Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 7–32 | Cite as

Exploring how teacher-related factors relate to student achievement in learning advanced algebra in technology-enhanced classrooms



In this study, we examine the relationship between contextual variables related to teachers and student performance in Advanced Algebra classrooms in the USA. The data were gathered from a cluster-randomized study on the effects of SimCalc MathWorlds®, a curricular and technological intervention as a replacement for Algebra 2 curriculum, on student learning of Algebra 2 content. Conditional measures (teacher background characteristics) and instructional measures (self-reported instructional preferences, stances, and classroom practices) were subjected to a variety of empirical analyses to discern their relationship to student learning. Researchers examined both the overall effect of teacher contextual variables on student learning and the specific effect of SimCalc on both teacher instructional measures and student performance. There is evidence to support that teachers who use the SimCalc curriculum value classroom communication, deep understanding of math concepts, and support for both routine and non-routine problems.


Algebra Student achievement Dynamic representations Connectivity Teacher contextual variables 



This work is based upon work supported by the Institute of Education Sciences at the US Department of Education under Grant R305B070430. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute of Education Sciences.


  1. Akiba, M., LeTendre, G. K., & Scribner, J. P. (2007). Teacher quality, opportunity gap, and national achievement in 46 countries. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 369–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alliance for Excellent Education. (2002). Every child a graduate: A framework for an excellent education for all middle and high school students. Washington, DC: Joftus, S. E.Google Scholar
  3. Ares, N., Stroup, W. M., & Schademan, A. R. (2009). The power of mediating artifacts in group-level development of mathematical discourses. Cognition and Instruction, 27(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2002). Toward a practice-based theory of mathematical knowledge for teaching. In E. Simmt & B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the annual meeting of the canadian mathematics education study group (pp. 3–14). Kingston: CMESG.Google Scholar
  5. Ball, D. L., Lubienski, S. T., & Mewborn, D. S. (2001). Research on teaching mathematics: The unsolved problem of teachers’ mathematical knowledge. In V. Richardson (Ed.) Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 433–456). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Becker, H., Ravitz, J., & Wong, Y. (1999). Teacher and teacher-directed student use of computers and software (Report No. 3). Irvine, CA: Center for Research on Information Technology and Organizations (CRITO). Retrieved from
  7. Bitner, N., & Bitner, J. (2002). Integrating technology into the classroom: Eight keys to success. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 10(1), 95–100.Google Scholar
  8. Boaler, J. (2013). Experiencing school mathematics: Traditional and reform approaches to teaching and their impact on student learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  9. Cavanagh, S. (2006). Students double-dosing on reading and math. Education Week, 25(40), 1–12.Google Scholar
  10. Choy, S. P., Horn, L. J., Nuñez, A. M., & Chen, X. (2000). Transition to college: What helps at-risk students and students whose parents did not attend college. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(107), 45–63. doi: 10.1002/ir.10704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Christensen, R. R. (1997). Effect of technology integration education on the attitudes of teachers and their students. Ph.D. thesis, University of North Texas, USA.Google Scholar
  12. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2006). High-poverty schools and the distribution of teachers and principals. North Carolina Law Review, 85(5), 1345–1380.Google Scholar
  14. Cobb, P., Yackel, E., & McClain, K. (2000). Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F. D., & York, R. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (pp. 1–32). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  16. Conley, D. T. (2007). The challenge of college readiness. Educational Leadership, 64(7), 23–29.Google Scholar
  17. Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of Washington.Google Scholar
  18. Darling-Hammond, L., Bransford, J., & LePage, P. (2005). Introduction. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 1–39). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  19. Ertmer, P. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefs: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration? Educational Technology Research and Development, 53(4), 25–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fennema, E., & Franke, M. L. (1992). Teachers’ knowledge and its impact. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 147–164). New York, NY: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  21. Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Achilles, C. M. (2003). The “why’s” of class size: Student behavior in small classes. Review of Educational Research, 73(3), 321–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goldhaber, D. (2002). The mystery of good teaching. Education Next, 2(1), 50–55.Google Scholar
  23. Goldhaber, D., & Anthony, E. (2007). Can teacher quality be effectively assessed? National board certification as a signal of effective teaching. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goos, M. (2005). A sociocultural analysis of the development of pre-service and beginning teachers’ pedagogical identities as users of technology. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 8(1), 35–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Goos, M., Galbraith, P., Renshaw, P., & Geiger, V. (2003). Perspectives on technology mediated learning in secondary school mathematics classrooms. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 73–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hawk, P., Coble, C. R., & Swanson, M. (1985). Certification: It does matter. Journal of Teacher Education, 36(3), 13–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Heck, R. H. (2007). Examining the relationship between teacher quality as an organizational property of schools and students’ achievement and growth rates. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(4), 399–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hegedus, S. J., Dalton, S. K., & Tapper, J. (2013a). The impact of technology-enhanced curriculum on learning advanced algebra in American high school classrooms. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  29. Hegedus, S. J., & Penuel, W. R. (2008). Studying new forms of participation and identity in mathematics classrooms with integrated communication and representational infrastructures. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 68(2), 171–183.Google Scholar
  30. Hegedus, S., & Roschelle, J. (Eds.). (2013). Democratizing access to important mathematics through dynamic representations: Contributions and visions from the SimCalc research program. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Hegedus, S., Tapper, J., Dalton, S., & Sloane, F. (2013b). HLM in cluster-randomised trials–measuring efficacy across diverse populations of learners. Research in Mathematics Education, 15(2), 177–188.Google Scholar
