| NSF Org: |
DRL Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL) |
| Recipient: |
|
| Initial Amendment Date: | August 5, 2016 |
| Latest Amendment Date: | August 5, 2016 |
| Award Number: | 1641257 |
| Award Instrument: | Standard Grant |
| Program Manager: |
Finbarr Sloane
DRL Division of Research on Learning in Formal and Informal Settings (DRL) EDU Directorate for STEM Education |
| Start Date: | September 1, 2016 |
| End Date: | August 31, 2019 (Estimated) |
| Total Intended Award Amount: | $199,586.00 |
| Total Awarded Amount to Date: | $199,586.00 |
| Funds Obligated to Date: |
|
| History of Investigator: |
|
| Recipient Sponsored Research Office: |
3 RUTGERS PLZ NEW BRUNSWICK NJ US 08901-8559 (848)932-0150 |
| Sponsor Congressional District: |
|
| Primary Place of Performance: |
10 Seminary Place New Brunswick NJ US 08901-1183 |
| Primary Place of
Performance Congressional District: |
|
| Unique Entity Identifier (UEI): |
|
| Parent UEI: |
|
| NSF Program(s): | AISL |
| Primary Program Source: |
|
| Program Reference Code(s): |
|
| Program Element Code(s): |
|
| Award Agency Code: | 4900 |
| Fund Agency Code: | 4900 |
| Assistance Listing Number(s): | 47.076 |
ABSTRACT
This project was submitted in response to EHR Core Research (ECR) program announcement NSF 15-509. The ECR program of fundamental research in STEM education provides funding in critical research areas that are essential, broad and enduring. EHR seeks proposals that will help synthesize, build and/or expand research foundations in the following focal areas: STEM learning, STEM learning environments, STEM workforce development, and broadening participation in STEM. The ECR program is distinguished by its emphasis on the accumulation of robust evidence to inform efforts to (a) understand, (b) build theory to explain, and (c) suggest interventions (and innovations) to address persistent challenges in STEM interest, education, learning, and participation.
In 2015, average mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) declined in fourth and eighth grades, the first declines in mathematics at these grade levels since 1990. Declines in U.S. mathematics performance has important implications for overall STEM education as well as STEM workforce and international competitiveness. Researchers at Rutgers University will conduct an analysis to isolate the cause of the mathematics decline by investigating the dimensionality of the NAEP assessment, state-level outcomes, and demographic trends.
The team will use multilevel item response theory modeling techniques to investigate the declines by examining the factor structures to determine dimensionality across years. Researchers will examine subscores corresponding to each dimension of the factor structure at the state and national levels. In addition, subscores will be examined for trends in individual states and jurisdictions. Potentially, the analyses will allow for examination of factors related to state standards adoptions, demographic shifts, and participation rates.
PROJECT OUTCOMES REPORT
Disclaimer
This Project Outcomes Report for the General Public is displayed verbatim as submitted by the Principal Investigator (PI) for this award. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this Report are those of the PI and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation; NSF has not approved or endorsed its content.
Following 25 years of no declines in mathematics scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), those scores declined in 2015 in both Grades 4 and 8. If implementation of the CCSSM had an intentional positive effect in Grade 4, the impact was likely in the area of fractions. This observation is based on interpreting the pattern of results across items with large 2013–2015 difficulty changes. Items consistent with the major emphasis on fractions in the CCSSM showed the largest relative gains, while in areas of decreased emphasis (Data Analysis, Geometry), items had the largest relative losses. The potential fractions effect was missed by previous policy studies because NAEP-reported scores and subscores do not permit analysis specifically for fractions content. For Grade 8, we found performance improved on select items from the Algebra and Measurement strands of the NAEP framework. In contrast, items that became more difficult again emanated from the Geometry and Data Analysis strands.
Some Grade 4 geometry content was shifted to later grades in the CCSSM. Student assessment may have also played a role in the decline. Geometry within the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) assessment framework appears in an “Additional” cluster of standards, as opposed to a “Major” or “Supporting” one. For the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) framework, geometry appears in a “Supporting” versus a “Priority” cluster. States participating in these assessment programs may have been influenced more by the assessment frameworks than by the CCSSM. The reduced emphasis on geometry at Grade 4 is possibly an unintentional effect of implementing the CCSSM, and a discontinuity may have occurred in geometry instruction that runs contrary to efforts to articulate content across grades in a developmentally appropriate manner. In any event, the sharp decline in NAEP Geometry may is concerning because NAEP subscores for NAEP Geometry decreased again in 2017 at Grade 4.
Last Modified: 07/16/2019
Modified by: Gregory Camilli
Please report errors in award information by writing to: awardsearch@nsf.gov.
