THE EFFECTS OF MATH

LITERACY UTILIZING A
READING APPRENTICESHIP
FRAMEWORK ON MATH
ACHIEVEMENT OF ANALYTIC
GEOMETRY STUDENTS
KARONDA FOSTER MITCHELL, PhD

NABSE 51st Annual Conference 2023

Research Roundtable
GREETINGS!
Let’s find out who is in the
room. Scan the QR Code:

PollEv.com/karondafoste538
 Does this
sound
familiar ?
Cameron: Umm, so umm, with this problem here, it was a little bit more Cameron: Well umm, I would look for each number in the problem and try
difficult because it was a word problem. to think of a problem, like...and put an answer? Oh, I'll make a
justification.
Interviewer: Okay, so is that asking you more?
Interviewer: What would make this problem simpler or more
Cameron: No, I think it's actually just, umm, it's simple. At the same time accomplishable for you?
it's complex because it's trying to confuse you in other ways. So, I don't
really know. It just I get confused, I'm not sure. I believe it's asking me Cameron: Layman's terms.
more, but at the same time, I don't know which way to go.
Interviewer: Do you feel like this is asking you to do too much?
Interviewer: You don't even know where to start with this problem?
Cameron: Yes. Like, it's just worded differently. That pretty much it. If it was
Cameron: Not at all. worded differently I would probably be able to understand it better.
Interviewer: So if on the test, what would you do if given a problem like
this?
Cameron: Honestly? Guess…
Interviewer: But, notice that this one is not multiple choice…so how would
you guess?
Does this sound
familiar ?
■ Case Study (Spring 2015)
– The Linguistic Demands of Common Core Mathematics
Standards
■ Participants: Four geometry students (2 male; 2 female)
■ Findings
– All students were reluctant to solve word problem
or constructed response problems.
– The female students put emphasis on
understanding the content of the topic of the
questions
– The male students put an emphasis on the
confusion and frustration caused by the lack of
understanding the question
Research Goal
■ My goal was to find an
intervention to help student
understand the language of
mathematics. Furthermore, I
wanted to help deepen my
students’ conceptual
understanding of math.
 Problem
■ According to a significant body of research,
students are unable to correctly answer
conceptual math questions due to a lack of

statement
math literacy (Duru & Koklu, 2011;Pearson,
Moje, & Greenleaf, 2010; Snow & Moje,
2010; Yang, 2012).
 ■ The purpose of this “untreated control group
[quasi-experimental] design study with
dependent pretest and posttest samples”

Purpose of (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002, p. 136)

is to determine if there is a statistically
significant difference in the mathematical

the study achievement of Analytic Geometry students

who receive a literacy intervention using the
Reading Apprenticeship model (Schoenbach,
Greenleaf, & Murphy, 2012) at a suburban
high school in Georgia.
Literature Review:
Development of Literacy
20th Century 21st Century
Prior to the 20th Comprehension
Century Emergence of
Reading and writing Vocabulary building content &
Schema theory disciplinary literacy

■ In a broad sense, "...'literacy' refers to the human use of language" (Romberg, 2001, p.5). More
specifically, Gee (1989) defined literacy, "...as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary
Discourse" (p.9).
■ Content literacy focuses on gaining insight and access to knowledge about the content, whereas,
disciplinary literacy focuses on gaining a deep understanding of the content (Moje, 2008; Shanahan
& Shanahan, 2012).
■ Literacy is separate from the academic domain of language arts (Rainey, 2016).
■ There has been a push to keep literacy instruction separate from content instruction.
Math Literacy Defined
Literacy
Instruction
•Reading
Comprehension
•Writing
•Vocabulary

Math Literacy
building

• The ability to
speak, understand,
analyze and
communicate in
the language of
mathematics.
Math
Instruction
•Computation
•Problem Solving
Literature review:
Conceptual Framework
■ The Reading Apprenticeship conceptual framework is
introduced to the study as a possible solution to the
issue with academic achievement for students in math
courses.
■ The framework has four interlocking dimensions that are
weaved into the pedagogy of teaching.
■ The framework, "centers on metacognitive conversation,
involving explicit metacognitive routines, modeling, small-
group work, and class discussions that focus...on how to
read [content] and why people read [content] in the way
they do..."(Greenleaf et al., 2010, p. 11).
Literature Review:
Theoretical Framework
■ Social Cognitive theory is the thought that learning
takes place in social environments, where
environmental factors influence behaviors (Bandura,
1986; Schunk, 2012). Person Behavior
■ The findings of the Bobo doll experiment (1961) lead
Bandura to the development of Social Learning Theory
(1977).
■ Social Cognitive theories include cognitive development
skills, self-regulatory skills, and social skills (Schunk,
2012).
■ Social Learning Theory (1977) claimed that contrary to
behaviorism, there is a mediating process that occurs
between a stimulus and a response.
■ Social Cognitive Theory (1986) assumes that there is a Environment
triadic reciporocality framework that encompasses the
interaction of behaviors, environment, and personal
factors that constitute to learning (Bandura, 1986;
Schunk, 2012).
Literature review:
Connecting Frameworks
Social Dimenison
•RA: Community atmosphere
(Schoenbach et al., 2012)
•RA: Students interact with
each other and the teacher
(Schoenbach et al., 2012)
•SCT: Subjects learn in social
atmospheres where they are
able to observe models
(cognitive modeling) and
interact with the social
environment (Bandura,
1986)
•SCT: The learning process
begins with environmental
stimuli (Bandura, 1986)
Personal Dimension
•RA: Development of self
(Schoenbach et al., 2012)
•RA: Student develop
academic self-identity and
self-awareness (Schoenbach
et al., 2012)
•RA: Student engages in
metacognitive conversation
(Schoenbach et al., 2012)
•SCT: Self-regulation and self-
efficacy are processes that
occur in SCT (Bandura, 1986)
Cognitive Dimension
•RA: Development of mental
process (Schoenbach et al.,
2012)
•SCT: Cognitive process occur
after metacognitive
processes during the
mediating stage
(Schoenbach et al., 2012)
Knowlege-Building Dimension
•RA: Development of
knowledge needed for
complex text (Schoenbach et
al., 2012)
•SCT: Learning happens
during through observation
(Bandura, 1986)
•SCT: Knowledge building
occurs when a subject
interacts with an
environmental stimulus. The
mediating process occurs,
and the subject gives a
response (Bandura, 1986)
 ■ Is there a statistically significant difference

Research on math achievement as measured by a

USATestprep assessment between students
who will receive intervention, the Reading

Question Apprenticeship, and a control group on

mathematical literacy while controlling for
prior mathematics knowledge?
 ■ Null hypothesis: There will not be a
statistically significant difference between
students who will receive intervention with

Research the Reading apprenticeship and a control

group on mathematical literacy while
controlling for prior mathematics knowledge.

Hypothesis ■ In order to reject the null hypothesis, the p

value for the intervention parameter is set to
be less than or equal to .050.
 ■ Quantitative study
■ The study was a quantitative quasi-experimental
study.
– A USATestprep created Pretest and posttest
was administered to an untreated control

Research
group as well as a treatment group
(Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002).
■ The Analytic Geometry students were given the

Design &
USATestprep created instrument to determine if
the intervention caused students to have
statistically significant gains in their overall
average score.

Rationale ■ Experimental group

– Reading Apprenticeship intervention
– Pretest and posttest
■ Control group
– Traditional direct instruction
– Pretest and posttest
Participants
Group Male #(%) Female #(%) Total #

■ 10th Grade students

■ Course: Analytic
Geometry
Control 10(30%) 23(70%) 33
■ Population size: 84
students
Experiment 29(57%) 22(43%) 51

Total 39(46%) 45(54%) 84

 ■ Letter of informed consent
■ Letter of informed assent
■ Encryption of personal information using
pseudonyms

Ethical ■
■
Omission of personal information
Storage on password-protected hard drive
Safeguards ■ No emotional or physical harm was done to
participants
■ No grades or incentives were given for
participations
■ Fair and equal treatment of participants
 ■ Title I funded school
■ 100% of the students receive free lunch
■ Culturally diverse
– 54 countries
Setting ■
– 47 languages
High minority population
– 29.7% Asian
– 61.5% African-American
– 4% Hispanic
 ■ USATestprep created assessment
■ USATestprep aligns to Georgia Standards of
Excellence and aligns questions to those of
the Georgia Milestones
Instrument ■ The assessment had the same domains as
the Georgia Milestones
■ The assessment utilizes a correlation score
which is modeled after the Milestones’ scale
score
 ■ The developer of the assessment would not
release scoring algorithm or reliability
coefficient
■ The developer of the assessment confirms
that the questions used are adapted from

Instrument ■
the Georgia Milestones
The developer of the assessment

Reliability
recommended referring to the Georgia
Milestones’ Cronbach's alpha reliability
coefficient for the purpose of this study
■ Milestones reliability
■ Average reliability 0.92
■ Minimum reliability 0.91
■ Maximum reliability 0.95
Assessment
Structure

• The assessment has 5 domains

• The Milestones has 49 items with 3
field test questions
• The USATestprep instrument was a
smaller version (31 questions) of the
assessment with the same domain
weights
Scoring
Achievement Level Descriptors Score trends

■ Beginning 185-474
– Do not demonstrate proficiency Winter 2 014 17.3 31.1 33.6 18.0
Sp rin g 2015 35.3 36.2 22.5 5.9
■ Developing 475-524 Winter 2 015 17. 27.4 38.5 17.1
– Demonstrates partial proficiency Sp rin g 2016 30. 38. 26. 7.0
■ Proficient 525-593 Winter 2 016 36.8 32.1 23.4 7.6

– Demonstrates proficiency Sp rin g 2017 32. 35. 25. 8.0

Winter 2 017 30. 28. 26. 16.0
■ Distinguished 596-810 Sp rin g 2018 37. 31. 24. 8.0
– Demonstrates advanced Winter 2 018 28.3 23.9 25.9 21.9
proficiency Average 29.3 31.4 27.2 12.2
0. 25. 50. 75. 100.
Beginning Developing Proficient Distinguished
 ■ Demographics questionnaire
■ Administration of pretest
■ Instruction