  32. Hennessy, S., Ruthven, K., & Brindley, S. (2005). Teacher perspectives on integrating ICT into subject teaching: Commitment, constraints, caution, and change. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(2), 155–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hiebert, J., Carpenter, T. P., Fennema, E., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H., & Human, P. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding (Vol. 361, pp. 03801–3912). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  34. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Horizons Research, Inc. (2002). The status of high school mathematics teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: D. Whittington.Google Scholar
  36. Hoxby, C. M. (2000). The effects of class size on student achievement: New evidence from population variation. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(4), 1239–1285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Huang, J., Normandia, B., & Greer, S. (2005). Communicating mathematically: Comparison of knowledge structures in teacher and student discourse in a secondary math classroom. Communication Education, 54(1), 34–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., Müller, E., & Goetz, L. (2002). Collaborative teaming to support students with augmentative and alternative communication needs in general education classrooms. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 18(1), 20–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Khisty, L. L. (2002). Pedagogic discourse and equity in mathematics: When teachers’ talk matters. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 14(3), 154–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Klitgaard, R. E., & Hall, G. R. (1974). Are there unusually effective schools? Journal of Human Resources, 10(3), 90–106.Google Scholar
  41. Klopfenstein, K., & Thomas, M. K. (2009). The link between advanced placement experience and early college success. Southern Economic Journal, 75(3), 873–891.Google Scholar
  42. Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the National Survey of Student Engagement. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 33(3), 10–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuh, G. D. (2003). What we’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  45. Maris, E. (1998). Covariance adjustment versus gain scores—revisited. Psychological Methods, 3(3), 309–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Means, B. (2010). Technology and education change: Focus on student learning. Journal of Research on Teacher Education, 42(3), 285–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (2002). The class size debate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  48. Mislevy, R. J., Steinberg, L. S., Almond, R. G., Haertel, G. D., & Penuel, W. R. (2003). Improving educational assessment. In B. Means & G. D. Haertel (Eds.), Evaluating educational technology: Effective research designs for improving learning (pp. 149–180). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  49. Murnane, R. J., & Phillips, B. R. (1981). Learning by doing, vintage, and selection: Three pieces of the puzzle relating teaching experience and teaching performance. Economics of Education Review, 1(4), 453–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. National Center for Education Statistics. (2006). The condition of education. NCES 2006-071. National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office: Rooney, P., Hussar, W., Planty, M., Choy, S., Hampden-Thompson, G., Provasnik, S., & Fox, M. A.Google Scholar
  51. Papert, S., & Harel, I. (1991). Situating constructionism. Constructionism (pp. 1–11). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  52. Peske, H., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged on teacher quality. Washington, DC: The Education Trust.Google Scholar
  53. Pianta, R. C., Belsky, J., Houts, R., & Morrison, F. (2007). Opportunities to learn in America’s elementary classrooms. Science, 315(5820), 1795–1796. doi: 10.1126/science.1139719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pierson, M. E. (2001). Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical expertise. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 33(4), 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pitler, H., Hubbell, E. R., & Kuhn, M. (2012). Using technology with classroom instruction that works. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
  56. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3–14. doi: 10.3102/0013189X031007003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Prince, M. (2004). Does active learning work? A review of the research. Journal of Engineering Education, 93(3), 223–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rockoff, J. E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), 247–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2013). SimCalc at scale: Three studies examine the integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics. In S. J. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Democratizing access to important mathematics through dynamic representations: Contributions and visions from the SimCalc research program (pp. 125–143). Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  60. Roschelle, J., Shechtman, N., Tatar, D., Hegedus, S., Hopkins, B., Empson, S., Knudsen, J., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics: Three large-scale studies. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 833–878.Google Scholar
  61. Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescents’ motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38(2), 437–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sanders, W. L., & Rivers, J. C. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.Google Scholar
  63. Snjiders, T. A. B., & Bosker, R. J. (1999). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  64. Staples, M. (2007). Supporting whole-class collaborative inquiry in a secondary mathematics classroom. Cognition and Instruction, 25(2–3), 161–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tufte, E. (2006). Beautiful evidence. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.Google Scholar
  66. Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Midgley, C., & Patrick, H. (2003). Teacher discourse and sixth graders’ reported affect and achievement behaviors in two high-mastery/high-performance mathematics classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 103(4), 357–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Virginia Department of Education. (2012). High school predictors of college readiness: Determinants of high school graduates’ enrollment and successful completion of first-year Mathematics and English college Courses in Virginia. Richmond, VA: Jonas, D., Dougherty, C., Herrera, A. W., LaTurner, J., Garland, M., & Ware, A.Google Scholar
  68. Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Kaput Center for Research and Innovation in STEM EducationUniversity of Massachusetts DartmouthFairhavenUSA
  2. 2.University of HartfordWest HartfordUSA
  3. 3.Southern Connecticut State UniversityNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations