EFFECTS OF PERFORMANCE RANKING ON STUDENTS’ VOICE AND AGENCY IN THE MATHEMATICS CLASSROOM

Year 2021, Volume: 10 Issue: 1, 137 - 147, 30.06.2021

Samson Murithi Njıru Simon Karuku

Abstract

The modalities of performance ranking in high stakes testing to a greater extent affect Mathematics teaching and learning. While performance ranking has the potential of being a critical catalyst in the process of making Mathematics classrooms a place of positive competition, it fails to balance the most crucial aspects in Mathematics discourses-the voice and agency of teachers and students. The proactive engagement of all students and teachers equitably with the process of Mathematics teaching and learning is a necessary condition for ensuring excellent students Mathematics learning outcomes. The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of performance ranking on voice and agency in Mathematics teaching and learning in secondary schools in Embu, Kenya. The study employed a qualitative research approach. Six teachers and eight students were randomly sampled for interviews, while three teachers and eighteen students were engaged in focus group discussions. The data analyzed demonstrated that top ranked students become powerful independent learners who are capable of critiquing work presented to them by their teachers while low ranked students are guided as to whom to seek help from by the performance ranking data. This paper recommends that performance ranking should be used as a tool to give students voice and agency by ranking students on the basis of marks scored on con¬ti¬nuo¬us as¬ses¬sment tests, students’ en¬try mark and va¬lue ad¬dition.

Keywords

Performance ranking, mathematics, teaching, learning, voice, agency.

References

• Amunga, J. K., Amadalo, M. M., & Maiyo, J. K. (2010). Ranking of secondary schools and students in national examinations: The perception of teachers and students. Problems of Education in the 21st Century, 20(15), 9-19.
• Amunga, J., Ondigi, B., Ndiku, J., & Ochieng, P. (2013). Collaboration, benchmarking and secondary schools’ mean scores in the Western region, Kenya: An analytical investigation. International Journal of Education and Research, 1(9), 1-8.
• Andersson, A., & Norén, E. (2011). Agency in Mathematics education. Proceedings from 7th conference for European research in Mathematics education, (pp. 1389–1398). Stockholm: Stockholm University.
• Ball, S. (2009). Privatising education, privatising education policy, privatising educational research: Network governance and the ‘competition state’. Journal of Education Policy, 24(1), 83-99
• Batra, P. (2005). Voice and agency of teachers: Missing link in national curriculum framework 2005. Economic and Political Weekly, 40(40), 4347-4356.
• Bicknell, B., & Riley, T. (2012). The role of competitions in a Mathematics programme. The New Zealand Journal of Gifted Education, 17(1), 1-9.
• Boyd, P., & Ash, A. (2018). Mastery Mathematics: Changing teacher beliefs around in-class grouping and mindset. Teaching and Teacher Education, 75, 214-223.
• Burgess, S., Propper, C., & Wilson D. (2002). Will more choice improve outcomes in education and health care? Evidence from economic research. CMPO Report, University of Bristol.
• Chapman, D. W., & Synder, C. W. (2000). Can high stakes National testing improve instructions? Reexamining conventional wisdom. International Journal of Educational Development, 20(6), 457-474.
• Chemers, M. M., Hu, L. T., & Garcia, B. F. (2001). Academic self-efficacy and first-year college student performance and adjustment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 55-64.
• Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: ‘Student voice’ in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359-390.
• Downes, D., & Vindurampulle, O. (2007). Value-added measures for school improvement. East Melbourne, Vic.: Dept. of Education and Early Childhood Development.
• Dunne, M., Humphreys, S., Sebba, J., Dyson, A., Gellannaugh, F., & Muijis, D. (2007). Effective teaching and learning for pupils in low attaining groups. Annesley: Dept. for Children, Schools and Families.
• Hazelkorn, E. (2008). Learning to live with league tables and ranking: The experience of institutional leaders. Higher Education Policy, 21(2), 193-216.
• Kaimenyi, N. E. (2013). Factors influencing the academic performance of students in Kenya Certificate of Secondary Education in Imenti North District, Kenya. (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Nairobi, Kenya.
• Karabenick, S. A., & Newman, R. S. (2013). Help seeking in academic settings: Goals, groups, and contexts. New York; Routledge.
• Kartika, H. (2018). Teaching and learning Mathematics through web-based resource: An interactive approach. MaPan: Jurnal Matematika dan Pembelajaran, 6(1), 1-10.
• Kell, M., & Kell, P. (2014). Literacy and language in East Asia: Shifting meanings, values and approaches. New York; Springer.
• Kellaghan, T. (1996). IEA studies and educational policy. Assessment in Education, Principles, Policy & Practice, 3(2), 143–160.
• Khuzwayo, H. B., & Bansilal, S. (2012). Granting learners an authentic voice in the Mathematics classroom for the benefit of both the teacher and the learner. Pythagoras, 33(2), 1-7.
• Kimeu, M, R., Ronoh, A., & Tanui, E. (2015). Influence of instructional resources on secondary school students’ academic performance in Makueni County, Kenya. International Journal of Scientific Research and Innovative Technology, 2(1), 70-81.
• Leckie, G., & Goldstein, H. (2019). The importance of adjusting for pupil background in school value-added models: A study of Progress and school accountability in England. British Educational Research Journal, 45(3), 518-537.
• Makori, A., Onyura, G., Cheboiwo, F., Yegon, J., & Kandie, J. (2015). Form one selection process, an encouragement or a discouragement: Examining parents’ perceptions in Baringo County, Kenya. Merit Research Journal of Education and Review, 3(7), 228-234.
• Mensah, J. K., Okyere, M., & Kuranchie, A. (2013). Student attitude towards Mathematics and performance: Does the teacher attitude matter? Journal of Education and Practice, 4(3), 132 139.
• Morgan, C. (2016). Studying the role of human agency in school Mathematics. Research in Mathematics Education, 18(2), 120-141.
• Morrison, K. A. (2008). Democratic classrooms: Promises and challenges of student voice and choice, part one. Educational Horizons, 87(1), 50-60.
• Nel, M. (2017). Student voice and agency in master’s thesis writing in a second language context: Beyond the use of pronouns. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stellenbosch University, South Africa.
• Neves, T., Pereira, M. J., & Nata, G. (2014). Head teachers’ perceptions of secondary school rankings: Their nature, media coverage and impact on schools and the educational arena. Education as Change, 18(2), 211-225.
• Niesche, R., & Keddie, A. (2016). Leadership, ethics and schooling for social justice. New York, NY: Routledge.
• Nyaoga, R. B., Mundia, C. M., & Irungu, I. (2013). The effect of benchmarking on performance in secondary schools in Nakuru Municipality-Kenya. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering, 3(2), 283-296.
• OECD (Ed.). (2012). Equity and quality in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools. Paris: OECD publishing.
• O’Leary, Z. (2014). The essential guide to doing your research project (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
• Plano Clark, V. L, & Creswell, J. W. (2008). Student study guide to accompany Creswell’s educational research planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River N.J.: Pearson Education.
• Pope, N. G. (2019). The effect of teacher ratings on teacher performance. Journal of Public Economics, 172, 84-110.
• Republic of Kenya (2005). Sessional paper No.1 of 2005 on a policy framework for education, training, and research. Nairobi: Government Printer.
• Sim, J., & Waterfield, J. (2019). Focus group methodology: Some ethical challenges. Quality and Quantity, 6(53), 3003-3022.
• Suter, W. N. (2012). Introduction to educational research: A critical thinking approach. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.
• Van Lier, L. (2008). Agency in the classroom. In J. P. Lantolf and M. E. Poehner (eds.). Sociocultural theory and the teaching of second languages, (p. 163-188). London: Equinox.
• White, D. Y. (2003). Promoting productive mathematical classroom discourse with diverse students. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 22(1), 37-53.
• Wilkins, A. (2012). Push and pull in the classroom: Competition, gender and the neoliberal subject. Gender & Education, 24(7), 765-781.
• Wilson, D., & Piebalga, A. (2008). Performance measures, ranking and parental choice: An analysis of the English school league tables. International Public Management Journal, 11(3), 344-366.
• World Bank (2001). Alternative schools and Roma education: A review of alternative secondary school models for the education of Roma children in Hungary. Budapest, Hungary: World Bank Regional Office.