behavioral

sciences
Article
A Study on Differential Effects of Mathematics Reading Ability
on Students’ Value-Added Mathematics Achievements
Cheng Zhu 1 and Xiaopeng Wu 2, *

1 School of Mathematics and Statistics, Qiannan Normal University for Nationalities, Duyun 558000, China;
zhuchengmathedu@[Link]
2 Faculty of Education, Northeast Normal University, Changchun 130024, China
* Correspondence: wuxp722@[Link]

Abstract: Value-added assessments have become a reasonable and accepted assessment method for
education and teaching. Mathematics reading ability is an important ability in mathematics learning
which provides a prerequisite for solving mathematical problems. With the aim of uncovering the
effects of mathematics reading ability on the continuous development of mathematics learning,
this study focuses on the value added to students’ mathematics reading ability as well as their
mathematics performance. From a longitudinal perspective, we collected academic achievement data
for 463 s-grade students, including their scores on their mathematics reading ability, which were
then used a developed measurement tool. Building on Weiss’s “Theory of Change”, the students
were divided into four categories: high academic achievement and high value-added, low academic
achievement and high value-added, low academic achievement and low value-added, and high
academic achievement and low value-added. Finally, we discussed the impact of the students’
reading abilities in mathematics on their overall achievement. This study reveals a close correlation
between mathematics reading skills and value-added performance. Higher scores in mathematics
reading indicate higher value-added levels. For students with initially high scores, their mathematics
reading skills greatly contributed to their high value-added performance.

Keywords: mathematics reading ability; mathematics achievement; value-added assessment;

education assessment
Citation: Zhu, C.; Wu, X. A Study on
Differential Effects of Mathematics
Reading Ability on Students’
Value-Added Mathematics 1. Introduction
Achievements. Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, Reading is the primary means by which human beings acquire information and knowl-
754. [Link] edge, which is an integral part of their productive lives. In the international mathematics
bs13090754 education community, the importance of mathematics reading has received widespread
Academic Editor: Jerrell Cassady attention from researchers and educators. For example, the UK National Curriculum (Math-
ematics), implemented in September 2014, not only emphasized mathematical reasoning,
Received: 25 July 2023 mathematical language, and problem solving, but also integrated “reading and writing
Revised: 6 September 2023
literacy” into the stage goals, which are Key Stage 1, Lower Key Stage 2, and Upper Key
Accepted: 9 September 2023
Stage 2 [1]. China’s mathematics curriculum standard for compulsory education (2011) [2]
Published: 11 September 2023
emphasized that diverse learning styles such as reading for self-study should be promoted,
and teachers should guide students in reading for self-study.
In terms of the relationships between reading and academic achievement, some stud-
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
ies have explored the correlation between mathematics reading ability and mathematics
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. achievement and found that these two share basic cognitive abilities to some extent, includ-
This article is an open access article ing memory, visualization, and language skills [3,4]. Most of these studies, however, have
distributed under the terms and tended to explore their relationship among students with dyslexia [5,6]. Additionally, the
conditions of the Creative Commons educational assessment was outcome evaluation, which focuses only on test scores. This
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// has been criticized for ignoring the students’ individual development and constraining
[Link]/licenses/by/ teachers’ personalized teaching. The emerging value-added assessment makes up for the
4.0/). shortcomings of this result-oriented approach by focusing on the students’ longitudinal

Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754. [Link] [Link]

Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 2 of 17

growth data and providing a basis for the students’ sustainable development, pursuing not
only “attainment” but also “growth”. Therefore, building on the percentile rank residual
model in the value-added assessment, this study analyzes longitudinal data based on
students’ mathematical achievement and further investigates the relationship between
students’ mathematical reading ability and their value-added mathematics achievements.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Mathematical Reading Ability and Achievements
According to existing research, scholars agree that reading is a complex cognitive
psychological process that involves acquiring meaning from linguistic symbols. In order to
acquire meaning, one needs to have the appropriate mental lexicon and be able to integrate
the meaning of linguistic symbols [7].
Mathematics reading is different from general reading in that it has its own unique
abstraction in terms of vocabulary and grammar. Mathematics reading is a psychological
process of acquiring mathematical knowledge and skills, mathematical ideas, mathematical
methods, mathematical abilities, and other mathematical achievements from mathemat-
ical materials through mental activities such as perceptual recognition, comprehension,
memorization, evaluation, and the auxiliary participation of hypothesizing, proving, in-
ducting, generalizing, judging, and reasoning. At the secondary school level, the content of
mathematical reading includes the development processes of mathematical conclusions
in mathematical textbooks, textbook examples, and test questions. In particular, when
reading to understand the mathematical conclusions presented in textbooks, the core of
reading at this time does not only lie in comprehension, but also in thinking in relation to
the unfolding process of the conclusions that already existed in the past.
Young children develop reading and Mathematics skills at different rates. Some chil-
dren’s numeracy skills develop rapidly until they are faced with word problems. This is
because the verbal and formulaic information in mathematics can be difficult for children.
When the learning task involves calculating sums, products, or quotients and the informa-
tion is presented in numerical terms with the symbols ordered conventionally, students
who understand algorithms can solve these problems and learn easily. When the learning
task requires the student to decide whether to calculate the sum, product, or quotient and
the information is hidden in sentences, the student needs to understand the language in
the text before he or she can apply the appropriate algorithm. To solve these types of
mathematics problems (which are a common part of school curricula), children need to
learn to read mathematically [8].
Mathematics reading ability is an important factor affecting student learning in math-
ematics. Adams [9] stated that students read mathematics not only simply by reading
words, but also by reading numbers and symbols for comprehension. However, students
who have difficulty reading “mathematical language” are mostly weak in mathematics.
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics stated that to know mathematics is to do
mathematics (1989). Alternatively, if students know mathematics, they know how to apply
mathematics. Yu and Yang [10] have found that middle school students with mathematics
dyslexia have more difficulties in learning. This difficulty can affect the students’ enthu-
siasm, self-confidence, and their mathematics achievements. Using 314 pairs of twins as
their experimental sample, Hart et al. [11] found that the students’ performance in mathe-
matics was not entirely determined by their general cognitive abilities. Their mathematics
reading and problem-solving abilities, among others, were more significantly influenced
by their genetics and environment. Vilenius-Tuohimaa et al. [12] found that mathematics
reading and ability remained significantly correlated when controlling for two influential
factors, gender and parental education. Vista [13] explored the role of students’ language
background in their mathematics achievement growth and found that their language
background did not affect the mediating effects of mathematical reading abilities between
problem-solving skills and mathematics achievement growth. This study’s focus was on
the role of reading skills in mediating the relationship between mathematical problem-
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 3 of 17

solving skills and mathematics achievement, but it did not explore the value-added issue
in mathematics achievement.
Based on the literature, it was easy to conclude that there exists a relationship be-
tween mathematics reading ability and mathematics achievement; however, limitations still
exist. First, most previous research was cross-sectional, and there has been a lack of stud-
ies investigating the relationship between mathematics reading ability and mathematics
achievement from a longitudinal perspective [14]. Moreover, most studies have explored
the relationship between general reading and mathematics achievement in a broader sense,
but not in any specific discipline. Additionally, most studies have focused only on words
or vocabulary and not on comprehension in reading. Lastly, most research on reading has
only studied students with dyslexia, which has limited the sample to a particular small
group of participants [15,16].

2.2. Value-Added Assessment

In recent years, a new type of assessment called “value-added assessment” (VAA)
has emerged in the field of educational assessment, with the aim of providing a scientific
and objective evaluation of students’ academic progress. In the value-added assessment,
a student’s achievement is not a single test score or an average of scores, but rather the
amount of progress a student makes over a period [17]. The novelty of value-added
evaluation is that it does not take into account initial student differences, instead using the
degree to which the school is effective in helping students grow as a basis for evaluating
school effectiveness and teacher effectiveness [18].
There have been some studies on teacher effectiveness since the introduction of value-
added assessment. For instance, in one educational study of value-added assessment in
Tennessee, Sanders et al. [19] found that students’ socioeconomic status did not have a sig-
nificant effect on their achievement gains, and that teachers and schools had a far more dom-
inant influence on the students than socioeconomic or family background factors [20,21].
This provided a reference for solving the problem of educational fairness and guided a new
direction for educational research. Using this comprehensive model of school effectiveness,
Jong et al. [22] empirically investigated Dutch schools. The study showed that in terms of
school improvement, the time that teachers spent on students and the learning opportuni-
ties given to students were more effective for student achievement growth. For value-added
student achievement, what needs to be considered is no longer the school choice, but rather
more practical factors such as school internal management and teaching. In 2011, building
on Sanders’s (1997) study, the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE) developed
the Tennessee Educator Acceleration Model (TEAM). TEAM conducts teacher effective-
ness assessments based on combined information on student achievement and classroom
observations. They found that the quality of teacher instruction in U.S. elementary and
secondary schools still varied dramatically, even between classes in the same school [23],
further affirming the importance of classroom instruction on student academic growth.
During this same time, the Measurement of Effective Teaching (MET) project, supported
by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, used improvements in student achievement
to estimate the value added by teachers. Specifically, based on classroom observations of
teaching quality through the process dimensions, the MET project used improvements in
student achievement as a measure of teacher quality. They found that teacher quality was
unrelated to advanced degrees or certificates and instead more closely associated with the
teachers’ experience [24].
Over the past half century, VAA has evolved in the direction of studying more specific
objects, and research has shifted closer to teaching, learning, and student-focused investi-
gations. VAA was initially used to explore educational equity at the national level, then
to improve school effectiveness and teacher accountability. Gradually, it has moved to
research on the student level, focusing on the impact of student factors on growth.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 4 of 17

2.3. Model for Measuring Growth

There are seven commonly used growth measurement models: the gain score model,
the trajectory model, the categorical model, the residual model, the student growth per-
centile (SGP) model, the projection model, and Tennessee Value-Added Assessment sys-
tem [25]. This study used the residual model, which is one of the most popular models
used at the state level in the United States to calculate and measure student growth. It is
one of the most easily understood regression methods for continuous variables but not
for dichotomous or ordinal variables. The basic calculation of the residual model involves
creating a linear regression equation between the scores across two years. Specifically,
based on the regression equation and the student’s score in the previous year, the student’s
expected score is estimated for the current year, as well as the “residual” between the
student’s expected score and the student’s actual score. If the actual score is higher than
the expected score, the student has achieved satisfactory growth; otherwise, the growth is
not satisfactory. In practice, the residuals are usually standardized by ranking the residuals
in percentiles (PRR).
In terms of model generalizability, through simulations, Castellano and Ho [26] com-
pared students’ growth percentiles and percentile rank residuals using known statistical
distributions. They concluded that the percentile rank residuals and student growth
percentile both worked well in terms of recovering conditional growth percentiles. In
addition, the percentile rank residuals were found to work better for smaller sample sizes.
Therefore, the residual model is more applicable to small-sample growth measures at the
classroom level.
Previous studies have measured academic growth based on grade point averages or
explored the correlation between single academic performance and mathematical ability.
However, there is a relative lack of research on mathematical reading ability and value-
added mathematical achievement. On the one hand, this could be due to the absence of
a uniform scientific method that can be used to measure academic growth. On the other
hand, it may be that research on value-added academic achievement requires long-term
follow-up surveys and incurs research costs. However, from an educational perspective,
growth within individual students deserves more attention [27–29].
Building on this literature review, this study explores the relationship between mathe-
matical reading ability and value-added student achievement. Specifically, firstly, we track
the students’ mathematics achievement in the second grade of an urban middle school in
Guizhou Province for one semester. Secondly, we evaluated the students’ mathematical
reading ability based on mathematical reading test papers. Finally, we explored the rela-
tionship between the students’ academic value-added and mathematics reading ability
through the application of a unified value-added model.

3. Methods
3.1. Sample
In this study, students in their second year of junior high school in Duyun City,
Guizhou Province were selected as the research participants. The main reason for selecting
these students the research participants was that this school is a key middle school in
the autonomous region and has comparatively high teacher and student qualities. The
sample of this study was randomly selected in the second grade of junior high school,
with 10 classes and 479 students. A total of 479 test papers were sent out, with 463 valid
questionnaires returned (efficiency rate of 96.7%), 227 from boys and 236 from girls.

3.2. Achievement Measures

3.2.1. Mathematics Achievement Measure
In a city in Guizhou province, students are given several mathematics exams each
semester. The most representative ones are the midterm exams and the final exams at the
end of each semester. Both exams are administered uniformly throughout the year, marked
to a uniform standard, and scored using a percentage system. In value-added assessment,
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 5 of 17

the data should be obtained from factual observations, but not experiments [30]. In this
study, the source of the mathematics achievements was the two exam scores organized by
the school in the first semester.

3.2.2. Mathematics Reading Test

Test Paper Dimensional Division
Based on the previous literature and Professor Yang’s definition of mathematical
reading, this study considered mathematical reading as the active cognitive–psychological
process of acquiring meaning from mathematical texts, of which the core elements are
character encoding, linguistic conversions, and integrated comprehension, as well as three
levels of mathematical reading comprehension [31].
Character encoding means that the reader needs to sift through the material to find
useful information, discard irrelevant and distracting information, and process, arrange,
and organize the input. Language conversions refer to the reader’s ability to cognize words,
symbols, and graphics in reading materials and translate them into language. Integrated
comprehension means that the readers can understand mathematical material, extract key
information from the material, abstract the mathematical essence from the material, and
logically reason to arrive at the correct conclusion.

Test Paper Development

With taking the teaching schedule into account, referring to the test papers, “Mathe-
matical Reading Test Paper”, “Symbolic Language Influence on Mathematical Reading Test
Paper”, and the dimension division provided above, four questions were obtained through
modification (See Appendix A below).
The test paper consisted of one multiple-choice question and three short-answer ques-
tions, with five points for the multiple-choice question and ten, twelve, and thirteen points
for the other three short-answer questions sequentially. The dimension of language conver-
sion corresponded to questions 1 and 4 (1), the integrated comprehension corresponded to
questions 2 and 3, and the character encoding corresponded to question 4 (2). Among them,
question 1 examined graphic language, questions 2 and 4 examined textual language, and
question 3 examined symbolic language. It is important to note that the kind of language
tested was relative, as it involved language conversion. Therefore one question often
involved several mathematical languages.
The efficacy of the test paper was initially tested in December 2022 in five second-year
classes selected from two other secondary schools. The test was administered for 45 min,
and the distribution and collection of the questionnaires was supervised by the teachers.
A total of 239 test papers were distributed in the two schools, with a total of 224 valid
test papers returned. The reliability of the test was moderate to high (r = 0.804), and the
correlation analysis of the structural validity results is given in Table 1.

Table 1. Results of structural validity tests of the mathematics reading test papers.

Variables Character Encoding Linguistic Conversions Integrated Comprehension Mathematics Reading

Character encoding 1 0.031 * 0.306 ** 0.379 **
Linguistic conversions 1 0.136 ** 0.400 **
Integrated comprehension 1 0.581 **
Mathematics reading 1
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

As can be seen from Table 1, each variable is significantly correlated with each other at
the 0.01 level or the 0.05 level, indicating that the structure between the variables of the test
paper was reasonable.
Based on the students’ responses to the questions, the difficulty of the test was cal-
culated using the formula P = Xx , where P is the difficulty coefficient of a question, x is
the average score of the question, and X is the total score of the question. The larger the
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 6 of 17

P value, the less difficult the question is; conversely, the smaller the P value, the more
difficult the question is. The difficulty coefficient of the math reading test was 0.44, and
the difficulty coefficients of the three questions were 0.1, 0.89, 0.36, and 0.33, sequentially.
Therefore, the difficulty level of the test paper met the requirements.
−xl
The formula for differentiation is D = xh X , where x h represents the mean of the high
group, x l represents the mean of the low group, and X represents the total score of the
question. Generally, a question with a discrimination of 0.4 or higher indicates that the
question is well differentiated, a discrimination between 0.2–0.29 means that the question
needs to be improved, and a score below 0.19 usually indicates that the question needs to be
removed. It was found that the differentiation of each question in mathematics reading was
0.409, 0.336, 0.571, and 0.592. Overall, the test paper had a high degree of differentiation,
indicating that the differentiation of the test paper questions was relatively good.
According to the preliminary test results, this test paper had good reliability and
validity and could be officially administered.

3.3. Data Collection and Analysis

The data for this study were collected from two mathematics examinations in the
second semester of 2022, the first semester in September 2022 and the second semester
in January 2023, spanning a period of five months. We used SPSS 26.0 for Windows to
remove the students’ missing data from the exams, calculate the means of each test score,
and process the scores separately using the z-score method.
In this study, the percentage ranking residual method was chosen, which is a linear
regression model that meets typical linear regression assumptions. These assumptions
include the presence of a linear relationship between the dependent and independent
variables, the absence of error in the measurement of the variables, and the independence
of the errors with a normal distribution and homoscedasticity [32].
This type of growth model requires at least two tests. However, such models are not
based on cross-grade longitudinal scales, and two or more tests do not require longitudinal
scales, but rather linear and nonlinear statistical models such as regression models. These
models use either the cohort norm group of students as a frame of reference or a large
accumulation of historical and tracking data as a frame of reference to portray the growth
obtained by students. The reasons for choosing residual model were as follows:
• The number of variables in the model is relatively low.
• The model yields data that are easy to understand.
• This study addresses the same group of students in the same school and does not need
to consider out-of-school factors, as would be the case for covariate models.
• The model performs better for measuring student progress compared to more complex
models [33].
The linear regression model, which is central to the calculation of the residuals of the
percentile ranking [34], is formulated as follows:

Ŷti = β 0 + β 1 Y1i + . . . + β t−1 Y(t−1)i + ε i

where Ŷti denotes projected export achievement, Yti denotes the academic performance of
student i in year t, β is the regression coefficient, and ε is the residual.
Based on the students’ two-time academic performance in mathematics, we obtained
the regression coefficients β and β 0 , which were 1.446 and −36.243, respectively, to obtain
the regression equation Ŷti = 1.446Y(t−1)i − 36.243.
Based on the regression equation and a student’s entrance grade (midterm grade), the
projected export achievement of the student can be calculated. Afterwards, the “residual”
between the expected exit grade and the actual exit grade (final grade) is calculated, which
represents the student’s longitudinal growth performance. The formula is as follows:

ε i = Yti − Ŷti
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 7 of 17

If the actual grade is higher than the expected grade (ε > 0), the student has achieved
more satisfactory growth. Otherwise, the growth is not satisfactory.
The percent position of student i is calculated based on how many students have
residuals less than or equal to the residual of student i. It can be expressed algebraically
as follows:
#residuals ≤ Yti − Ŷti
PRR = × 100
n
This equation provides the percentile rank residual for the student, where #residuals ≤
Yti − Ŷti denotes the number of residuals less than or equal to student i, and n is the total
number of students in the sample.

4. Results
4.1. Differences in Students’ Rankings in Value-Added and Outcome Evaluations
We ranked the 463 students in this study from highest to lowest based on their midterm
grades, final grades, and value-added performance, with smaller numbers representing
higher rankings. Comparing the two evaluation results with the absolute value of the
difference in ranking position, the data showed that the maximum value of the difference in
ranking position between the midterm and final exam results for the sample of 463 students
was 321, the minimum value was 0, and the average value was 83.3067. The maximum
value of the difference in ranking position between the value-added evaluation results
and the midterm exam results was 461, the minimum value was 0, and the average value
was 146.0475. We determined that in the value-added evaluation results considering
the longitudinal performance, the students’ ranking position changed more. The overall
ranking change mean was 62.7408, which was higher than the single outcome evaluation.
To more visually demonstrate the differences between the two assessment results,
Figure 1 supplements the summary statistics by identifying the types of students with
midterm math grade rankings and value-added assessment result rankings. The absolute
differences between the calculated midterm math grade rankings and the value-added
assessment
Behav. result
Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER rankings
REVIEW are coded based on size (diff < 50, 50 <= diff < 150, diff >= 150)
8 of 19
and represented by different shapes displayed in bivariate scatter plots of students’ midterm
and final math scores.

100.00 diff<50
50<=diff<150
diff>=150

80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00

Figure 1. Bivariate scatterplot of midterm and final grades in mathematics.

Figure 1. Bivariate scatterplot of midterm and final grades in mathematics.

Based on the situation shown in Figure 1, students with an absolute difference in their
place value greater than 150 are mostly distributed in the high and low score bands. The
percentage of such students is 41.9% of the total. The students with an absolute difference
in place values between 50 and 150, and students with an absolute difference within 50,
are mostly distributed in the middle section of midterm grades, accounting for 36.1% and
22% of the total, respectively.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 8 of 17

Based on the situation shown in Figure 1, students with an absolute difference in their
place value greater than 150 are mostly distributed in the high and low score bands. The
percentage of such students is 41.9% of the total. The students with an absolute difference
in place values between 50 and 150, and students with an absolute difference within 50, are
mostly distributed in the middle section of midterm grades, accounting for 36.1% and 22%
of the total, respectively.

4.2. Differences in Mathematics Reading of Students at Different Value-Added Levels

4.2.1. Overall Status of the Second-Year Students’ Mathematical Reading Ability
The scores of the math reading test paper were selected to indicate the students’ math
reading ability, and the data were processed and counted according to the results of the
students’ answers to the math reading test questions. The scores of the math reading test
paper of all the students were combined and ranked, and the students in the top 27% of the
sample size ranking were the high math reading group (125 students), the students in the
bottom 27% of the sample size ranking were the low math reading group (125 students),
and the students in the middle were the middle math reading group (213 students).
The mean score for the high math reading group was 26.0467, with a maximum value
of 38 and a minimum value of 21; the mean score for the middle math reading group was
17.3562, with a maximum value of 21 and a minimum value of 13; and the mean score for
the low math reading group was 10.0952. The overall mean score was 17.73.

4.2.2. Differences in Mathematics Reading among Students with Different High, Medium,
and Low Value-Added Levels
The value-added scores (PRR) of each student in the second grade of middle school
were combined in descending order, and the students in the top 27% of the sample size
were selected as the high value-added level group, the students in the bottom 27% of the
sample size were in the low value-added level group, and those in the middle were in the
middle value-added level group. The mathematics reading scores of the three different
value-added groups were calculated, and the average mathematics reading score of the
high value-added group was 26, with a maximum value of 38 and a minimum value of
21; the average mathematics reading score of the medium value-added group was 17.3288,
with a maximum value of 22 and a minimum value of 12; and the average mathematics
reading score of the low value-added group was 10.1905. There were differences in the
students’ reading abilities at different value-added levels. The results of the one-way
ANOVA also showed that the F-value was 212.007 (p < 0.001), which indicated that there
was a statistically significant difference in performance on the mathematics reading test
among students with different value-added levels.
Table 2 of the multiple comparisons shows that the differences between the high
value-added level, the medium value-added level, and the low value-added level were all
significant. Specifically, the students at the high value-added level had higher mathematics
reading ability than the students at the medium value-added level and low value-added
level, and the difference between the high and low levels was significant. The students at the
medium value-added level also had higher mathematics reading ability than the students
at the low value-added level, and the difference was also significant. In other words, the
higher the mathematics reading level, the higher the value-added level of mathematics
academic achievement of the students, and the lower the mathematics reading level, the
lower the value-added level of mathematics academic achievement of the students.

4.2.3. Differences in Mathematics Reading between Male and Female Students

The math reading scores of boys and girls in the second grade of junior high school
were counted separately, and the data were processed. The boys’ math reading scores had
a minimum value of 5, a maximum value of 36, and a mean value of 17.6471, and the girls’
math reading scores had a minimum value of 5, a maximum value of 38, and a mean value
of 17.8472. The maximum value of the girls’ math reading was higher than that of the boys,
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 9 of 17

but the mean scores of both were very close. We conducted an independent samples t-test
on the math reading scores of the boys and girls.
The results of the independent samples t-test showed that the F-value was 0.179
(p = 0.673 > 0.05). Observing the t-value in the first row, the value of Sig was 0.850, which
was greater than 0.05. Therefore, it can be concluded that there was no significant difference
between the girls’ and boys’ math reading abilities.

Table 2. Multiple comparisons of mathematical reading skills at different value-added levels.

(I) Value-Added (J) Value-Added Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

SE Sig.
Level Level (I-J) Lower Bound Higher Bound
Middle 8.67123 * 0.71858 0.000 6.9063 10.4362
High
Low 15.80952 * 0.7366 0.000 14.0026 17.6165
High −8.67123 * 0.71858 0.000 −10.4362 −6.9063
Middle
Low 7.13829 * 0.46705 0.000 6.0034 8.2731
High −15.80952 * 0.73666 0.000 −17.6165 −14.0026
Low
Middle −7.13829 * 0.46705 0.000 −8.2731 −6.0034
* The significance level for the difference in means is 0.05.

4.3. Differences in Mathematics Reading in Initial Achievement and Mathematics Growth

When examining the value-added scores of the students’ performance in mathematics,
we must acknowledge the fact that there was a relationship between academic growth and
academic fundamentals. However, the two were not necessarily positively correlated. It is
also common to encounter students with a low academic foundation but high growth, and
students with a high academic foundation but low growth. Table 3 shows the results of the
Pearson correlation between mathematics performance, PRR, and mathematics reading.

Table 3. Correlation between variables.

Math (Mid) Math (Final) Mathematics Reading PRR

Math (mid) 1
Math (final) 0.664 ** 1
Mathematics reading 0.555 ** 0.498 ** 1
PRR 0.037 0.749 ** 0.178 ** 1
** p < 0.01.

We can also see from Table 3 that the correlation between the math midterm scores and
PRR (r = 0.037) was not significant, and there was a significant positive correlation between
the rest of the variables. It also indicated, to some extent, that academic foundation did not
significantly affect the value-added performance of the students.
In contrast, the growth achieved by such students was not recognized in many as-
sessment approaches [35]. This was because in some schools, the students may achieve
relatively good growth in achievement, but few of these students were able to pass the
end-of-year proficiency exam (i.e., low status) because of their low initial achievement level.
These students were in the schools that provided a high value-added education (relative to
other schools), even though the student population, infrastructure, and faculty were not
as robust. Similarly, in some schools, students may not exhibit significant growth or even
experience regression, yet they all pass end-of-year proficiency exams (i.e., high status),
but only because of the students’ high initial achievement levels. These students were
in schools that did not provide a better value-added education, even though they were
effective at maintaining student proficiency.
Figure 2 is the “status and growth map” proposed by Weiss et al. (2008) [36], which
provides a good illustration of how to consider the status and growth of student achieve-
ment. It divides the four areas based on a reference line according to “growth” and “status”,
representing four different groups.
 were in schools that did not provide a better value-added education, even though they
were effective at maintaining student proficiency.
Figure 2 is the “status and growth map” proposed by Weiss et al. (2008) [36], which
provides a good illustration of how to consider the status and growth of student achieve-
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 ment. It divides the four areas based on a reference line according to “growth” and “sta-
10 of 17
tus”, representing four different groups.

Figure
Figure 2. Status
2. Status andand growth.
growth.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19
TheThe relationship
relationship between
between the the initial
initial achievement
achievement andand value-added
value-added measures
measures in this
in this
study can be clearly observed with the aid of the “status and growth map”, which plots the
study can be clearly observed with the aid of the “status and growth map”, which plots
the base
base status
status of
of each student in
each student in this
this study
study on
on the x-axis and
the x-axis andtheir
their“growth”
“growth”on
onthe y-axis, as
they-axis,
shown in Figure
as shown in Figure 3. 3.

Figure 3. Progress and growth of students.

Figure 3. Progress and growth of students.
In this map, the achievement base was the students’ midterm academic performance in
Inmathematics
this map, the(normalized).
achievement The base“growth” was the percentage
was the students’ of residuals
midterm academic (PRR) calculated
performance
for each student based on the residual model. The two reference
in mathematics (normalized). The “growth” was the percentage of residuals (PRR) lines (PRR = 50 and
calcu-
zmid_math = 0) divided the coordinate system into four quadrants
lated for each student based on the residual model. The two reference lines (PRR = 50 and(the first quadrant in
the upper right corner and the second, third, and fourth quadrants
zmid_math = 0) divided the coordinate system into four quadrants (the first quadrant in in counterclockwise
rotation).
the upper The students
right corner and thein second,
the first third,
quadrantandhad greater
fourth than average
quadrants midterm math scores
in counterclockwise
rotation). The students in the first quadrant had greater than average midterm mathquadrant
(z > 0) and good value-added scores (PRR > 0). The students in the second scores had
lower than average midterm scores (z < 0) in mathematics and
(z > 0) and good value-added scores (PRR > 0). The students in the second quadrant had good value-added
had
scoresaverage
lower than (PRR > 0). The students
midterm scores in(zthe third
< 0) quadrant hadand
in mathematics lower than
had average
good midterm scores
value-added
(z < 0) in mathematics and did not have good value-added scores (PRR < 0), and students
scores (PRR > 0). The students in the third quadrant had lower than average midterm
in the fourth quadrant had greater than average midterm scores (z > 0) in mathematics and
scores (z < 0) in mathematics and did not have good value-added scores (PRR < 0), and
did not have good value-added scores (PRR < 0).
students in the fourth quadrant had greater than average midterm scores (z > 0) in math-
The number of students located in each quadrant in Figure 3 is 138, 94, 111, and
ematics and did not have good value-added scores (PRR < 0).
120. The scatter density falling in the first quadrant was higher, which means that the
The number of students located in each quadrant in Figure 3 is 138, 94, 111, and 120.
students with a high academic foundation in mathematics had a greater chance of achieving
The scatter density falling in the first quadrant was higher, which means that the students
with a high academic foundation in mathematics had a greater chance of achieving high
value-added scores. The scatter density in the second quadrant was the lowest, which
means that the students with a poor academic foundation in mathematics had a lower
chance of achieving high value-added scores. The mean values of PRR in the four quad-
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 11 of 17

high value-added scores. The scatter density in the second quadrant was the lowest,
which means that the students with a poor academic foundation in mathematics had a
lower chance of achieving high value-added scores. The mean values of PRR in the four
quadrants were 70.6185, 81.5794, 20.7441, and 29.0461, respectively, and the value-added
performance (PRR) of students with low initial scores in the second quadrant was closer to
100. Additionally, their mean PRR values were significantly higher than those in the first
quadrant, which was also a high value-added area.
To further explore the differences in mathematics reading levels across initial achieve-
ment and academic value-added scores, we coded the different reading levels with the
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 19
symbols displayed in the images to facilitate a more visual observation of the relationship
between the three measures of initial achievement, value-added level, and reading level, as
shown in Figure 4.

100.00

low
mid
high
80.00

60.00

40.00

20.00

0.00
-4.00000 -2.00000 0.00000 2.00000

Figure 4. Student progress and growth chart with additional mathematics reading groupings.
Figure 4. Student progress and growth chart with additional mathematics reading groupings.
In Figure 4, the overall reading levels were higher in the high-basic, high-value-added
group and In Figure
lower in 4, the
the low-basic,
overall reading levels weregroup.
low-value-added higherWe inanalyzed
the high-basic,
the math high-value-
reading
added
scores in group
the four and lower in the
quadrants of thelow-basic,
progresslow-value-added
and growth chart group. We analyzed
to explore the math
the differences
in reading
math readingscores in the four
levels basedquadrants
on initial ofachievement
the progress and growth
academic chart to explore the
value-added. Thedif-
ferences
students inin themath
first reading
quadrantlevels
(highbased
initialon initial achievement
achievement and high and academic had
value-added) value-added.
a mean
reading score ofin26.4928,
The students the firstwith a maximum
quadrant valueachievement
(high initial of 38 and a minimum value of 12. The
and high value-added) had a
students
mean reading score of 26.4928, with a maximum value of 38 and a minimum value of a12.
in the second quadrant (low initial achievement and high value-added) had
mean
The reading
studentsscore in theofsecond
17.3638, with a maximum
quadrant (low initialvalue of 38 and
achievement anda minimum value of had
high value-added) 5.
The students
a mean in thescore
reading thirdofquadrant
17.3638, with(low ainitial achievement
maximum value ofand lowavalue-added)
38 and minimum value hadofa 5.
mean
The reading
studentsscore in theofthird
16.9468, with a(low
quadrant maximum value of 36 and
initial achievement andalowminimum value of
value-added) 5. a
had
Numerically,
mean reading there wasofa16.9468,
score difference in mathematical
with a maximum value reading ability
of 36 and abetween
minimum thevalue
groups,of 5.
with the students
Numerically, with
there wasa high initial achievement
a difference in mathematical and reading
high value-added score the
ability between having a
groups,
significantly higher mathematical reading ability than the other students.
with the students with a high initial achievement and high value-added score having a The results of the
one-way ANOVA
significantly also showed
higher that the
mathematical F-valueability
reading was 38.879 (p <other
than the 0.001),students.
which indicated that of
The results
there
the were
one-way significant
ANOVA differences
also showedin the performance
that the F-valueofwasstudents
38.879with
(p < different value-added
0.001), which indicated
levels
that and
thereinitial
werescores in math
significant [Link] the performance of students with different value-
differences
added levels and initial scores in math reading.
Table 4 of the multiple comparisons shows that the difference between the strong
fundamentals and high value-added group and the strong fundamentals and low value-
added group was significant, and the difference between the rest of the groups was highly
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 12 of 17

Table 4 of the multiple comparisons shows that the difference between the strong
fundamentals and high value-added group and the strong fundamentals and low value-
added group was significant, and the difference between the rest of the groups was highly
significant. Specifically, the students with high initial scores and high value-added scores
had higher math reading scores than the students in all the other groups, and this difference
between high and low scores was significant.

Table 4. Multiple comparisons of mathematics reading in the four value-added groups.

95% Confidence Interval

(I) Value-Added Group (J) Value-Added Group Mean Difference (I-J) SE Sig.
Lower Bound Higher Bound
Low status high value 3.92892 * 0.60351 0.000 2.7429 5.1149
High status high value Low status low value 5.64591 * 0.57536 0.000 4.5152 6.7766
High status low value 1.13442 * 0.56328 0.045 0.0275 2.2413
High status high value −3.92892 * 0.60351 0.000 −5.1149 −2.7429
Low status high value Low status low value 1.71698 * 0.63255 0.007 0.4739 2.9600
High status low value −2.79450 * 0.62158 0.000 −4.0160 −1.5730
High status high value −5.64591 * 0.57536 0.000 −6.7766 −4.5152
Low status low value Low status high value −1.71698 * 0.63255 0.007 −2.9600 −0.4739
High status low value −4.51149 * 0.59429 0.000 −5.6794 −3.3436
High status high value −1.13442 * 0.56328 0.045 −2.2413 −0.0275
High status low value Low status high value 2.79450 * 0.62158 0.000 1.5730 4.0160
Low status low value 4.51149 * 0.59429 0.000 3.3436 5.6794
* The significance level for the difference in means is 0.05.

5. Discussion
Our study aimed to investigate the effect of mathematics reading on value-added
mathematics achievement and concluded with two main findings. First, mathematics
reading skills had a significant positive impact on value-added mathematics achievement,
with higher mathematics reading scores associated with higher value-added levels. This
positive result was consistent with previous research on similar mathematical reading
and academic achievement, which involved conducting longitudinal studies on the rela-
tionship between early mathematical skills, reading comprehension, and mathematical
problem-solving skills to explore the complex relationship between reading and math-
ematical abilities and illustrate the role of these abilities in promoting and influencing
each other [37–39]. However, we found also a positive impact of mathematics reading
on value-added mathematics achievement through a residual model from a value-added
perspective. Although both contributed to mathematics achievement, the value-added
levels differed from growth. Value-added refers to the extent to which a student’s actual
academic achievement improves over a time period relative to the student’s own expected
academic level. Achievement growth, on the other hand, refers to the current change in
achievement relative to performance on a previous measurement or test. This suggests that
in the future, more consideration could be given to these differences when improving the
net effect of teachers’ influence on students’ academic achievement in mathematics, and
that measures could be tailored to these characteristics. We also suggest further research
into the mechanisms behind these differences and exploration of more relevant factors that
influence the value added to academic achievement in mathematics.
Second, this study also found that mathematics reading ability was more conducive
to high value-added performances for students with high initial scores than for students
with low initial scores. According to Figure 4, “Progress and Growth”, the scatter density
of high math reading level codes was higher in the high-basic high-value-added group
than in the other groups in this study, and the difference in math reading scores across
the four quadrants in Figure 4 also shows that the overall mean value of math reading
was higher in the high-basic high-value-added group than in the high-basic low-value-
added group with the same initial math scores. That is, more attention can be given to
the top students in strengthening the instruction of mathematical reading skills instead of
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 13 of 17

unilaterally taking the improvement of mathematical reading skills as a strategy to improve

the mathematical performance of all students, which can accommodate the diversity of
students and make teaching more efficient. Vigdor [40] and Kenan et al. [41] have also
suggested that egalitarian shock improves the skills of underperforming students to some
extent, but sharply dilutes the curriculum standards, negatively affecting top-performing
students. Therefore, supporting differentiation by adapting the curriculum to meet the
diverse instructional needs of students is the best way to promote higher achievement for
all students.
While mathematics reading does promote value-added performance, as seen in the
exploration of differences in mathematics reading among students at different value-added
levels, the difference between the mean values of mathematics reading performance in
the low-base high-value-added group and the low-base low-value-added group was not
significant. These values were close to or below the average overall, suggesting that
there was indeed a positive relationship between mathematics reading and value-added
scores. However, in the group of students with low initial achievement, this relationship
does not seem to be significant. This may be explained by the floor effect: most studies
have demonstrated that poor math reading skills may lead to a failure to improve math
scores [42,43], and students at the lower end of the achievement scale may be dyslexic or
lack math reading learning methods and strategies. For these students, the main factor
affecting their performance improvement may not be math reading, but rather other
mathematical skills [44,45]. This aspect warrants further investigation.
The results of this study should be understood in the context of several limitations.
The residual model utilizes a common least squares (OLS) regression method, including the
representation of OLS regression residuals as percentile ranks. Based on the characteristics
of the model itself, which would describe growth in math achievement as linear, the
reduction in growth due to the ceiling effect [46] cannot be captured here. Therefore, these
results should be interpreted with caution, used reasonably for growth measurement,
and avoided for teacher accountability [27]. However, this limitation did not prevent the
selection of groups of students who achieved high value-added scores. When comparing
the results of the two evaluations, we did see that there were some students with inverted
achievement and growth, and we found groups of students who achieved high value-
added scores (PRR > 50) despite poor academic performances. Additionally, using the
residual model to calculate PRR does not require a large sample size [47], and it reduces
experimental costs, simplifies the calculation process, and can be performed using general
SPSS software or even EXCEL. Given these characteristics, it is a suitable growth prediction
model [48]. Although this paper explored the value-added aspect of students’ academic
achievement in mathematics through the lens of mathematics reading, the factors that affect
the growth or value-added score of mathematics achievement cannot be exhausted, and
the related theories still need to be explored further.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, methodology, software, validation, formal analysis, inves-

tigation, resources, data curation, writing—original draft preparation, writing—review and editing,
visualization, C.Z.; supervision, project administration, funding acquisition, X.W. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was support by Yuanhui Youth Development Program: A study on the appro-
priateness of cognitive diagnostic assessment in Mathematics; Teacher Education “JIEBANGLINGTI”
Project of Northeast Normal University: Learning Progression Construction and Learning Path
Analysis Based on Cognitive Diagnosis (JSJY20220305).
Institutional Review Board Statement: East China Normal University Committee on Human Re-
search Protection approval code: HR662-2022, approval date: 11 November 2022.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated during and/or analyzed in the current study
are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 14 of 17
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 19

Conflicts of Interest: The author(s) declare that the manuscript has not been published in any journal,
Appendix A and there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or
Mathematics Reading Test Papers
publication of this article.

Class Name IDAppendix A

1. On Sunday,
Mathematics ReadingXiaotao walks from his home along a straight highway to a newsstand to read a newspaper, and
Test Papers
Class after reading
Name forIDsome time, he returns home the same way. The function between the distance Xiaotao traveled
1. from his home
On Sunday, y from
Xiaotaoiswalks ( m )his
and the
home time
along he spent
a straight t ( min
highway ) is shown
to a newsstand in athe
to read [Link]
newspaper, The following
after reading forstatement is
some time, he
( ). the same way. The function between the distance Xiaotao traveled from his home is y (m) and the time he spent t (min) is shown
returns home
correct
in the figure. The following statement is correct ( ).
A. The distance from Xiaotao’s home to the newsstand is 900 m.
A. The
B. The distance
average from Xiaotao’s
speed home to the
of Xiaotao fromnewsstand
his home is 900
[Link] newsstand is 60 m/min.
B. The average speed of Xiaotao from his home to the newsstand is 60 m/min.
C. The average speed of Xiaotao returning home from the newsstand is 80 m/min.
C. The average speed of Xiaotao returning home from the newsstand is 80 m/min.
D. Xiaotao
D. Xiaotao spent
spent 15 reading
15 min min reading the newspaper
the newspaper at the [Link] the kiosk.

