eccles, J. (1985). Model of students' mathematics enrollment decisions. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 16, 311-314
8. Flanders, J. (1994). Student opportunities in grade 8 mathematics: Textbook coverage of the SIMS test. In I. Westbury, C. A. Ethington, L. A. Sosniak, & D. P. Baker (Eds.), In search of more effective mathematics education (pp. 61-93). Norwood, NJ: Ablex
9. Kifer, E. (1992). Opportunities, talents and participation. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The 1EA study of mathematics HI: Students growth and classroom processes (pp. 279-307). New York, NY: Pergamon Press
10. Kifer, E., & Burstein, L. (1992). Concluding thoughts: What we know, what it means (pp. 329-341). In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics HI: Students growth and classroom processes. New York: Pergamon Press
11. Lantz, A. E., Smith, G. P. (1981). Factors influencing the choice of nonrequired mathematics courses. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(6), 825-837
12. Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1997). Course-taking, equity, and mathematics learning: Testing the constrained curriculum hypothesis in U. S. secondary schools. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 99-121
13. Ma, X. (1997). A national assessment of mathematics participation in the United States: A survival analysis model for describing students' academic careers. Lewiston, NY: Edwin Mellen
14. Ma, X. (2000). A longitudinal assessment of antecedent course work in mathematics and subsequent mathematics attainment. The Journal of Educational Research, 94, 16-28
15. McKnight, C. C., Crosswhite, F. J., Dossey, J. A., Kifer, E., Swafford, J. O., & Travers, et al. (1987). The underachieving curriculum: Assessing U.S. school mathematics from an international perspective. Champaign, IL: Stipes Publishing Co
16. Miller, J. D., Kimmel, L., Hoffer, T. B., & Nelson, C. (2000). Longitudinal study of American youth: User's manual. Chicago: International Center for the Advancement of Scientific Literacy, Northwestern University
17. Mullis, I. V. S., Martin, M. O., Beaton, A. E., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1998). Mathematics and science achievement in the final year of secondary school: lEAs third international mathematics and science study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College
18. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author
19. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author
20. National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press
21. New Orleans Public Schools. (1993). Analysis of major outcome indicators for middle grade students in the New Orleans public schools. New Orleans, LA: Louisiana Department of Education Accountability. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED360390)
22. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press
23. Packer, A. (1997). Mathematical competencies that employers expect. In L. A. Steen (Ed.), Why numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow 's America. New York: College Entrance Examination Board
24. Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1991). A structural model of science achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(1), 97-107
25. Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1992). A structural model of high school mathematics outcomes. The Journal of Educational Research, 85, 150-158
26. Schmidt, W. H., Wolfe, R. G., & Kifer, E. (1992). The identification and description of student growth in mathematics achievement (pp. 59-99). In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics ill: Students growth and classroom processes. New York: Pergamon Press
27. Smith, J. B. (1996). Does an extra year make any difference? The impact of early access to algebra on long-term gains in mathematics attainment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(2), 141-153
28. Smith, J. R., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. K. (1997). Consequences of living in poverty for young children's cognitive and verbal ability and early school achievement (pp. 132-189). In G. J. Duncan, J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation
29. Steen, L. A. (1997). Why numbers count: Quantitative literacy for tomorrow's America. New York: College Entrance Examination Board
30. Tsai, S. L., & Walberg, H. J. (1983). Math achievement and attitude productivity in junior high school. The Journal of Educational Research, 76, 267-272
31. U.S. Department of Labor. (1991). What work requires of school: A SCANS report for America 2000. Washington, DC: Author
32. Walberg, H. J. (1981). A psychological theory of educational productivity. In F. H. Farley & N. J. Gordon (Eds.), Psychology and education. Chicago: National Society for the Study of Education
33. Walberg, H. J. (1984). Improving the productivity of America's schools. Educational Leadership, May, 19-27
34. Walberg, H. J. (1992). The knowledge base for educational productivity. International Journal of Educational Reform, 1(1), 5-15
35. White, K. R. (1982). The relation between socioeconomic status and academic achievement. Psychological Bulletin, 91(3), 461-481
36. Wilkins, J. L. M. (2000). Preparing for the 21st century: The status of quantitative literacy in the United States. School Science and Mathematics, 100(8), 405-418
37. Young, D. J., Reynolds, A. J., & Walberg, H. J. (1996). Science achievement and educational productivity: A hierarchical linear model. The Journal of Educational Research, 89, 272-278
38. Zawojewski, J. (1991). Dealing with data and chance. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics