FNDS 6610 - Research Proposal

8/3/2019 FNDS 6610 - Research Proposal

1/23

Effects of Tracking 1

Running Head: EFFECTS OF TRACKING ON ACHIEVEMENT IN MATHEMATICS

Effects of Tracking on Achievement in Mathematics of Middle School Students in Alabama

Tynisa Williams

Auburn University Montgomery


2/23


Abstract

Achievement in mathematics in middle school directly affects achievement in and beyond high

school. Despite attempts to improve mathematics education, dropout rates are increasing,

especially in Alabama. The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of tracking of middle

school students in Alabama and indicate whether or not the tracking system employed in

Alabama schools has had negative effects on mathematics achievement. The methods used in

this study will involve using a randomized Solomon four-group design using two experimental

groups of 540 students (sixth to eighth graders) participating in a detracking program and two

control groups of 540 students (sixth to eighth graders) that will continue in the current

educational system. Achievement will be measured by the comparing scores of the two groups

on the Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test. This experiment will take place over the course

of three years with results analyzed using a chi-square test.


3/23


Introduction

Low student achievement in mathematics has been the topic of many studies and the

focus in educational reform for many years. A disproportionately large amount of low- socio-

economic status (SES) students (54 percent according to the Southern Education Foundation

Report 2007) make up the student population in Alabama, due to the many rural areas of the

state. Many professionals believe that this fact is the reason behind the states poor ranking in

education. According to Lee (2007), schools are required to raise achievement each year in math

and reading and to eliminate the achievement gap by race, ethnicity, language, and special

education status. Alabama, though starting to improve in reading, is failing in math on all of

these levels.

There have been numerous attempts to address and correct the problem. Many of these

attempts have failed, causing frustration for professionals and families alike. One attempt has

been instituted in the majority of classrooms nationally and internationally: tracking. In the vast

majority of schools, tracking serves to increase social inequalities in schooling outcomes (Kelly,

2007). Over the years, however, the case has been brought forward that institutionalized tracking

not only is not working, but is causing achievement to fall even lower. This trend is particularly

evident in students of low-SES.

The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of tracking of middle school students

in Alabama and indicate whether or not the tracking system employed in Alabama schools has

had negative effects on mathematics achievement. The subject was narrowed down to include

middle school students because in middle school, mathematics content and the mathematics

course sequence become less fluid and less changeable (Akos, Shoffner, & Ellis, 2007). This will

increase the validity of the study in terms of curriculum.


4/23


There have been numerous studies on the tracking system of education. Some have

sought to prove that tracking is necessary and others have sought to prove that tracking needs to

be removed. The problem in many of these studies was that many know biases were not

accounted for, which distorted the information to the researchers needs. This study will seek to

counter these biases, including those of the educators. Many factors must be considered, funding

included. However, the need is apparent and studies must continue until an answer is found or

else Alabama will continue its decline in the national education rankings.

Statement of the Problem

Does the educational tracking systems employed in the state of Alabama have a negative effect

on mathematical achievement of middle school students?

Variables

The independent variables are the tracked students (control group) and the detracked students

(experimental group).

The dependent variable is the mathematics achievement, defined by scores on the Alabama

Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT).

Definition of Terms

Tracked Students students currently enrolled in Alabama public schools (sixth to eighth grade)

Detracked Students students currently enrolled in Alabama public schools (sixth to eighth

grade) yet participating in the detracking program


5/23


Detracking Program methods of tracking students by achievement are removed

Students are placed in accelerated math courses

Normally high achieving students are used as tutors for low achieving students

Teachers provide various means of instruction

Labs and workstations are provided for all students to aid necessary accommodations for

academic disparities

After school programs are available for further assistance in the program

Parents are included in the process with weekend study groups

Mathematics Achievement Alabama Reading and Mathematics Test (ARMT)

Combination of the Stanford 10 and Otis-Lennon School Ability Test currently

given to Alabama students.

Scores are does not meet, partially meets, meets, exceeds

Randomized Solomon four-group design an experimental design that involves random

assignment of subjects to each of four groups. Two groups are pretested, two are not, one of the

pretested groups and one of the unpretested groups receive the experimental treatment, and all

four groups are posttested.

Review of Literature

Tracking has been the subject of many studies. Many of these studies have been

combined with mathematical achievement. Some researchers and professionals feel that the two

are positively and directly linked, while others have tried to prove the opposite. So the question

becomes, does the educational tracking systems employed in the state of Alabama have a

negative effect on mathematical achievement of middle school students? Math achievement


6/23


remains at a very low levels for the state of Alabama which makes the question one of valued

importance.

Akos, Shoffner, and Ellis (2007) provided research to show the importance of

mathematics while students transition to middle school. This research illustrated a clear

connection between mathematics achievement in middle school and success in high school and

beyond. Connections were projected between mathematical achievement and self-efficacy. An

item of major discussion was the importance of parental connection, and/or disconnection to

mathematics and its affect on student progression. The study polled a random group of about

50% of parents of fifth and sixth graders (57% Caucasian, 20% African American, 9% Asian,

8% Hispanic, and approximately 6% multiracial) using open-ended questionnaires. The report

revealed that parents had faith in their childrens educators, yet did not know the process of

mathematics placement. This study aided in the institution of bias controls on the part of the

educator since parents allow tracking to be conducted by the educators.

In another study, educators took the idea of detracking and made it a reality. The program

used a group of sixth through twelfth grade students (57.3% Latino, 14.2% African American,

19.7% Asian, 6.3% White, 2.0% Filipino, and 0.5% Pacific Islander) and started them in college

prep courses. Alvarez and Mehan (2006) sought to show the connection between detracking and

achievement, even in low-SES students. The success rate of the students, measured by

attendance in 4-year institutions, was listed as proof of success. Though the measure of success

does not connect to the research proposal, the methods used for employing the detracking

program will be used.

The bias of educators, which can be a threat to the validity of the study, was researched

by Biafora and Ansalone (2008). The study involved a sample of 816 principals in New York


7/23


state schools. The researchers encountered difficulty in the bureaucratic system of the state,

which is another facet to take into account when doing experimental studies. The principals were

subjected to a fifty-six item questionnaire on various topics covering education, background,

perceptions of tracking on personal success and in the current school system. The results

demonstrated a wide variety of races, social status, and high belief that the tracking system has

negative effects on the future life chances of some students. The use of the questionnaires

(mailing and in person) and the wide coverage of topics will be used as a guide for the

experimental design hypothesis.

Burris, Heubert, and Levin (2006) performed one of the most thorough and revealing

experiments studied in this proposal. The independent and dependent variables were carefully

chosen. There were specific measures taken to remove threats to validity, and the timeline of the

study lasted six years. Accelerated mathematics achievement was revealed to be the product of

heterogeneous grouping. Middle school students from sixth to eighth grades were exposed to

heterogeneous grouping, also known as detracking, and placed in accelerated math programs.

Students were studied in homogeneous grouping (477) over three years and in the district-

sanctioned heterogeneous grouping (508) over the next three years. The study showed that the

heterogeneous group of student performed well over the homogeneous group with performance

measured by success in high school. The separation of time, however, was not included as a

threat of validity. This will be accounted for in the research proposal.

Some studies concluded that there is no correlation between tracking and personal beliefs

in achievement, as directed by Chiu and others (2008). The researchers used surveys to ask

seventh grade students how they perceived themselves in regards to success in mathematics in

regards to tracking. This study did not take into affect that many students perceived themselves


8/23


as positively as possible because they feel that they cannot attain the level of others. This project

left open many biases that will be addressed in the research proposal. Though students may view

themselves according to the track they are placed in, the national scores view students on the

same level across the board.

Biases are a major threat to the validity of a research project. These biases can positively

or negatively skew the results of a study. In performing a research project, it is imperative that

the threats to validity are examined and addressed. In order to do so, researchers must gather

information from previous past projects and make sure that the biases found are removed

because proceeding. Kelly (2007) encountered a system of institutionalized racism in the

educators and administrators studied. The project, though using a stratified sample of 92 schools,

endured a rejection of the possibility of detracking because subjects were not comfortable with

change. On the contrary, Lee (2006) endured mixed interpretation to report findings. This

problem exposes the need for clarity in reporting when doing research.

LeTendre, Hofer, and Shimizu (2003) researched tracking in the US, Germany, and

Japan. With a sample size so varied in cultural and educational differences, the results of study

can be distorted in many ways. Therefore, sample size needs to be large enough to show a

correlation, yet not so large that no inferences can be made. Controls can also be too strict, as

demonstrated by the project of Trautwein, Ldtke, Marsh, Kller, and Baumert (2006). The

control groups were brought down to an individual basis for student achievement which distorted

the results of the study to show that there was no association between track level and student

self-concept. Researchers must take care not to take control groups to the lowest level.

Community influence is another threat which must be considered when introducing an

experiment, as discovered by Welner (2001). The prominent families in the communities


9/23


researched had a strong say in how changes were made to the school. This hold resulted in a

direct opposition to detracking the school system. Administrators, not wanting to upset the

financial supporters of the school system, complied with complaints and deterred any attempts at

changing the current system. In order for a research project to progress as intended, allowances

must be made for change. If a researcher encounters a community that is opposed to this change,

even though it may benefit all students, then another population must be chosen to study.

A final consideration is responsibility. When incorporating changes to an educational

system, it is up to the educators and professionals to install the methods of change. Yonezawa,

Stuart Wells, and Serna (2002) began research on schools that reported that detracking did not

work. It was discovered that the issue of detracking was left up to the individual students and

parents, not the school educators or administrators. This transfer of responsibility resulted in

students remaining where they were. This is a by-product of institutionalized tracking. Students

become comfortable with being placed in a situation that is familiar and are resistant to change,

especially when that change will place them in an unfamiliar environment. It is up to the

proponents of educational change to encourage students to participate in the change in order for

true success to be measured.

In conclusion, the review of literature has revealed that though the research proposal is

possible and measurable, there are many factors to take into consideration. The variables need to

be defined and clear. Participation in the experiment must be installed by willing participants.

The community must be informed and willing to explore the possibilities of the research. The

population needs to be comprised of a proportionate amount of individuals directly related to the

community. And finally, the researchers must address and bias or threats to validity before


10/23


instituting the changes required for the experiment. The information discovered in the review of

literature will be addressed in the methods section of the proposal.

Hypothesis

There is no significant difference in the mathematical achievement of tracked students compared

to detracked students.

Methods

The research project will be of an experimental design. The number of subjects in total

will be 2,160 middle school students from sixth grade to eighth grade. The demographics will

consist of students age 10-14. The race and gender will match the population, 59% White, 36%

Black, 3% Hispanic, and 2% other nationality with 54% male and 46% female. The problem

occurs when choosing where to hold the experiment. Alabamas smallest county, Marengo, has

157 middle school students while the largest county, Jefferson, has 19,997. In order to account

for the mixture of rural and metropolitan communities, the sample must be pulled from each

type. The choice of the researcher is to use two schools that educate a combination of rural and

metropolitan students. Montgomery County has 7,627 middle school students hailing from

various communities, therefore the sample will be taken from there.

The use of the randomized Solomon four-group design is to account for any biases in the

detracking program, namely the pretest. Two groups of 540 students each will be pretested where

one will be enrolled in the detracking program. Two more groups of 540 students each will not

be pretested, yet one will be enrolled in the detracking program and the other will not.


11/23


Since tracking is the discriminate factor and currently used in the education system in

Alabama, a detracking program must be introduced to the experimental group. This detracking

program must be instituted by a group of highly skilled and willing educators. If necessary, the

teachers will have to go through a training program on how to teach accelerated mathematics.

There should be products in place to account for any accommodations or modifications needed

by the students. Access to technology is required, so the school will need to ensure that the

computer labs are up to date. All training will need to be approved by the Alabama State Board

of Education and follow the similar training discussed by Burris (2006).

Parents will be informed of the process and the research group must receive written

consent forms (Appendix A) before proceeding with the program. The researchers need to be

sure that the parents see the experiment as a positive experience for the student. To best convey

the message, a parent-teacher conference should be conducted. If the parent sees that the teacher

is in support of the research, they will be more willing to allow their child to participate. The

researcher must reinforce the fact that the results of the experiment will not count against the

student. The two control groups, one pretested, will continue in the educational system as in the

past.

The timeline of the study will cover three years. This time will show the progression of

the sixth grader into the eighth grade and the eighth grader into high school. The reason for the

progression into high school being recorded is due to the findings that mathematical achievement

in middle school has a direct affect on achievement and choices in high school. The timeline of

the study will also reduce any disturbance of the Hawthorne effect. The attention span of

students is very short. The Hawthorne effect make be encountered at the beginning of the study,

but as time progresses, it will be forgotten.


12/23


The step by step procedures for the study will go as follows:

1. Detracking program will be submitted for approval from the board of education

2. A random group of teachers will be selected for the program

3. Teachers will go through a 4-week training process on the program

4. Two schools will be selected to participate in the program matching the required

demographics.

5. Parents of the students in the experimental groups will be invited to the school to

meet with the researchers and teachers to go over the program and sign consent forms

6.At the end of the school year before the detracking program is started, the treatment

group and control group will take the ARMT.

7. At the beginning of the school year, the program will be instituted with the pretested

and non-tested experimental groups.

8. The teachers will continue with the accelerated math program as directed with any

assistance being provided by the researchers and educators in the field.

9. At the end of the first year, the sixth, seventh, and eighth graders in all groups will

take the ARMT.

10. At the end of the second year, the seventh and eighth graders will take the ARMT.

11.At the end of the three years, the remaining eighth graders will take the ARMT.

12.The progression in high school of the previously seventh and eighth graders will be

also be recorded (requires acknowledgement of the high school officials that the

students will be involved in a study)

13. The chi-square test will be used to record scores of all students and determine the

contingency coefficient. All of the test information will be placed in a crossbreak


13/23


table to discover whether there is a positive or negative relationship between the

detracking program and the mathematical achievement.

In conclusion, this study seems to be of great magnitude, but it can be controlled. The

biases of the community will be the largest obstacle, but changes can be made. The information

gathered from the study will then determine whether or not the researcher agrees with the null

hypothesis and will determine the relationship between the tracking system and the mathematical

achievement. The main point of the study is to find a way to improve mathematical achievement

of all students, not just high-track students. Hopefully, with proper funding and training, a study

of this magnitude can be conducted.


14/23


References

Akos, P., Shoffner, M., & Ellis, M. (2007). Mathematics placement and the transition to middle

school.Professional School Counseling. Retrieved December 5, 2008.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KOC/is_3_10/ai_n19311518

Alvarez, D., & Mehan, H. (2006). Whole-School Detracking: A Strategy for Equity and

Excellence. Theory Into Practice, 45(1), 82-89. Retrieved December 5, 2008,

doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4501_11

Biafora, F., & Ansalone, G. (2008). Perceptions and attitudes of school principals towards school

tracking: Structural considerations of personal beliefs.Education,128(4), 588-602.

Retrieved December 5, 2008, from Research Library database. (Document

ID: 1501399861).

Burris, C.C., Heubert, J.P., & Levin, H.M. (2006). Accelerating mathematics achievement using

heterogeneous grouping.American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 105-136.

