Construct Validation of an Instrument That Assesses Quality of Instruction in Community College Algebra

References

• AI@CC Research Group. (2018). Evaluating the quality of instruction in postsecondary mathematics. Instrument for video coding. Glendale Community College, Scottsdale Community College. University of Michigan, University of Minnesota.
   Google Scholar
• Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association. (2018). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges. (2018) . IMPACT: Improving Mathematical Prowess and College Teaching.
   Google Scholar
• Beauducel, A. (2007). In spite of indeterminacy many common factor score estimates yield an identical reproduced covariance matrix. Psychometrika, 72(3), 437–441.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blair, R., Kirkman, E. E., & Maxwell, J. W. (2018). Statistical abstract of undergraduate programs in the mathematical sciences in the United States. Fall 2015 cbms Survey. American Mathematical Society.
   Google Scholar
• Borasi, R. (1996). Reconceiving mathematics instruction: A focus on errors. Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, T. A. (2015). Methodology in the social sciences. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carlson, M., Jacobs, S., Coe, E., Larsen, S., & Hsu, E. (2002). Applying covariational reasoning while modeling dynamic events: A framework and a study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 33(5), 352–378. https://doi.org/10.2307/4149958
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cawley, A., Ström, A., Mesa, V., Watkins, L., Duranczyk, I., & Kimani, P. (2019, July). Investigating mathematical errors and imprecisions in content and language in the teaching of algebra. 43rd Psychology of Mathematics Education Conference, Pretoria, South Africa
   Google Scholar
• Chapin, S. H., O’Connor, C., & Anderson, N. C. (2003). Classroom discussions using math talk in elementary classrooms. Math Solutions, 11, 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Chazan, D., Herbst, P., & Clark, L. (2016). Research on the teaching of mathematics: A call to theorize the role of society and schooling in mathematics instruction. In D. H. Gitomer & C. A. Bell (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (5th ed., pp. 1039–1097). American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Cohen, D. K., Raudenbush, S. W., & Ball, D. L. (2003). Resources, instruction, and research. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(2), 119–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen, R. J. & Swedlik, M. E. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (9th ed.). (New York, NY: McGraw Hill).
   Google Scholar
• Eichhorn, M. M. S., DiMauro, P. J., Lacson, C., & Dennie, B. (2019). Building the optimal learning environment for mathematics. The Mathematics Teacher, 112(4), 262–267.
   Google Scholar
• Ernst, D. C., Hodge, A., & Yoshinobu, S. (2017). What is inquiry-based learning? Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 64(6), 570–574. https://doi.org/10.1090/noti1536
   Google Scholar
• Gainsburg, J. (2008). Real-world connections in secondary mathematics teaching. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10857-007-9070-8
   Google Scholar
• Gutiérrez, R. (2017). Why mathematics (education) was late to the backlash party: The need for a revolution. Journal of Urban Mathematics Education, 10(2), 8–24.
   Google Scholar
• Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis. Pearson Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In R. Cudeck, S. D. Toit, & D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog (pp. 195–216). Scientific Software International.
   Google Scholar
• Hill, H. C., Blunk, M., Charalambous, C., Lewis, J., Phelps, G., Sleep, L., & Ball, D. L. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching and the mathematical quality of instruction: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 26(4), 430–511.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hora, M. T. & Ferrare, J. J. (2013). Instructional systems of practice: A multidimensional analysis of math and science undergraduate course planning and classroom teaching. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 22(2), 212–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2012.729767
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston, B. M. (2021). Students as partners: Peer-leading in an undergraduate mathematics course. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 52(5), 795–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2020.1795287
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kieran, C. (2013). The false dichotomy in mathematics education between conceptual understanding and procedural skills: An example from algebra. In K. Leatham (Ed.), Vital directions for mathematics education research. Springer. 153–171.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, P. (2000). The handbook of psychological testing. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Leinhardt, G. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook for research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 333–357). American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• Leinwand, S. (2014). Principles to action: Ensuring mathematical success for all. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
   Google Scholar
• Lesh, R., Post, T. R., & Behr, M. (1987). Representations and translations among representations in mathematics learning and problem solving. In Problems of representations in the teaching and learning of mathematics (pp. 33–40). Lawrence Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Leyva, L. A., McNeill, R. T., Marshall, B. L., & Guzmán, O. A. (2021). “It seems like they purposefully try to make as many kids drop”: An analysis of logics and mechanisms of racial-gendered inequality in introductory mathematics instruction. The Journal of Higher Education, 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1879586
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936–949.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Litke, E. G. (2015). The state of the gate: A description of instructional practice in algebra in five urban districts [ PhD thesis]. Harvard University.
