Running head: THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

The Need for Math Remediation at the High School Level

Heather Larsen

Weber State University

THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Students who do well in a course are more likely to develop confidence that they can do

well in subsequent courses. For example, students who do well in Math 7 are more likely to have

self-efficacy about doing well in Math 8, and then Secondary Math I, II, and III. Since Secondary

Math III is the prerequisite for College Algebra the students who do not do well are more likely

to be unsuccessful in the math course they need to get a bachelor’s degree (Pajares and Miller

1994).

Fortunately, there are many researched strategies that help students who struggle in a

math course. Students who receive this help can break the pattern of low self-efficacy and have

increased success in their subsequent math courses. In some cases, students who do extremely

poorly in their math class may need to repeat the course with some of the researched help to

break the pattern of low performance. If students begin to struggle in their math course, help can

be provided to ensure that they feel confident going onto the next level (Gersten et al., 2009).

Unfortunately, it is difficult for students to receive extra help and support in math classes

in which they struggle because many schools don’t know what the researched strategies are to

help struggling students (Wagner 2014). This makes students more likely to give up and unable

to continue in their subsequent courses. Quite often students who are struggling and need

additional help do not receive it until they reach high school. Frequently, teachers do know how

to help these struggling students, but large class sizes prohibit them from doing what is needed.

If they do not receive the proper help, this struggle can worsen and follow them to subsequent

courses (Sayer, Chaput De Saintonge, Evans, & Wood, 2002).

THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Literature Review

Building Self-Efficacy

Students who do well in their grade level math course are more likely to develop a strong

self-efficacy about that subject. Knowing how to study and learn is a behavior that students need

to do well in school. Bandura (1977) studied the cognitive process to find that it is directly

related to behavior patterns. He found that when someone observes another’s behavior, that can

start the cognitive process for a change in their own behavior; if the one observing finds the

behavior of the other stimulating. Putting this in a student/teacher setting, observing the teacher’s

method of solving a problem and then recreating that on their own is the ideal way for students to

learn a subject. The student can strengthen the new behavior learned by receiving feedback from

the teacher and improve their performance on the skill or problem they are solving. The feedback

can solidify the performance of the student and in return make the new behavior more permanent

(Bandura).

Behavior is driven by self-efficacy. Efficacy is defined as the belief that your behavior

will lead to certain outcomes. Efficacy expectation is defined as the belief your behaviors will

actually lead to the wanted outcomes. If the belief is strong enough, the behavior will be

performed. If it is not strong, the behavior will be avoided (Bandura 1977).

Not only can perceived self-efficacy have directive influence on choices of activities and

settings, but, through expectations of eventual success, it can affect coping efforts once

they are initiated. Efficacy expectations determine how much effort people will expend
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

and how long they will persist in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. The

stronger the perceived self-efficacy, the more active the efforts. (Bandura 1977, p. 194)

Math problems take creative problem solving and persistent detail-oriented work that a strong

self-efficacy can help a student succeed in performing the many tasks in a math course.

Staikovic and Luthans (1998) further studied self-efficacy, defining it as a belief that one

can do or perform a task well. They expand on the research of Bandura stating, “Individuals who

perceive themselves as highly efficacious activate sufficient effort that, if well executed,

produces successful outcomes whereas those who perceive low self-efficacy are likely to cease

their efforts prematurely and fail on the task.” If students have a strong self-efficacy about the

math course they are in, then they are most likely to be successful in their course. However, if

students have a low self-efficacy about the math course they are in then they are more likely to

be unsuccessful (Staikovic & Luthans).

Being a student is similar to a full-time occupation. In high school, studying becomes a

major part of their work. Staikovic and Luthan’s (1998) meta-analysis is specifically about how

self-efficacy is directly related to work performance, which can be used to look at how student’s

work in high school is affected by self-efficacy. When students begin their high school math

course with low confidence, their efforts to be successful in the course work are most likely to

fail. To be successful, “performers must have an accurate knowledge of the tasks they are trying

to accomplish” (Staikovic & Luthan, 1998, p. 241). Most teachers hope that their students leave

their classroom with this clear knowledge, but that isn’t always the case. The more complex the

math becomes, the harder it is for students to have the necessary skills to be successful. It

requires “greater demands on required knowledge, cognitive ability, memory capacity,

THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

behavioral facility, information processing, persistence, and physical effort” (Staikovic &

Luthan, 1998, p. 241).

In addition to all of these factors the external environment also has an effect on a

student’s self-efficacy. If resources are not available or the environment that the student is

studying is not appropriate (it has many distractions; cellphone, T.V., friends or family arguing,

and etc.); then this too will affect their work performance.

Pajares and Miller (1994) further studied the relationship between self-efficacy and

students studying math. In their research they found that a student’s math self-concept also had

effect on a student’s mathematical ability. Math self-concept is how one views themselves in the

field of mathematics. Although they studied undergraduates, their findings can also apply to a

high school student. When studying the participants, they found that some took math all four

years of high school but were not able to progress past geometry. In other cases, some students

were able to take more than one math class a year and progress past AP calculus (Pajares &

Miller).

Within their study they found the strongest correlation between self-efficacy and

performance. The students with a strong self-efficacy outperformed the students that had a low

self-efficacy. Other aspects studied included self-concept, anxiety, and gender, but the

correlation to performance in a math course was not as significant as self-efficacy. Men were

found to have a higher math self-efficacy than women, but that doesn’t change the idea that the

pattern of success will stay with a student as they move on to subsequent math courses (Pajares

& Miller, 1994).

In the state of Utah, most secondary schools start with grade 7. In that grade, most

students will take Math 7 (USBE, 2016). High school education typically starts in grade 9 with
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Secondary Math I and continues in a series to Secondary Math III in the junior year. The self-

efficacy built or not built by the student within each math course affects the self -efficacy in each

of the subsequent math course the student will take. As Pajares and Miller (1994) discovered,

when students believe they can be successful, it affects whether they are successful.

The core standards in these grades are designed to build on each other to create a more

cohesive way to learn mathematics (USBE, 2016). Consider the following standard from

Secondary Math II (USBE, 2016): Prove and apply trigonometric identities. Limit θ to angles

between 0 and 90 degrees. Connect with the Pythagorean Theorem and the distance formula

(Standard F.TF.8). Prove the Pythagorean identity sin2 (θ) + cos2 (θ) = 1 and use it to find sin

(θ), cos (θ), or tan (θ), given sin (θ), cos (θ), or tan (θ), and the quadrant of the angle. Basically,

this standard means that students must be able to identify all sides of a right triangle and find all

of the trigonometric ratios of that triangle whether or not they are given all of the sides.

Now consider the following standard from Secondary Math III (USBE, 2016). Apply

trigonometry to general triangles. With respect to the general case of the Laws of Sines and

Cosines, the definitions of sine and cosine must be extended to obtuse angles (Standards

G.SRT.9–11). Derive the formula A = 1/2 ab sin(C) for the area of a triangle by drawing an

auxiliary line from a vertex perpendicular to the opposite side. Basically, this takes the

knowledge from the previous Secondary Math II standard and immediately expands on it to a

more in-depth knowledge of all triangles not just right triangles.

If a student did not have a high self-efficacy of the standard learned in Secondary Math

II, the student will not be able to master the harder concept in Secondary Math III. Mathematics

builds upon itself and with that the self-efficacy that students bring with them into each course

highly effects how they will do in each course. Therefore, a student struggling in Secondary
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Math II is most likely going to struggle in Secondary Math III. Pajares and Miller (1994) discuss

the idea that math teachers should not just focus on whether or not a student is successful in the

math course, but how they feel about themselves in the course. There should be more efforts to

grow a student’s self-efficacy so that their behavior can begin to change.

Other than the fact that students not doing well in Secondary Math I, II, and III will affect

their progress in high school math, the concepts learned in these classes are required to know for

College Algebra. The syllabus for Math 1050 (College Algebra) states: ‘C’ average or better in

each course: Secondary Math I, II, III and a 23 or higher in the math portion of the ACT (Weber

State Continuing Education Concurrent Enrollment Math 1050 – College Algebra Syllabus

2019-2020). If students are to do well, they have to have built a good self-efficacy in Secondary

I, II, and III. Thus, a ‘C’ grade must portray that the student feels confident with the prior

material and receiving lower than a ‘C’ must portray that a student had a low self-efficacy and

some point during the prerequisites.

To understand why the university picks a ‘C’ as the cutoff grade, it is important to

understand what the meaning of the letter grades are in traditional grading scales. Finkelstein

(1913) defines that ‘A’ means excellent, ‘B’ means superior, ‘C’ means average, ‘D’ means

inferior and ‘E’ or most commonly used ‘F,’ means failure. Many more interpretations have been

made over the last century, but they have remained mostly the same. Saret (2016) responded to

an online forum about this very idea differed slightly from Finkelstein. Saret says traditional ‘A’

means excellent, ‘B’ means above average, ‘C’ means average, ‘D’ means unsatisfactory, and

‘F’ means failing. Saret also came up with similar but slightly different meanings for each letter

grade. ‘A’ means slightly above average, ‘B’ means slightly below average, ‘C’ means

practically failing, yet you don’t have to retake the course, ‘D’ means essentially failing, but you
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

can retake the course, and ‘F’ means failing. The important difference between Finkelstein &

Saret’s scale is the ‘C’ meaning. Finkelstein says ‘C’ is just average, but Saret states that it’s

practically failing.

Whatever the differences may be, from these definitions it is important to note that a ‘C’

doesn’t imply a strong self-efficacy. The standard is such that it is expected that all students with

the prerequisites are prepared for the course, it doesn’t mean that the students will be successful

in the course. The definition that ‘C’ means practically failing, yet you don’t have to retake the

course does not imply strong self-efficacy in the subject.

Weber State’s graduation requirements (1996) include a math course and many majors

require Math 1050 (College Algebra). Some majors only require Math 1030 (Contemporary

Mathematics) however, to get into this course the prerequisites are almost the same as Math 1050

(Weber State Continuing Education Concurrent Enrollment Math 1030 – Contemporary

Mathematics Syllabus 2019-2020). Thus, students who make it into their required course for

graduation either have a strong self-efficacy and can pass their course needed for graduation or

have a low self-efficacy and do not pass the course needed for graduation and get stuck repeating

the course or dropping out. There is also the situation that students did not receive the

requirements needed for College Algebra/Contemporary Mathematics and must take remediation

math courses in college before they can take the actual required course.

II. Premise: Fortunately, there are many researched strategies which help students who
struggle in a math course. (Gersten et al., 2009)
a. Researched strategies are taken from, “Assisting Students Struggling with
Mathematics: Response to Intervention for Elementary and Middle Schools”
i. Although this literature synthesis is specifically looking at secondary math
levels, this study is the closest resource available for secondary math
remediation strategies.
ii. The following recommendations are made in the book:
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

1. “Screen all students to identify those at risk for potential

mathematics difficulties and provide interventions to students
identified as at risk.”
2. “Instructional materials for students receiving interventions should
focus intensely on in-depth treatment of whole numbers in
kindergarten through grade 5 and on rational numbers in grades 4
through 8. These materials should be selected by committee.”
3. “Instruction during the intervention should be explicit and
systematic. This includes providing models of proficient problem
solving, verbalization of thought processes, guided practice,
corrective feedback, and frequent cumulative review.”
4. “Interventions should include instruction on solving word
problems that is based on common underlying structures”
5. “Intervention materials should include opportunities for students to
work with visual representations of mathematical ideas and
interventionists should be proficient in the use of visual
representations of mathematical ideas.”
6. “Interventions at all grade levels should devote about 10 minutes in
each session to building fluent retrieval of basic arithmetic facts.”
7. “Monitor the progress of students receiving supplemental
instruction and other students who are at risk.”
8. “Include motivational strategies in tier 2 and tier 3 interventions.”
a. Tier 2 & 3: Recommendations 2-7
b. It is hoped that students who receive this help can break the pattern of low self-
efficacy and have increased success in their subsequent math courses (Tall &
Razalid, 1993).
i. Students with gaps on concepts need specials treatment for future success.
ii. If students begin to struggle in their math course, help can be provided to
ensure that they feel confident going onto the next level.
iii. A quote about how teachers perceive students is essential in how to adjust
your remediation:
1. “... Teachers normally act as if each student’s mind is a blank slate
- or an empty computer disk - on which effective teachers can
record whatever information they like. Research in cognitive
science suggests otherwise: each student’s mind is more like a
computer program than a computer disk. Each student brings to the
mathematics classroom a rich set of prior mathematical
experiences that provide a unique mental framework in which the
student creates new patterns derived from new experiences.
Learning occurs not in the act of remembering, but in the gradual
development of mental frameworks unique to everyone. In other
words, students learn by modifying their mind’s program, not by
storing new data in their mind’s memory.” Gagné (1970)
c. In some cases, students who do extremely poorly in their math class may need to
repeat the course with some of the researched help to break the pattern of low
performance.
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

i. Student’s that need help can’t just be given medicine and hope they will
be better (Tall & Razalid, 1993).
1. You must make students feel successful to build their confidence
ii. Repetition is helpful in trying to master a concept. (Poldrack & Gabrieli
2001)
1. Especially a mirrored task or example – repeating a course would
allow students to see the same content again allowing them a
chance to master the concepts they missed.
iii. It should be noted repeating a course is not for all students, some may not
see the value and take it with a bad attitude which effects their intake of
concept mastery (Hill 2014).

III. Problem: Unfortunately, it is difficult for students to receive extra help and support in
math classes in which they struggle.
a. This can happen because these students go unnoticed as they continue to push
forward trying to succeed and not making it known that they are struggling
i. Upon failure of a course or exam a group may be put together to try and
help the struggling students.
1. Some students may benefit from this group.
2. Other students may let others get all the help while they continue
to be unnoticed.
(Clevand, Arnold, & Chesser, 2005).
b. Some students do not like to ask for help and/or they don’t like others to know
their problems.
(Clevand, Arnold, & Chesser, 2005).
c. Students don’t know that they are struggling.
i. Some may compare themselves to other students and honestly think that
they are doing well with the material until they take the exam and fail it.
ii. The teacher knows more than a student does if they will do well or not.
(Clevand, Arnold, & Chesser, 2005).
d. Often students are absent for several days and come back to school expecting to
be right on with the material, but in actuality they are very behind.
(Clevand, Arnold, & Chesser, 2005).
e. This makes them more likely to give up and then they are not able to continue in
their subsequent courses.
i. The difficulty is because many schools don’t know what the researched
strategies are to help struggling students.
1. High schools don’t know exactly what needs to be changed to
better help their students, so how are they expected to fix this?
(Wagner 2014).
ii. Quite often students who are struggling and need additional help do not
receive it until they reach high school.
1. Students can get to their undergrad and realize they don’t know
how to learn/study and then the college is the one needing to do the
remediation.
(Clevand, Arnold, & Chesser, 2005).
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

f. Frequently, teachers do know how to help these struggling students, but large
class sizes prohibit them from doing what is needed.
i. Students benefit from personalized remediation programs, however it is
difficult to personalize a remediation program for 30+ students.
(Sayer, Chaput De Saintonge, Evans, & Wood, 2002).
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

REFERENCES
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral

change. Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191

Cleland, J., Arnold, R., & Chesser, A. (2005). Failing finals is often a surprise for the student but

not the teacher: Identifying difficulties and supporting students with academic difficulties.

Medical teacher, 27(6), 504-508 doi.org/10.1080/01421590500156269

Finkelstein, I. E. (1913). Chapter II Theoretical Considerations. The marking system in theory

and practice (pp. 9-16). Baltimore: Warwick & York.

Gagne, R. M. (1970). The Conditions of Learning (2nd ed.). Oxford, England: Holt, Rinehart &

Winston.

Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009).

Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for

Elementary and Middle Schools. NCEE 2009-4060. Princeton: What Works

Clearinghouse. ERIC Number: ED504995

Hill, A. J. (2014). The costs of failure: Negative externalities in high school course repetition.

Economics of Education Review, 43, 91-105. doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.10.002

Long, M. C., Iatarola, P., & Conger, D. (2009). Explaining gaps in readiness for college-level

math: The role of high school courses. Education Finance and Policy, 4(1), 1-33.

doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2009.4.1.1

Namen, O. (2017). Does encouraging social promotion affect educational outcomes. University

of Chicago: Harris School of Public Policy.

Pajares, F., & Miller, M. D. (1994). The role of self-efficacy and self-concept beliefs in

mathematical problem-solving: A path analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86,

193- 203
THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Poldrack, R. A., & Gabrieli, J. D. (2001). Characterizing the neural mechanisms of skill learning

and repetition priming: Evidence from mirror reading. Brain, 124(1), 67-82.

doi.org/10.1093/brain/124.1.67

Saret, J. (2016, May 16). Re: What do A B C D F stand for in grading? [Online forum comment].

Retrieved from https://www.quora.com/What-do-A-B-C-D-F-stand-for-in-grading

Sayer, M., Chaput De Saintonge, M., Evans, D., & Wood, D. (2002). Support for students with

academic difficulties. Medical education, 36(7), 643-650 doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-

2923.2002.01259.x

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-

analysis. Psychological bulletin, 124(2), 240.

Tall, D., & Razali, M. R. (1993). Diagnosing students’ difficulties in learning mathematics.

International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 24(2), 209-

222 doi.org/10.1080/0020739930240206.

Utah Core State Standard for Mathematics Middle/Junior High School Grades (6-8), Revised

September 2015-April 2016 Adopted August 2010 by the Utah State Board of Education

(2016).

Utah Core State Standards for Mathematics High School (9-12), Revised January 2016 Adopted

August 2010 by the Utah State Board of Education (2016)

Wagner, T. (2014). Preface. The global achievement gap: Why even our best schools don't teach

the new survival skills our children need and what we can do about it. Philadelpia: Basic

Books

Weber State University Conitinuing Education Concurrent Enrollemnt Math 1050 - College

Algebra Syllabus, (2019-2020)

THE NEED FOR MATH REMEDIATION AT THE HIGH SCHOOL LEVEL

Weber State University Graduation Standards, No. 4-1 Revised 3-20-18 (1996)