2. The definition of an equidistant sequence is: from the 2nd term onwards, the difference between each term and the previous term is the same
constant, we call such a sequence an equidistant sequence, and we call this constant the tolerance of the equidistant sequence, which is
usually represented by the letter d. For example: a1 = 3, d = 2, then a2 = 5, a3 = 7, . . . , an = 3 + 2(n − 1) = 2n + 1.
An isoperimetric series is defined as a series in which the ratio of each term to the previous term from term 2 onwards is the same constant, we
call such a series an isoperimetric series and call this constant the common ratio of the isoperimetric series, which is usually denoted by the letter
2.
q(q 6=The
0). Fordefinition
example: aof 1 =an 3, equidistant sequence
q = 2, then a2 = 6, a3 = 12,is:. . from
. , an =the 2(n−1term
3 ×2nd ). onwards, the difference between each term and
(1) If the first term of an equidistant sequence { a } is d and the common
the previous term is the same constant, we call such a sequence ann equidistant
n difference is a = a1 + (n − 1)sequence,
d, then the general
and we formula for this
call this constant
equidistant series is D. Write the general formula for an equidistant series based on the representation of the general formula for an equidistant
the tolerance of the equidistant sequence,
series, labelling the meaning of each letter in the formula. which is usually represented by the letter d . For example: a1 = 3 ,
= 2 , then a 2 = 5, a3 = 7,..., a n = 3 + 2( nn − m1) = 2 n + 1 .
(2) Thedequal difference series has the following property: a , a are any two terms in the equal difference series, and the relationship between an
and am is an = am + (n − m)d. The proof process is as follows.
An isoperimetric
left = a1 + (n − series
1) d is defined as a series in which the ratio of each term to the previous term from term 2
right = a + ( m − 1
onwards is the same constant,
1 ) d + ( n − m)d = we left call such a series an isoperimetric series and call this constant the common ratio of
Write the relationship between any two terms an and am in an isoperimetric series and justify your conclusion based on this property of the
the isoperimetric
equidistant sequence. series, which is usually denoted by the letter q (q ≠ 0) . For example:
a1 = 3, q = 2, then a2 = 6, a3 = 12,..., an = 3 × 2( n−1) .
(1) If the first term of an equidistant sequence {a n } is d and the common difference is an = a1 + ( n − 1) d ,
then the general formula for this equidistant series is D. Write the general formula for an equidistant series based on
the representation of the general formula for an equidistant series, labelling the meaning of each letter in the formula.
an , am are any two terms in the equal difference
(2) The equal difference series has the following property:
an and am a = a m + ( n − m ) d . The proof process is as follows.
is n
series, and the relationship between
left = a1 + (n − 1)d
right=a1 + (m − 1)d + (n − m)d = left
Write the relationship between any two terms an and am in an isoperimetric series and justify your conclusion
based on this property of the equidistant sequence.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 19
3. Problem Background: In following figure, in isosceles triangle  ABC , AB = AC , ∠BAC = 120° , make
1 BC 2 BD
ADSci.⊥2023,
Behav. D , then D is the midpoint of BC , ∠BAD = ∠BAC = 60° , so
BC 13,at754
point = = 3 . 15 of 17
2
3. Problem Background: In following figure, in isosceles triangle  ABC , AB = AC , ∠BAC = 120° , make AB AB
1 BC 2 BD
AD ⊥ BC at point D , then D is the midpoint of BC , ∠BAD = ∠BAC ◦= 60° , so = = 3.
3. Problem Background: In following figure, in isosceles triangle ∆ABC, AB = AC, ∠2BAC = 120 , make AD ⊥ BC
ABat pointAB
D, then D is the
√
midpoint of BC, ∠ BAD = 2 ∠ BAC = 60◦ , so
1 BC 2BD
AB = AB = 3.

Application: As in following figure,  ABC and  ADE are isosceles triangles,

∠BAC = ∠ DAE = 120 ° , D 、 E 、 C points D, E and F on the same line, connecting BD .
Application: As in following figure, ∆ABC and ∆ADE are isosceles triangles, ∠ BAC = ∠ DAE = 120 , D, E, C points D, E and F on the same line,
◦

connecting BD.
Application: As in following figure,  ABC and  ADE are isosceles triangles,
∠BAC = ∠DAE = 120°, D、E、C points D, E and F on the same line, connecting BD .

(1) How many pairs of equal line segments are there in above figure and point out each of them.
(2) Write an equation of equivalence between the line segments CD, BD, and AD in above figure. (Proof process required)
(1) How many pairs of equal line segments are there in above figure and point out each of them.
(2) Write an equation of equivalence between the line segments CD, BD, and AD in above figure. (Proof process
required)
(1) How many pairs of equal line segments are there in above figure and point out each of them.
(2) Write an equation of equivalence between the line segments CD, BD, and AD in above figure. (Proof process
4. Read the following material before answering the questions that follow:
required)
In general, the multiplication of n identical numbers a, denoted an , such as 23 = 8, when, 3 is called the logarithm with base 8 of 2, denoted log2 8
(i.e., 3 = log2 8). In general, if an = b( a > 0, a 6= 1, b > 0) then n is called the logarithm of b with a as base, denoted loga b (i.e., loga b = n). If
34 = 81, 4 is called the logarithm of base 81 with 3, denoted log3 81 = 4.
(1) Calculate the value of each of the following logarithms:
log2 4 = _______; log2 16 = _______; log2 64 = _______.
(2) Observe what relationship is satisfied between the three numbers 4, 16, and 64 in (1)? What relationship is satisfied between
log2 4, log2 16, log2 64?
(3) Based on (2), can you write a general conclusion?
loga M + loga N =______________(a > 0, and a 6= 1, M > 0, N > 0)

References
1. Department for Education. National Curriculum in England: Mathematics Programmes of Study. Available online:
[Link]
national-curriculum-in-england-mathematics-programmes-of-study (accessed on 20 July 2023).
2. Ministry of Education of the People’s Republic of China. Mathematics Curriculum standards for Compulsory Education (2011 Version);
Beijing Normal University Press: Beijing, China, 2012.
3. Bull, R.; Johnston, R.S. Children’s arithmetical difficulties: Contributions from processing speed, item identification, and
short-term memory. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 1997, 65, 1–24. [CrossRef]
4. Hecht, S.A.; Torgesen, J.K.; Wagner, R.K.; Rashotte, C.A. The relations between phonological processing abilities and emerging
individual differences in mathematical computation skills: A longitudinal study from second to fifth grades. J. Exp. Child Psychol.
2001, 79, 192–227. [CrossRef]
5. Geary, D.C. A componential analysis of an early learning deficit in mathematics. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 1990, 49, 363–383. [CrossRef]
6. Jordon, N.C.; Kaplan, D.; Hanich, L.B. Achievement growth in children with learning difficulties in mathematics: Findings of a
two-year longitudinal study. J. Educ. Psychol. 2002, 94, 586–597. [CrossRef]
7. Österholm, M. Characterizing Reading Comprehension of Mathematical Texts. Educ. Stud. Math. 2006, 63, 325–346. [CrossRef]
8. Fuentes, P. Reading Comprehension in Mathematics. Clear. House 1998, 72, 81–88. [CrossRef]
9. Adams, T.L. Reading mathematics: More than words can say. Read. Teach. 2003, 56, 786–795.
10. Yu, X.; Yang, Z. Research on mathematical dyslexia of middle school students in China. Asian J. Educ. Soc. Stud. 2022, 30, 1–12.
[CrossRef]
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 16 of 17

