Abstract
This study developed an assessment that was used to evaluate the mathematics knowledge and skills that college students have mastered relative to what is supposedly needed for success in higher education as suggested by prior studies (Conley et al., Reaching the goal: The applicability and importance of the common core state standards to college and career readiness, 2011; NCEE, What does it really mean to be college and work ready? The English and Mathematics required by first year community college students, 2013). The assessment items were categorized according to three content strands associated with the domain of algebraic thinking: variables and patterns, linear equations, and linear functions. Quantitative analyses revealed highly variable performance within each strand but no strong performance differentiation across strands. For all strands, students pursuing STEM degrees outperformed those pursuing non-STEM majors. Qualitative analyses of performance strongly suggest that particular mathematics knowledge and skills can be articulated that do indeed differentiate between high-difficulty and low-difficulty items. The results are discussed relative to arguments and research about the mathematics knowledge and skills needed for success in different programs of study in higher education.
Research in this paper is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant number DRL-1316736. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
A description of each item and its mapping to the CCSSM standards can be obtained from the authors in addition to item performance data.
References
Ainsworth, S. (2006). DeFT: A conceptual framework for considering learning with multiple representations. Learning and Instruction, 16, 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.03.001
Attewell, P., Lavin, D., Domina, T., & Levey, T. (2006). New evidence on college remediation. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(5), 886–924. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2006.11778948.
Baker, F. (2001). The basics of item response theory. ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation, University of Maryland, College Park. Retrieved October 30, 2004, from http://echo.edres.org:8080/irt/baker/
Brenner, M. E., Mayer, R. E., Moseley, B., Brar, T., Durán, R., Reed, B. S., et al. (1997). Learning by understanding: The role of multiple representations in learning algebra. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 663–689. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312034004663
Chen, X. (2016). Remedial coursetaking at U.S. public 2- and 4-year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Common core state standards for mathematics. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
Conley, D., Drummond, K., de Gonzalez, A., Rooseboom, J., & Stout, O. (2011). Reaching the goal: The applicability and importance of the common core state standards to college and career readiness. Eugene, OR: Educational Policy Improvement Center.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (2006). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. New York: Wadsworth.
Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2005). Public high school graduation and college-readiness rates: 1991–2002. New York, Manhattan: Institute for Policy Research, Center for Civic Innovation.
Koedinger, K. R., Alibali, M. W., & Nathan, M. J. (2008). Trade-Offs between grounded and abstract representations: Evidence from algebra problem Solving. Cognitive Science, 32, 366–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/03640210701863933
Leinhardt, G., Zaslavsky, O., & Stein, M. K. (1990). Functions, graphs, and graphing: Tasks, learning, and teaching. Review of Educational Research, 60(1), 1–64. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543060001001
Martorell, P., & McFarlin, I. (2010). Help or hindrance? The effects of college remediation on academic and labor market outcomes. Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 436–454.
Moschkovich, J., Schoenfeld, A. H., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Aspects of understanding: On multiple perspectives and representations of linear relations and connections among them. In T. A. Romberg, E. Fenemma, & T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Integrating research on the graphical representation of functions (pp. 69–100). New York: Erlbaum.
National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE). (2013). What does it really mean to be college and work ready? The English and Mathematics required by first year community college students. Retrieved from http://www.ncee.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/NCEE_MathReport_May20131.pdf
Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O., Wittum, G., & Dengel, A. (Eds.). (2018). Positive learning in the age of information (PLATO) – A blessing or a curse? Wiesbaden: Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mielicki, M.K., Martinez, M.V., DiBello, L.V., Lee-Hassan, A.W.C., Pellegrino, J.W. (2019). Assessing Mathematics Knowledge and Skill: What College Students Actually Know and Can Do?. In: Zlatkin-Troitschanskaia, O. (eds) Frontiers and Advances in Positive Learning in the Age of InformaTiOn (PLATO). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26578-6_18
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26578-6_18
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-26577-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-26578-6
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)