Predicting Preservice Mathematics Teachers’ College Academic Achievement
Keywords:
Mathematics, SAT, GPA, preservice, achievementAbstract
This study employed a multiple regression analysis to examine the relationship between academic aptitude and high school achievement factors to predict preservice mathematics teachers’ college academic achievement. Specifically, an analysis of correlations and descriptive statistics was performed on predetermined academic factors of 67 undergraduate students enrolled as preservice mathematics teachers. In essence, a comparison of their SAT Verbal and SAT Mathematics scores, high school grade point averages, and college grade point averages disclosed significant relationships among all variables. Of special interest is that the mean high school grade point average of the preservice mathematics majors was a 3.63 (SD =.39) and the mean college GPA was 3.22 (SD =.56), which resulted in a correlation of: r = .53, n = .67, p < .01.
References
Attard, C. (2013). If I had to pick any subject, it wouldn’t be maths”: foundations for engagement with mathematics during the middle years. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 25, 569–587.
Bridgeman, B., McCamley-Jenkins, L., & Ervin, L. (2000). Predictions of freshman grade point average from the Revised and Recentered SAT-I: Reasoning Test. Unpublished research presented at the College Board. Retrieved from http://research.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/publications/2012/7/researchreport-2000-1-predictions-freshman-gpa-revised-recentered-sat-reasoning.pdf].
Bushaw, W.J., & Lopez, S.J. (2011). Betting on teachers: the 43rd annual PhiKappa/Gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(1), 8-26.
Cavalluzzo, L.C. (2004). Is national board certification an effective signal of teacher quality? Report No. IPR 11204. Alexandria, VA: The CAN Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.cna.org/documents/CacaluzzoStudy.pdf
Author 1. A comparative analysis of the effect of computer-assisted instruction on student achievement in differing science and demographical areas. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18(2), 135-144.
Author 2. A comparative analysis of the academic performances of elementary education preprofessionals, as disclosed by four methods of assessment. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 1(2), 32-36.
Author 3.. (2017). Predicting preservice English teachers’ college achievement. Delta Journal of Education, 7(1), 9-20.
Darling-Hammond, L. Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), 1-45, 200.
DeBerard, M.S., Spielmans, G.I., & Julka, D.L. (2004). Predictors of academic achievement and retention among college freshmen: A longitudinal study. College Student Journal, 38, 66-80.
Gatti, L. (2016). Toward a framework of resources for learning to teach: Rethinking US teacher preparation. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Goe, L., & Sticklet, L.M. (2008, March). Teacher quality and student achievement: making the most of recent research. Educational Testing Service. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED520769.pdf
Gross, M.L. (1999). The conspiracy of ignorance: the failure of American public schools, New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Hargreaves, L. (2009). The status and prestige of teachers and teaching, in International Handbook of Research on Teachers and Teaching, Saha L.J., & Dworking A.G. (Eds), New York, NY: Springer, 217-229.
Hirsch, E.D. (1996). The schools we need and why we don’t have them, New York, NY: Doubleday.
James, T.L., & Dumas, W. (1976). College GPA as a predictor of teacher competency: a new look at an old question, Journal of Experimental Education, 44(4), 40-43.
Labaree, D.F. (2004). The trouble with Ed schools, New Haven and London: Yale University Press.
Labaree, D.F. (2014). “Let’s measure what no one teachers: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of Education, Teachers College Record, 116(9), 1-14.
National Council of Teacher Quality (2014). Training our future teachers: easy A’s and what’s behind them. Retrieved from http://www.nctw.org/dmsView/EasyAs.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2008). Qualifications for teachers and professionals, 20 U.S.C. § 6319.
Paine, S.L. (2011). What the U.S. can learn from the world’s most successful education reform efforts, New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Ravitch, D. (2000). Left back: a century of failed school reforms, New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Rhode, T.E., & Thompson, L.A. Predicting academic achievement with cognitive ability, Intelligence, 35(1), 83-92.
Sikora, J. & Pitt, D. G. W. (2017). Does advanced mathematics help students enter university more than basic mathematics? Gender and returns to year 12 mathematics in Australia. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 31, 197–218.
Skilling, K., Bobis, J., Martin, A. J., Anderson, J., & Way, J. (2016). What secondary teachers think and do about student engagement in mathematics. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 28, 545–566.
Stacey, K. (2005). The place of problem solving in contemporary mathematics curriculum documents. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3), 341–350.
Stumpf, H., & Stanley, J. C. (2002). “Group data on high school grade point averages and scores on academic aptitude tests as predictors of institutional graduation rates,” Educational and Psychological Measurement 62(6), 1042-1052.
Thomas, M. O. J., & Klymchuk, S. (2012). The school-tertiary interface in mathematics: teaching style and assessment practice. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 24(3), 283–300.
Wayne, A.J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: a review. Review of Educational Research, 73(1), 89-122.
Wilson, B., & Robinson, V. (2012). Predicting teacher performance: proceed with caution, Journal of Assessment and Accountability in Educator Preparation, 2(1), 58-61.
Zimmermann, B. (2016). Improving of mathematical problem-solving: Some new ideas from old resources. In P. Felmer, E. Pehkonen, & J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), Posing and solving mathematical problems (pp. 83–108). Cham: Springer.
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Research Issues in Contemporary Education (RICE) is a nationally indexed, double-blind, peer-reviewed online journal that publishes educational research studies, literature reviews, theoretical manuscripts, and practitioner-oriented articles regarding issues in education. Views expressed in all published articles are the views of the author(s), and publication in RICE does not constitute endorsement. Submission of an article implies that it has not been published and is not currently under review for publication elsewhere.
RICE is an online journal available in the public domain, and use of its content is protected by a Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. This license provides authors with an assurance that LERA values their rights to their scholarly works and has adopted this license to restrict use of RICE content without appropriate permission and attribution.