Article Sidebar

Download
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 22 Download : 4

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Calculus I courses play a pivotal role in shaping students' STEM pathways, making it essential to adopt pedagogies that foster both achievement and mathematics identity development, particularly among underserved groups such as Hispanic students. This study explores the impact of Specifications Grading, an alternative assessment method where students meet specific course learning objectives through multiple attempts, on students’ mathematics identity development. Through a comparative case study of two Calculus I students at a Hispanic-Serving Institution, one enrolled in a specification graded course and the other in a traditionally-graded course, we examine shifts in their self-perceptions of competence, interest, recognition in mathematics, and overall mathematics identity.  Our findings suggest that specifications grading can enhance students' mathematics identity by encouraging perseverance and a sense of competence. This study contributes to the field of mathematics education by providing empirical evidence that alternative assessment structures, like specifications grading, can serve as powerful tools for creating more equitable and identity-affirming learning environments in foundational STEM courses.

Keywords

Alternative Assessments Calculus Hispanic Serving Institution Mathematics Identity Specifications Grading

Article Details

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Fernandez, L. M., Serbin, K. S., Villalobos, C., Setayesh, S., & Garza, G. (2025). Shaping mathematics identity: An exploratory study on specifications grading in Calculus I at a Hispanic-Serving institution. Journal on Mathematics Education, 16(2), 449–478. https://doi.org/10.22342/jme.v16i2.pp449-478
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Adams, M. (2018). I can solve all the problems: LatinX students (re)write their math stories. In I. Goffney, R. Gutiérrez, & M. Boston (Eds.), Rehumanizing Mathematics for Black, Indigenous, and LatinX students (pp. 121-134). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
  2. Beatty, I. D. (2013). Standards-based grading in introductory university physics. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(2), 1−22. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/3264
  3. Boaler, J. (2013). Ability and mathematics: The mindset revolution that is reshaping education. Forum.
  4. Boesdorfer, S.B., Galdwin, E., and Lieberum, K. (2018). Emphasizing learning: Using standards-based grading in a large nonmajors’ general chemistry survey course. Journal of Chemical Education, 95. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.8b00251
  5. Bromley, D. B. (1986). The case-study method in psychology and related disciplines. John Wiley & Sons.
  6. Carlisle, S. (2020). Simple Specifications Grading. PRIMUS, 30(8–10), 926–951. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1695238
  7. Carlone, H. B., & Johnson, A. (2007). Understanding the science experiences of successful women of color: Science identity as an analytic lens. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44, 1187–1218. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20237
  8. Cass, C., Hazari, Z., Cribbs, J., Sadler, P., & Sonnert, G. (2011). Examining the impact of mathematics identity on the choice of engineering careers for male and female students. In Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE; pp. F2H–1). IEEE. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/FIE.2011.6142881
  9. Champion, J., & Mesa, V. (2018). Pathways to calculus in US high schools. Primus, 28(6), 508– 527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2017.1315473
  10. Civil, M., & Hunter, R. (2015). Participation of non-dominant students in argumentation in the mathematics classroom. Intercultural Education, 26(4), 296–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2015.1071755
  11. Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(31), 8664-8668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113
  12. Convertino, C., Alvidrez, M., Pickett, J., & Camberos, D. (2022). Exploring worksheets and attendance-taking as gatekeeping features in a gateway course for Latinx STEM majors. Journal of Latinos and Education, 22(4), 1744-1760. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2022.2043865
  13. Cribbs, J. D., Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P.M. (2015). Establishing an explanatory model for mathematics identity. Child Development, 86(4),1048−1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12363
  14. Crisp, G., Taggart, A., & Nora, A. (2015). Undergraduate Latina/o students: A systematic review of research identifying factors contributing to academic success outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 85(2), 249–274. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314551064
  15. Donato, J. J., & Marsh, T. C. (2023). Specifications grading is an effective approach to teaching biochemistry. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 24(2), e00236-22. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00236-22
  16. Drever, E. (1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research. A teacher's guide.
  17. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random house.
  18. Ellis, J., Fosdick, B. K., & Rasmussen, C. (2016). Women 1.5 times more likely to leave STEM pipeline after calculus compared to men: Lack of mathematical confidence a potential culprit. PloS one, 11(7), e0157447. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157447
  19. Fernández, L. M., Nguyen, U., & Callahan, R. (2022). Learners’ mathematics identity and achievement: Where does the teacher come in? International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 55(8), 1999-2024. https://doi.org/10.1080/0020739X.2022.2117657
  20. Gardee, A., & Brodie, K. (2023). A framework for analysing the relationships between peer interactions and learners’ mathematical identities: Accounting for personal and social identities. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 113(3), 443-473. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-022-10201-0
  21. Gee, J. P., Allen, A. R., & Clinton, K. (2001). Language, class, and identity: Teenagers fashioning themselves through language. Linguistics and Education, 12(2), 175–194. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(00)00045-0
  22. Gonzalez, L., Lucas, N., & Battle, J. (2022). A quantitative study of mathematics identity and achievement among LatinX secondary school students. Journal of Latinos and Education, 22(5), 1953-1968. https://doi.org/10.1080/15348431.2022.2073231
  23. Hackerson, E. L., Slominski, T., Johnson, N., Buncher, J. B., Ismael, S., Singelmann, L., Leontyev, A., Knopps, A. G., McDarby, A., Nguyen, J. J., Condry, D. L., Nyachwaya, J. M., Wissman, K. T., Falkner, W., Grieger, K., Montplaisir, L., Hodgson, A., & Momsen, J. L. (2024). Alternative grading practices in undergraduate STEM Education: A scoping review. Disciplinary and Interdisciplinary Science Education Research, 6(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43031-024-00106-8
  24. Hazari, Z., Sonnert, G., Sadler, P. M., & Shanahan, M. C. (2010). Connecting high school physics experiences, outcome expectations, physics identity, and physics career choice: A gender study. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 47(8), 978–1003. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20363
  25. Ives, J., & Castillo-Montoya, M. (2020). First-generation college students as academic learners: A systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(2), 139–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319899707
  26. Katzman, S.D, Hurst-Kennedy, J., Barrera, A., Talley, J., Javazon, El, Diaz, M., & Anzovino, M.E. (2021). The Effect of specifications grading on students’ learning and attitudes in an undergraduate-level cell biology course. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 22(3), e00200-21. http://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.00200-21
  27. Limeri, L. B., Carter, N. T., Choe, J., Harper, H. G., Martin, H. R., Benton, A., & Dolan, E. L. (2020). Growing a growth mindset: Characterizing how and why undergraduate students’ mindsets change. International Journal of STEM Education, 7, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-020-00227-2
  28. Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. Handbook of Adolescent Psychology, 9(11), 159–187.
  29. Marks, A., & Mahoney, J. (2014). Researching identity: A Critical Realist approach. In Studying Organizations Using Critical Realism. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199665525.003.0004
  30. Matthews, J. S. (2020). Formative learning experiences of urban mathematics teachers’ and their role in classroom care practices and student belonging. Urban Education, 55(4), 507−541. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085919842625
  31. Maxwell, J. A., & Chmiel, M. (2013). Notes toward a theory of qualitative data analysis. In The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis, 21–34. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243.n2
  32. McAdams, D. P., & McLean, K. C. (2013). Narrative identity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22(3), 233–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413475622
  33. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
  34. Nilson, L.B. (2015). Specifications grading: Restoring rigor, motivating students, and saving faculty time. Stylus.
  35. Nilson, L.B. (2016, January 19). Yes, Virginia, there’s a better way to grade. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/01/19/new-ways-grade-more-effectively-essay.
  36. Norton, P. R., High, K. A., & Bridges, W. (2017). Calculus I course policy changes and impact on various demographic student group success. In 2017 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition. https://peer.asee.org/27999.pdf
  37. Pedraza, L., & Chen, R. (2022). Examining motivator factors of STEM undergraduate persistence through two-factor theory. The Journal of Higher Education, 93(4), 532–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2021.1999722
  38. Porter, C. J., & Byrd, J. A. (2021). Understanding influences of development on Black women’s success in US colleges: A synthesis of literature. Review of Educational Research, 91(6), 803–830. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211027929
  39. Post, S. L. (2017). Standards-based grading in a thermodynamics course. International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy, 7(1), 173−181. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijep.v7i1.6472
  40. Prasad, P. V. (2020). Using Revision and Specifications Grading to Develop Students’ Mathematical Habits of Mind. PRIMUS, 30(8–10), 908–925. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511970.2019.1709589
  41. President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. (2012). Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (Report to the President). https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/pcast-engage-to-excel-final_2-25-12.pdf
  42. Pyzdrowski, L. J., Sun, Y., Curtis, R., Miller, D., Winn, G., & Hensel, R. A. M. (2013). Readiness and attitudes as indicators for success in college calculus. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11(3), 529–554. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-012-9352-1
  43. Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2018). Race and gender differences in how sense of belonging influences decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM education, 5, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-018-0115-6
  44. Rainey, K., Dancy, M., Mickelson, R., Stearns, E., & Moller, S. (2019). A descriptive study of race and gender differences in how instructional style and perceived professor care influence decisions to major in STEM. International Journal of STEM Education, 6(1), 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-019-0159-2
  45. Samuel, T. S., & Warner, J. (2021). “I can math!”: Reducing math anxiety and increasing math self-efficacy using a mindfulness and growth mindset-based intervention in first-year students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 45(3), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/10668926.2019.1666063
  46. Seawright, J., & Gerring, J. (2008). The case for selecting cases that are deviant or extreme on the independent variable. Sociological Methods & Research, 45(3), 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124116643556
  47. Shoshani, A. (2021). Growth mindset in the maths classroom: A key to teachers’ well-being and effectiveness. Teachers and Teaching, 27(8), 730-752. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2021.2007370
  48. Singer, J. A. (2005). Personality and psychotherapy: Treating the whole person. Guilford Press.
  49. Solórzano, D., Acevedo-Gil, N., & Santos, R. E. (2013). Latina/o community college students: Understanding the barriers of developmental education (Policy Report No. 10). Pathways to Postsecondary Success. http://pathways.gseis.ucla.edu/publications/DevEdPolicyBrief.pdf
  50. Stange, K. E. (2016, August) Standards based grading in a first proofs course. University of Colorado. http://math.colorado.edu/~kstange/papers/Stange-standards-discrete.pdf
  51. Stevens, R. J., Olivares-Pasillas, M. C., & D’Ambrosio, B. (2020). Mathematics identity: An emerging construct for mathematics education research. ZDM Mathematics Education, 52(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-019-01122-6
  52. Sun, K. L. (2018). Brief report: The role of mathematics teaching in fostering student growth mindset. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 49(3), 330–335. https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.49.3.0330
  53. Suresh, R. (2006). The relationship between barrier courses and persistence in engineering. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(2), 215–239. http://doi.org/10.2190/3QTU-6EEL-HQHF-XYF0
  54. Talbert, R. (2017). Specifications grading: We may have a winner. RTalbert.org, https://rtalbert.org/specs-grading-iteration-winner/
  55. Toledo, S., & Dubas, J. M. (2017) A learner-centered grading method focused on reaching proficiency with course learning outcomes. Journal of Chemical Education, 94(8), 1043−1050. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jchemed.6b00651
  56. Tsoi, M. Y., Anzovino, M. E., Erickson, A. H. L., Forringer, E. R., Henary, E., Lively, A., Morton, M. S., Perell-Gerson, K., Perrine, S., Villanueva, O., Whitney, M., & Woodbridge, C. M. (2019). Variations in implementation of specifications grading in STEM courses. Georgia Journal of Science, 77(2), 10. https://digitalcommons.gaacademy.org/gjs/vol77/iss2/10
  57. Waterman, A. S. (1984). Identity formation: Discovery or creation?. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 4(4), 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431684044004
  58. Weisburst, E., Daugherty, L., Miller, T., Martorell, P., & Cossairt, J. (2017). Innovative pathways through developmental education and postsecondary success: An examination of developmental math interventions across Texas. The Journal of Higher Education, 88(2), 183−209. https://doi.org/10.1080/00221546.2016.1243956
  59. Wilson, A. T., Wang, X., Galarza, M. O., Knight, J., & Patiño, E. (2023). Math attitudes and identity of high schoolers impacted through participating in informal, near-peer mentoring. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 9(2), 535-545. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.3093
  60. Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 47(4), 302-314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722805
  61. Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., ... & Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573, 364-369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-y
  62. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods, 3rd Edition. Sage.