Chiu, D., Beru, Y., Watley, E., Wubu, S., Simson, E., Kessinger, R., et al. (2008). Influences of

math tracking on seventh-grade students' self-beliefs and social comparisons. The

Journal of Educational Research,102(2), 125-135,160. doi: 1592652571

Kelly, S. (2007). The contours of tracking in North Carolina. (High school curricula).High

School Journal, 90(4), p.15(17). Retrieved December 05, 2008, from

http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM

Lee, J. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the

gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends.

Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.


15/23


LeTendre, G. K., Hofer, B. K., & Shimizu, H. (2003). What is tracking? Cultural expectations in

the United States, Germany, and Japan.American Educational Research Journal, 40(1),

43. doi: 375084461

Trautwein, U., Ldtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Kller, O., & Baumert, J. (2006). Tracking,

grading, and student motivation: Using group composition and status to predict

self-concept and interest in ninth grade mathematics.Journal of Educational

Psychology, 98, 788806.

Welner, K. G. (2001).Legal rights, local wrongs: When community control collides with

educational equity. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Yonezawa, S., Stuart Wells, A., & Serna, I. (2002). Choosing tracks: "Freedom of choice" in

detracking schools.American Educational Research Journal,39(1), 37. doi: 320163531


16/23


Appendix A

PARENTAL CONSENT FORM FOR CHILD PARTICIPATION IN EXPERIMENTAL

EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

I .................................................................................... being over the age of 18 years hereby

consent to my child............................................................................. participating, as requested,

in the (school name) research project on math achievement.

1. I have read the information provided.

2. Details of procedures and any risks have been explained to my satisfaction.

3. I am aware that I should retain a copy of the Information Sheet and Consent Form for future

reference.

4. I understand that:

My child may not directly benefit from taking part in this research.

My child is free to withdraw from the project at any time.

While the information gained in this study will be published as explained, my

child will not be identified and individual information will remain confidential.

Whether my child participates or not, or withdraws after participating, will have

no effect on any treatment or service that is being provided to him/her.

Whether my child participates or not, or withdraws after participating, will have

no effect on his/her progress in his/her course of study, or results gained.

Participants Printed Name ________________________________________

Signature ____________________________________________ Date_____________


17/23


I certify that I have explained the study to the volunteer and consider that he/she understands

what is involved and freely consents to participation.

Researchers Printed Name ________________________________________

Signature ____________________________________________ Date_____________

I, the participant whose signature appears below, have read a transcript of my participation and

agree to its use by the researcher as explained.

Signature ____________________________________________ Date_____________

I, the participant whose signature appears below, have read the researchers report and agree to

the publication of my information as reported.

Signature ____________________________________________ Date_____________


18/23


Appendix B

Findings from Research

(Akos, 2007)

Parental involvement also affects mathematics placement and performance of middle school

students.

(Alvarez, 2006)

selects through a lottery low-income sixth grade students with high potential but under-

developed skills, and immediately enrolls them in rigorous college- prep classes. This rigorous

middle school curriculum in grades 6-8 prepares them for a high school core curriculum that

fulfills or exceeds the University of California and California State University entry

requirements.

students enrolled in higher-level courses perform better than those in low-level courses.

that students must have a variety of supports to meet the challenges of the rigorous curriculum.

(Biafora, 2008)

teachers, in general, favor tracking as a classroom management strategy and use it as a way to

handle challenges occasioned by academic diversity.

private schools have more flexibility and that parents may have more of a say in curriculum

placement.


19/23


(Burris, 2006)

indicate that a traditional low-track, remedial curriculum actually depresses the mathematics

performance of American students rather than improving it.

students had the greatest success if they received accelerated instruction in the high-track class

accelerated study as an alternative to remediation.

For example, the inclusion of transfer students whose educational histories differ from the

majority could bias a studys results. A strategy for dealing with such effects is to include only

data for the cohort members who have the most similar histories.