Data
– Traditional direct instruction for control
group
– Instruction utilizing the Reading

Collection Apprenticeship for the experimental

group
■ Administration of posttest
■ Data analysis
■ Duration: 6 weeks
Instructional Control Experimental
Procedure Group Group

Warm-up focus:
Warm-Up focus: Vocabulary enrichment
Review questions Review question with mandatory
justifications

Lesson:
Math text reading and metacognitive
Lesson: note taking
Direct explicit teaching of content Reading journal
standards Small group/whole collaboration
Guided practice questions about text topic and reading process
Teacher models concepts with text
reference

Individual practice:
Selected response questions
Individual practice:
Constructed response questions
Selected-response questions
All questions require justification and
referral to text
Final reflection journal
Traditional Note-Taking
■ Regurgitation
■ Explicit Examples
■ Limited
– Void of student thought
Metacognitive
■ Extension of traditional notes
■ Incorporation of student
thought
Notes
■ Notes can be taken along with
content text or lesson notes
■ Active thinking and
engagement with the text
– Make connections
– Visualize concepts
– Ask questions
– Summarize
– Clarify
More Examples
Usefulness of the
Metacognitive
Process
 ■ Limited small population

■ The statistical power was a limitation of the study.

– The statistical power was .60 due to the small sample
size.
– Generalizability

Limitations
■ Availability of instrument

■ Professional knowledge of the Reading Apprenticeship

■ Inability to randomly select participants for groups

■ The complexity with the homogeneity of variance assumption

creates a limitation of the study.
– The homogeneity of variance assumption was violated
due to a low sample size and unequal grouping sizes.
Data Analysis
■ Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA)
– Covariate
■ The pretest was the covariate
■ Type 3 sum of squares
– Due to the unequal grouping
■ Transformation of Data
– The original data set consisted of 84
participants
– Transformed with the square rooting
method and trimmed using outliers
– Due to unequal grouping sizes and a
small sample size, the assumption of
normality and homogeneity of variance
were violated
■ Assumptions
– Normality
■ control group p = .290, treatment
group p = .175 *not statistically
significant
– Independence of covariates and treatment
effect
■ p = .667 *not statistically significant
– Homogeneity of regression slopes
■ p = .449 *not statistically significant
– Homogeneity of variance
■ p = .000
■ Variance ratio = 4.45; correlation = -1; coefficient of sample
size variation = .25; pairing variance =-1
■ The violation is likely due to the differences in sample groups
and the overall small sample size (Blanca et at., 2017; Field,
2013; Johnson & Rakow, 1994; Koh & Cribbie, 2013).
■ The violation is noted as a limitation, the ANCOVA results
were still analyzed
Data Analysis (cont.)
■ Covariate
– Pretest
■ Dependent variable
– Posttest
■ p = .004 *statistically significant
■ There was a statistically significant
difference between the posttest
scores of students who received the
Reading Apprenticeship intervention
and students who did not receive
the Reading Apprenticeship
intervention.
 Recommendations
Recommendations for future research:
§ Increase sample size
§ Equal group sizes
§ Extend the study to other
mathematics courses
§ Extend the study design to a mix-
methods design
Recommendations for future practice:
■ Mathematics educators should
increase math literacy skills.
■ Mathematics educators should utilize
an intervention like the Reading
Apprenticeship to expose students to
disciplinary texts, demystify
disciplinary texts, and discover
meaning ways to read disciplinary
texts.
■ Mathematics educators should
encourage students to engage in
metacognitive conversations.
Conclusion
■ The purpose of this study was to
determine if the Reading Apprenticeship
intervention increased student
achievement of Analytic Geometry
students.
■ The Reading Apprenticeship is an
intervention model that focuses on
metacognitive strategy rooted in social
cognitive theory.
■ The study was implemented with 84
participants who were Analytic Geometry
in a suburban high school.
■ The study design was quasi-experimental
design with a prestest and posttest.
■ The data were analyzed using an ANCOVA
analysis.
■ There was a statistically significant
difference between the participants in the
control group and the participants in the
experimental group.
■ It is concluded that Reading
Apprenticeship did increase student
achievement.
■ It is recommended that mathematics
educators integrate literacy strategies into
content instruction.
■ It is also recommended that future
research expands the scope of the study
by increasing sample size and creating
equal size grouping.
QUESTIONS?
Can this work in your educational community?
What would your fears be with implementation?
Have you seen a model like this before?
WHAT’S
YOUR
DEEPEST
FEAR?
 Special thanks to my
COMMITTEE
Mercer University
Tift College of Education
Dr. Hall, Chair
Dr. Wilkinson, Methodologist
Dr. Scott-Simmons, Committee Member
 THANK YOU!!!
Keep in touch
IG: @DrFosterMitchell twitter: @DocKFMitchell