11. Hart, S.A.; Petrill, S.A.; Thompson, L.A.; Plomin, R. The ABCs of math: A genetic analysis of mathematics and its links with
reading ability and general cognitive ability. J. Educ. Psychol. 2009, 101, 388. [CrossRef]
12. Vilenius-Tuohimaa, P.M.; Aunola, K.; Nurmi, J.E. The association between mathematical word problems and reading comprehen-
sion. Educ. Psychol. 2008, 28, 409–426. [CrossRef]
13. Vista, A. The role of reading comprehension in maths achievement growth: Investigating the magnitude and mechanism of the
mediating effect on maths achievement in Australian classrooms. Int. J. Educ. Res. 2013, 62, 21–35. [CrossRef]
14. Duff, D.M.; Hendricks, A.E.; Fitton, L.; Adlof, S.M. Reading and math achievement in children with dyslexia, developmental
language disorder, or typical development: Achievement gaps persist from second through fourth grades. J. Learn. Disab. 2022,
56, 371–379. [CrossRef]
15. Fazio, B.B. Mathematical abilities of children with specific language impairment: A 2-year follow-up. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res.
1996, 39, 839–849. [CrossRef]
16. Fazio, B.B. Arithmetic calculation, short-term memory, and language performance in children with specific language impairment:
A 5-year follow-up. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1999, 42, 420–431. [CrossRef]
17. McCaffrey, D.F.; Hamilton, L.S. Value-Added Assessment in Practice: Lessons from the Pennsylvania Value-Added Assessment System
Pilot Project; Rand Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2007; Volume 506.
18. Hanushek, E.; Machin, S.; Woessmann, L. Handbook of the Economics of Education, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Berkeley, CA, USA, 2011;
Volume 4.
19. Sanders, W.L.; Rivers, J.C.; Hall, M. Graphical summary of educational findings from the Tennessee Value-Added Assessment
System. Retr. Sept. 1997, 30, 2010.
20. Sanders, W.L.; Rivers, J.C. Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement; University of
Tennessee ValueAdded Research Center: Knoxville, TN, USA, 1996.
21. Sanders, W.L.; Saxton, A.M.; Hall, M. The Tennessee value-added assessment system: A quantitative outcomes-based approach
to educational assessment. In Grading Teachers, Grading Schools: Is Student Achievement a Valid Evaluational Measure? Millman, J.,
Ed.; Corwin Press Inc: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 1997; pp. 137–162.
22. Jong, R.d.; Westerhof, K.J.; Kruiter, J.H. Empirical evidence of a comprehensive model of school effectiveness: A multilevel
study in mathematics in the 1st year of junior general education in the Netherlands. School Effect. School Improv. 2004, 15, 3–31.
[CrossRef]
23. Rockoff, J.E. The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004, 94,
247–252. [CrossRef]
24. Hanushek, E.A.; Kain, J.; O’Brien, D.; Rivkin, S.G. The Market for Teacher Quality; National Bureau of Economic Research
Cambridge: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2005.
25. Sass, T.R.; Semykina, A.; Harris, D.N. Value-added models and the measurement of teacher productivity. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2014,
38, 9–23. [CrossRef]
26. Castellano, K.E.; Ho, A.D. Contrasting OLS and quantile regression approaches to student “growth” percentiles. J. Educ. Behav.
Stat. 2013, 38, 190–215. [CrossRef]
27. Anderman, E.M.; Gimbert, B.; O’Connell, A.A.; Riegel, L. Approaches to academic growth assessment. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2015,
85, 138–153. [CrossRef]
28. Martin, A.J. Personal bests (PBs): A proposed multidimensional model and empirical analysis. Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 2006, 76,
803–825. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
29. Martin, A.J. Implicit theories about intelligence and growth (personal best) goals: Exploring reciprocal relationships. Br. J. Educ.
Psychol. 2015, 85, 207–223. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
30. McCaffrey, D.F.; Lockwood, J.R.; Koretz, D.M.; Hamilton, L.S. Evaluating Value-Added Models for Teacher Accountability; RAND
Corporation: Santa Monica, CA, USA, 2003.
31. Yang, H.; Yu, P. Investigation report on the situation of mathematics reading instruction. J. Math. Educ. 2014, 7, 59–66.
32. Osborne, J.W.; Waters, E. Four assumptions of multiple regression that researchers should always test. Prac. Assess. Res. Eval.
2002, 8, 2. [CrossRef]
33. Tekwe, C.D.; Carter, R.L.; Ma, C.-X.; Algina, J.; Lucas, M.E.; Roth, J.; Ariet, M.; Fisher, T.; Resnick, M.B. An empirical comparison
of statistical models for value-added assessment of school performance. J. Educ. Behav. Stat. 2004, 29, 11–36. [CrossRef]
34. Koedel, C.; Rockoff, J.E. Value-added modeling: A review. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2015, 47, 180–195. [CrossRef]
35. Hershberg, T. Value-added assessment and systemic reform: A response to the challenge of human capital development. Phi
Delta Kappan 2005, 87, 276–283. [CrossRef]
36. Weiss, M.J. Using a Yardstick to Measure a Meter: Growth, Projection, and Value-Added Models in the Context of School
Accountability. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2008.
37. Aiken, L.R. Verbal factors and mathematics learning: A review of research. J. Res. Math. Educ. 1971, 2, 304–313. [CrossRef]
38. Monroe, W.S.; Engelhart, M.D. A critical summary of research relating to the teaching of arithmetic. Univ. Ill. Bull. 1931, 29, 58.
39. Özcan, Z.Ç.; Doğan, H. A longitudinal study of early math skills, reading comprehension and mathematical problem solving.
Pegem J. Educ. Instr. 2018, 8, 1–18. [CrossRef]
40. Vigdor, J.L. Solving America’s math problem: Tailor instruction to the varying needs of the students. Educ. Next 2013, 13, 42–50.
Behav. Sci. 2023, 13, 754 17 of 17

41. Kenan, T.A.; Abuzour, S.; Pislaru, C.; Elzawi, A. Improving student achievement in mathematics courses taught in foundation
year at university. Eurasia Proc. Educ. Soc. Sci. 2019, 14, 1–12.
42. Hemmings, B.; Grootenboer, P.; Kay, R. Predicting mathematics achievement: The influence of prior achievement and attitudes.
Int. J. Sci. Math. Educ. 2011, 9, 691–705. [CrossRef]
43. Sepeng, P.; Madzorera, A. Sources of difficulty in comprehending and solving mathematical word problems. Int. J. Educ. Sci.
2014, 6, 217–225. [CrossRef]
44. Cai, J.; Kaiser, G.; Perry, B.; Wong, N.Y. Effective Mathematics Teaching from Teachers’ Perspectives: National and Cross-National Studies;
SAGE Publication: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2009.
45. Murayama, K.; Pekrun, R.; Lichtenfeld, S.; Vom Hofe, R. Predicting long-term growth in students’ mathematics achievement: The
unique contributions of motivation and cognitive strategies. Child Dev. 2013, 84, 1475–1490. [CrossRef]
46. Paris, S.G. Reinterpreting the development of reading skills. Read. Res. Q. 2005, 40, 184–202. [CrossRef]
47. Wyse, A.E.; Seo, D.G. A Comparison of Three Conditional Growth Percentile Methods: Student Growth Percentiles, Percentile
Rank Residuals, and a Matching Method. Prac. Assess. Res. Eval. 2014, 19, 15.
48. Kurtz, M.D. Value-added and student growth percentile models: What drives differences in estimated classroom effects? Stat.
Public Policy 2018, 5, 1–8. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.