   Google Scholar
• Ludwig, L., Abell, M., Soto-Johnson, H., Braddy, L., & Ensley, D. (2018). Guide to evidence-based instructional practices in undergraduate mathematics. Mathematical Association of America.
   Google Scholar
• Madison, B., Carlson, M., Oehrthman, M., & Tallman, M. A. (2015). Conceptual precalculus: Strengthening students’ quantitative and covariational reasoning. Mathematics Teacher, 109(1), 54–59.
   Google Scholar
• Mali, A., Cawley, A., Duranczyk, I., Mesa, V., Strom, A., & Watkins, L. (2019). Identifying sense-making in algebra instruction at U.S. post-secondary colleges. In U. T. Jankvist, M. v. Heuvel-Panhuizen, & M. Veldhuis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Congress of the European Society for Research in Mathematics Education (pp. 2586-2593). Freudenthal Group & Freudenthal Institute-Utrecht University.
   Google Scholar
• McNeish, D. (2018). Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here. Psychological Methods, 23(3), 412–433.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mesa, V., Duranczyk, I., Bardelli, E., & AI@CC Research Group. (2019). An exploratory factor analysis of EQIPM, a video coding protocol to assess the quality of community college algebra instruction. Paper presented at the 22nd Research in Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Oklahoma City, OK.
   Google Scholar
• Mesa, V., Lamm, R., Watkins, L., Duranczyk, I., Ström, A., & Kohli, N. (2020). A confirmatory factor analysis of EQIPM, a video coding protocol to assess the quality of community college algebra instruction. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Conference on Research on Undergraduate Mathematics Education, Boston, MA.
   Google Scholar
• Mesa, V., & White, N. J. (in press). Characterizing aspects of reform enacted in calculus 1 lessons. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2021.1903109
   Google Scholar
• Moses, R. & Cobb, C. E. (2002). Radical equations: Civil rights from Mississippi to the Algebra Project. Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rasmussen, C. L. & Ellis, J. (2013). Who is switching out of calculus and why. In A. M. Lindmeier & A. Heinze (Eds.), 37th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 4, pp. 73–80). Kiel, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
   Google Scholar
• Reinholz, D. L. & Shah, N. (2018). Equity analytics: A methodological approach for quantifying participation patterns in mathematics classroom discourse. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(2), 140–177. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.2.0140
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosseel, Y. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 482(2), 1–36.
   Google Scholar
• R Studio Team. (2016). Rstudio: Integrated development for R. http://www.rsudio.com/
   Google Scholar
• Seymour, E. (2002). Tracking the processes of change in US undergraduate education in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology. Science Education, 79(1), 79–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.1044
   Google Scholar
• Seymour, E. & Hunter, A.-B. (2019). Talking about leaving revisited. Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Sfard, A. & Kieran, C. (2001). Preparing teachers for handling students’ mathematical communication: Gathering knowledge and building tools. In Making sense of mathematics teacher education (A. Michalos, (Ed.), (pp. 185–205). Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stains, M., Harshman, J., Barker, M. K., Chasteen, S. V., Cole, R., DeChenne-Peters, S. E., Laski, F. A., Esson, J. M., Knight, J. K., Laski, F. A., Levis-Fitzgerald, M., Lee, C. J., Lo, S. M., McDonnell, L. M., McKay, T. A., Michelotti, N., Musgrove, A., Palmer, M. S., Plank, K. M. and Young, A. M. (2018). Anatomy of STEM teaching in North American universities. Science, 359(6383), 1468–1470. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap8892
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Star, J. R. (2005). Reconceptualizing procedural knowledge. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 36(5), 404–411.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taber, K. S. (2018). The use of Cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education. Research in Science Education, 48(6), 1273–1296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9602-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Viirman, O. (2015). Explanation, motivation, and question posing routines in university mathematics teachers’ pedagogical discourse: A commognitive analysis. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(8), 1165–1181.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar