** Algebra 1 Content Test 1 **

The Algebra 1 intervention is focused on linear functions, co-variation, slope-as-rate, and systems of linear equations. The Algebra 1 content test 1 is composed of 22 items for a total of 26 points. There is 1 open response item worth four points, 1 short answer item worth two points, and 20 multiple choice items worth one point each. Of the 22 items, 8 are designated as conceptually simple type items and 14 are designated as conceptually complex type items. The assessment is composed of standardized test items to measure student's mathematical ability and problem-solving skills before and after the SimCalc intervention across four content categories: graphical interpretation (9 items), rate and proportion (5 items), computational/procedural (1 item), and making connections across representations or multiple representations (7 items). Additionally, each item on the content test asked students to report how confident they were in answering the item correctly on a 7-point scale from "Not confident" to "Very confident" with a neutral option.

** Algebra 1 Content Test 2 **

The Algebra 1 intervention is focused on linear functions, co-variation, slope-as-rate, and systems of linear equations. The Algebra 1 content test 2 is composed of 21 items for a total of 26 points. There is 1 open response item worth four points, 2 short answer items worth two points each, and 18 multiple choice items worth one point each. Of the 21 items, 8 are designated as conceptually simple type items and 13 are designated as conceptually complex type items. The assessment is composed of standardized test items to measure student's mathematical ability and problem-solving skills before and after the SimCalc intervention across four content categories: graphical interpretation (6 items), rate and proportion (2 items), computational/procedural (5 items), and multiple representations (8 items). Additionally, each item on the content test asked students to report how confident they were in answering the item correctly on a 7-point scale from "Not confident" to "Very confident" with a neutral option.

** Algebra 2 Content Test **

The Algebra 2 intervention is focused on analyzing the role of "a", "b", and "c" in the quadratic function expression y=ax^2+bx+c. Students are also introduced to exponential functions. The Algebra 2 content test is composed of 19 items for a total of 22 points. There is 1 open response item worth one point and 18 multiple choice items worth one point each. Of the 19 items, 9 are designated as conceptually simple type items and 10 are designated as conceptually complex type items. The assessment is composed of standardized test items to measure student's mathematical ability and problem-solving skills before and after the SimCalc intervention across three content categories: multiple representation (8), graphical interpretation (5), and procedural/computational (6). Additionally, each item on the content test asked students to report how confident they were in answering the item correctly on a 7-point scale from "Not confident" to "Very confident" with a neutral option.

** Student Attitude Survey **

The Student Attitude Survey explores students' deeply held beliefs about mathematics and learning of mathematics, as well as their propensity for sharing private thinking. The survey consists of 27 items, and respondents are asked to report the extent to which they agree or disagree with each statement on a scale from "Strongly Disagree" to "Strongly Agree". The student attitude survey was a repeated measure and was tested for concurrent and predictive validity. A four-component structure was created using theory and principal components analysis for data reduction. The attitude components are: Attitude 1: Deep affect: positivity towards learning mathematics and school (alpha = .744), Attitude 2: Working collaboratively and related effect (alpha = .716), Attitude 3: Working privately (alpha = .702), and Attitude 4: Use of technology (alpha = .637).

** Teacher Attitude Survey **

Our teacher attitude survey (administered at the start and end of the intervention and related curricula points for the control teachers) was developed from existing validated surveys focused on teachers dispositions towards various teaching practices from traditional to reform based methods. The bulk of the teacher attitude survey used comes from the Horizons 2000 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education Mathematics Questionnaire (Horizons Research, Inc.). Our modified survey used four of the same composite scores which resulted from the Horizon Research group's factor analysis: mathematics reasoning objectives (alpha = .757), use of traditional teaching practices (alpha = .779), use of strategies to develop students' abilities to communicate ideas (alpha = .790), and use of calculators/computers (alpha = .780). The items on this survey attend to the following: how the participant views themselves as a teacher and their preparedness for mathematics instruction, the emphasis on various student objectives for mathematics lesson plans and instruction, qualitative amount and type of mathematics practice their students take part in, and the teachers' attitudes towards and use of technology in the classroom.

**Reference**

Horizons Research, Inc. (2002). The status of high school mathematics teaching. Chapel Hill, NC: D. Whittington.

** SimCalc Teacher Daily Log **

SimCalc teachers completed a daily log for each day of the intervention. The daily logs provide us with a teacher report of what occurred in their classrooms that day. Teachers report which activity they are working on, what technology they used (and whether there were any technical difficulties), if homework was assigned, the proportion of class time spent on whole class discussion, student group work, etc., a rating of students' engagement with the content, and the amount of time spent preparing for the lesson. Teachers also indicate whether particular aspects of our teacher materials helped them with the lesson that day. Teachers also report the extent to which they focused on several performance goals such as memorizing facts and communicating understanding of concepts. In addition, they report on the extent to which students work with different mathematical representations (i.e., algebraic expressions, tables, and graphs). Questions 6, 10, and 13 were modified from the SimCalc Texas Scale-Up Project (Roschelle & Shechtman, 2013). Question 9 came from the work of Porter (2002) in which teachers report on the extent of the class focus on the following performance goals: a) memorizing facts, definitions, and formulas, b) perform procedures/ solve routine problems, c) communicate understanding of concepts, d) solve non-routine problems/make connections, and e) conjecture, generalize, or prove.

**References**

Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007003

Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2013). SimCalc at scale: Three studies examine the integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics. In S. J. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Democratizing access to important mathematics through dynamic representations: Contributions and visions from the SimCalc research program. (pp. 125-143). Springer Netherlands.

** Comparison Teacher Daily Log **

Comparison teachers completed a daily log for each day between the administrations of the pre- and post- content tests. The daily logs provide us with a teacher report of what occurred in the comparison classrooms each day. Teachers indicate whether they administered a test or quiz, assigned homework, or used worksheets. They also record which lessons they were working on, whether they used technology, a rating of students' engagement with the content, and the amount of time spent preparing for the lesson. Teachers report the extent to which they focused on several performance goals such as memorizing facts and communicating understanding of concepts. In addition, they report on the extent to which students work with different mathematical representations (i.e., algebraic expressions, tables, and graphs). Questions 3, 6, 7, and 8 were modified from the SimCalc Texas Scale-Up Project (Roschelle & Shechtman, 2013). Question 5 came from the work of Porter (2002) in which teachers report on the extent of the class focus on the following performance goals: a) memorizing facts, definitions, and formulas, b) perform procedures/ solve routine problems, c) communicate understanding of concepts, d) solve non-routine problems/make connections, and e) conjecture, generalize, or prove.

**References**

Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14. doi:10.3102/0013189X031007003

Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2013). SimCalc at scale: Three studies examine the integration of technology, curriculum, and professional development for advancing middle school mathematics. In S. J. Hegedus & J. Roschelle (Eds.), Democratizing access to important mathematics through dynamic representations: Contributions and visions from the SimCalc research program. (pp. 125-143). Springer Netherlands.

**Copyright Notice: **All original content on the Kaput Center web site, including the web
design, graphics and user interface, is the intellectual property of the
University of Massachusetts. You may view, copy, print, use and, in some
instances, download content contained on the web site, but solely for
your own personal, non-commercial use and provided that: (1) no text,
graphics or other content available from this web site is modified in
any way; and (2) no graphics available from the web site are used,
copied or distributed separate from accompanying text. Requests for
permission for use of content for any other purpose should be directed
to: kaputcenter@umassd.edu.

Third party content included on this web site is in the public domain, or is used in accordance with the fair use doctrine, or used by permission. In all such cases, attribution of third party content is made. Requests for permission for uses of third party content should be directed to the copyright holder.