Growth trajectories of mathematics achievement: Longitudinal tracking of student academic progress

Abstract

Mathematics growth from Grade 6 to Grade 9 was slower than that from Grade 3 to Grade 6. Students with lower initial achievement improved at a faster rate than those who started at a higher level. Gender did not affect growth rate.

Declining trends in student performance in lower secondary education

“…This means that performance declines for girls and boys but that girls maintain their relative advantage. A similar developmental pattern for boys and girls is in line with the findings of research by Mok et al (2014) and Watt (2004), who did not find evidence for a gender intensification or gender convergence hypothesis. Watt (2004) observed an already existing difference between boys and girls at the start of their school career.…”

“…Watt (2004) found no evidence for either a gender intensification or convergence hypothesis when focusing on mathematics and English self-perceptions, task values and task perceptions. Also, Mok et al (2014) found that gender did not affect the growth rate of mathematics scores on a vertically equated scale between grades 3, 6 and 9. Overall, research into the developmental patterns of adolescent boys' and girls' motivation and performance does not provide a clear hypothesis of performance trends.…”

Do goals lead to outcomes or can it be the other way around?: Causal ordering of mastery goals, metacognitive strategies, and achievement

“…The ELAC was calibrated for this study using a Rasch measurement model (Bond & Fox, 2007). The mathematics achievement was assessed by the Mathematics vertical scale developed by Lau and associates (Lau, Mok, & Yan, 2009 see also Mok, McInerney, Zhu, & Or, 2015). It comprises an item bank of over 2,500 items designed for the primary and secondary mathematics curricula in Hong Kong.…”

Longitudinal tracking of academic progress during teacher preparation

“…While Ready () acknowledges the sophisticated development of measures of student growth, we still have a paucity of evidence examining the relationship between student achievement and overall achievement growth: That is, do students that achieve initial higher scores grow at a faster pace than lower‐achieving students? Therefore, sustained within‐person growth is increasingly important (Anderman et al ., ; Martin, , ; Martin & Liem, ; Mok, McInerney, Zhu, & Or, ). If we are to better understand growth for the individual student, researchers need more information on change over time, with an increased number of time points (that is more than two; Hedeker & Gibbons, ; McCoach, Madura, Rambo‐Hernandez, O'Connell, & Welsh, ; Raudenbush, ).…”