Students who were not continuously enrolled in Grades 612 were excluded to ensure that

students in the study had similar mathematical histories. The process of mathematics acceleration

begins in the sixth grade in this district. With the exception of the variation introduced by having

different teachers, all cohort members in mathematics classes of continuously enrolled students

in the same track received similar instruction in a common, school-developed curriculum. In

addition, the entrance criteria for advanced mathematics courses were the same for continuously

enrolled students.

All members of the final two cohorts, with the exception of developmentally delayed students,

were prepared to take the Sequential Mathematics I regents examination. In the first four cohorts,

however, not all special education students were prepared to take the exam. This inconsistency


20/23


had the potential to bias the results, making it appear as though the treatment (universal

acceleration) had a more profound effect than it actually had on the taking of advanced

mathematics courses; therefore, only regular education students were included. After application

of these criteria, each of the six cohorts ranged between 152 and 181 students. There were 477

pre-universalacceleration participants and 508 post-universal-acceleration participants.

(Chiu, 2008)

Students stated that they most frequently compare themselves with other students who perform

similarly to them in the same track.

Students mentioned that it was simply easier and more practical to compare themselves to

students in their classes because comparing across tracks would mean accounting for differences

in teachers and material.

study also indicated that the students' actual math level or track has no significant effect on

their self-esteem.

(Davenport, 1993) -- Though not used in references because this was a report on a study, the

information contained below was very important in the exclusion of teachers as a threat to

validity

practice of placing students into different tracks based on ability, achievement, or career

expectations. The report identified three areas in which inequities in mathematics instruction

were found: (1) access to strong mathematics programs; (2) access to well-qualified mathematics

teachers; and (3) access to classroom opportunities.


21/23


high-ability groups at the elementary, middle, or junior and high school levels progress further

in the school curriculum over the course of the year than low-ability groups.

teachers of high-track students reported spending more time preparing for class, and they

appeared to be more enthusiastic and more willing to push their students to stretch academically

than teachers of low-track students. Upper-track teachers also expected their students to spend

more time on homework than did teachers of low-track students.

(Kelly, 2007)

even though a high level of selectivity exists without distinctions within math courses, most

schools further differentiate individual courses (eg. regular and honors geometry). The result is

that students are segregated by ability as well as age.

the effects of tracking policies depend on local context.

Policies that seem pernicious in the context of this organizational analysis may have educational

benefits when viewed from a different theoretical perspective.

(Lee, 2006)

This report concludes that neither a significant rise in achievement, nor closure of the racial

achievement gap is being achieved.

(Letendre, 2003)

By the middle years, U.S. students may be sorted into ability-based classrooms for certain

subjects, most commonly for math classes, and this sorting places constraints on the students'

high-school-to-college trajectory.


22/23


(Trautwein, 2006)

For instance, individual math interest reflects an ongoing, rather stable affinity for math. There is

a theoretical distinction between the feeling-related (also called intrinsic value) and the value-

related (attainment value/commitment-related) components of personal interest.

In our analyses, higher math self-concept in lower track students seems to have been primarily a

consequence of differential grading practices (full mediation). Furthermore, math self-concept

mediated much of the effects of the other variables on math interest.

(Welner, 2001)

Because detracking is fundamentally redistributivethose who seek such reform must challenge

traditional ways of thinking.

(Yonezawa, 2002)

Fundamental to our analysis of choice as a detracking mechanism is a reconceptualization of

tracks as political spaces, places where people fashion their identity and social relations.

resisted entering high-track classes because the relationship between their places in the

tracking hierarchy and their evolving identities and ideologies shaped the way such options were

presented to and perceived by them.

track structures extremely difficult to dismantle for various social, political, and cultural

reasons.


23/23


placed the onus of the reform on students to take high-track courses rather than on educators to

dismantle track structures and address cultural norms.

It failed because it left intact the schools' tracked structures, or the spaces that students occupied,

and the identities and social relations that students formed in response to track placements.

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	twilli44
View:	224 times
Download:	0 times

FNDS 6610 - Research Proposal

Documents