PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 1

Productive Struggle in Math: The Impact on

Students Cognitive Engagement and Academic Performance

Meghan Meads

Department of Educational Technology and Literacy, Towson University

ISTC 685

Dr. Scot McNary

PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 2

Abstract

This study will focus on productive struggle in math and the impact it has on students’ cognitive

engagement and academic performance. The independent variable is productive struggle, and the

dependent variable is students’ academic achievement and engagement in math. The study will

use the pre-test and post-test control group design and will include two second grade classes of

twenty students each. The control group will not complete the productive struggle at the start of

math each day and the experimental group will have students complete the productive struggle at

the beginning of math each day. The students in the experimental group who complete the

productive struggle are expected to be more cognitively engaged in the Math lessons and

therefore perform better academically on the Bridges Math Assessment.

PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 3

Background

A major challenge that many educators are facing today is keeping students engaged with

learning. For meaningful learning to take place, students need to be actively engaged in the

classroom with the content that is being taught. As a result of the pandemic and virtual learning,

teachers are struggling now more than ever to keep students engaged in the classroom. Many

students lost the stamina or ability to remain focused on learning when in the classroom. This

loss of engagement is directly impacting students’ academic performance.

Hu (2001) and Kuh (2009a) refer to student engagement as the time allocated by students

to educational activities to contribute to the desired outcomes and as the quality of their related

efforts. According to Stovall (2003), student engagement includes not only the time students

spend on tasks but also their willingness to take part in activities. Unfortunately, this lack of

engagement from students is directly impacting their academic performance. County school

systems are making it even harder for teachers to keep students engaged by requiring teachers to

continue teaching grade level content even though students are performing well below grade

level. This study aims to prove that by increasing students’ cognitive engagement in Math using

productive struggle, students’ academic performance will improve.

Productive struggle encourages students to develop strong habits of mind including

perseverance and flexibility. The key to productive struggle is encouraging students to think

outside the box and not letting them get discouraged if their initial strategies don’t work.

Students thrive with the right amount of productive struggle. According to Sangiovanni, Katt,

and Dykema (2020), all students deserve the right to struggle. Each student must have access to

high-level mathematics and opportunities to think, discuss, and learn how to struggle

productively. Through productive struggle in math, students learn that productive struggle is an
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 4

essential part of learning, no matter the content. Productive struggle gives students an

opportunity to grow and refine skills that will contribute to their overall success in school and

beyond (Sangiovanni, Katt, and Dykema, 2020). This research will study the effects of

productive struggle on students’ engagement and the impact it has on their academic

performance in math.

Statement of Purpose

Despite schools returning to in person learning, students are struggling to remain focused

and engaged in the classroom. Virtual learning impacted all students academically as well as

socially and emotionally. Most students are performing below grade level, but Baltimore County

Public Schools has encouraged teachers and schools to continue to teach grade level lessons. The

learning loss and the difficulty of skills has led to even more of a decline in students’

engagement with the lessons being taught. This is causing the academic gap to grow even further

among students in the classroom. This research study will work to prove that student engagement

has a significant influence on mathematical achievement.

According to Iskan, Maat, and Maamin (2022) there is a significant relationship between

cognitive engagement, affective engagement, behavioral engagement, and mathematic

achievement. Through the implementation of productive struggle, the relationship between

students’ cognitive engagement and academic achievement can be further explored. The overall

educational benefits of this research may include new curricular and instructional designs which

incorporate daily opportunities for productive struggle in math; increased student motivation to

solve challenging math problems; and an improvement in math problem solving skills.

Literature Review
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 5

Bomia and colleagues (1997) define student engagement as students’ willingness, needs,

desire motivation and success in the learning process. Student engagement is an important study

field of education psychology. Engagement requires not only being active but also feeling and

sense making (Harper and Quaye, 2009). Krause and Coates (2008) associated student

engagement with the high quality in learning outcomes. According to Karrie Murdock, students

experience productive struggle when given a task slightly beyond their abilities. Educators can

help to build critical thinking skills and develop grit in students using productive struggle.

According to Metallidou and Vlachou (2007), self-efficacy proved the most significant

predictor or performance, cognitive strategy, and regulatory strategy. Through the

implementation of productive struggle activities students will increase their self-efficacy and be

more willing to attempt solving math problems. Productive struggle activities are math problems

that can be solved in more than one way which provides all students with an equal opportunity at

solving the problem and reaching a solution that makes sense to them. This multiple entry way

type problem encourages students who are often shut down by math problems with only one

solution to build their self-confidence in mathematics.

Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, & Loef’s study in 1989, showed that students in

experimental classes exceeded students in control classes in number fact knowledge,

problem-solving, reported understanding, and reported confidence in problem-solving abilities.

Students performed better in math when they received instruction focused on problem solving.

This study supports the idea of productive struggle improving students’ academic performance in

math as productive struggle activities encourage students to problem solvers. The productive

struggle activities are within students’ developmental level so that they challenge students and

encourage them to find a solution to a problem without completely frustrating students. The
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 6

activities set the students up for success with the specific math skill and allow the teacher to gain

an understanding of each student’s knowledge about a specific math topic. The teacher can gain

insight into students’ knowledge about a math topic by viewing their strategic thinking when

they solve the problem.

Statement of the Hypothesis

If elementary students of all ability levels complete math productive struggle daily, then

they will increase their cognitive engagement and their academic achievement in Math. For this

study, one second grade class will complete a math productive struggle activity daily and one

second grade class will not. The study will compare students pre and post test scores on Bridges

Unit 5 Pre and Post Test. Students will also complete a self-report study to determine students’

engagement with math. Students who completed the daily productive struggle in Math, will

perform better on the math assessment and will demonstrate greater engagement in math

activities, as opposed to the students who did not complete daily math productive struggles.

Methods

Participants

The research study will be conducted at am elementary school in the Baltimore County

Public Schools (BCPS) system, which is in central Maryland. This school currently has a total

enrollment of 641 students in grades prekindergarten through fifth grade (BCPS, 2021). The

student body is comprised of females (46%) and males (54%) with the following ethnicities:

African American (45%), White (35%), Asian or Pacific Islander (10%), Two or more races

(5%), and Hispanic (4%) (BCPS 2021). 55% of the students come from low-income families.

For convenience, the study sample will only include two second grade classes(N=40) at

the school. Through the school registration process, the sample participants have already been
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 7

assigned to class sections. There there will be twenty students in each of the second-grade

classes. One class will complete the productive struggle daily (experimental) and the other class

will not (control). The demographic distribution among the sample includes females (59%),

males (41%), African American (53%), White (33%), Asian or Pacific Islander (10%), Two or

more races (2%), and Hispanic (2%) (BCPS, 2021). The median age of participants at the

beginning of the study will be 7 years old.

While convenience sampling was selected for ease of access to data, timeliness, and

cost-efficiency, this method does have limitations. The design contains sampling bias and is

vulnerable to sampling error. Although the sample does provide cultural, ethnic, and gender

diversity among the participants, no comparison to the general population of elementary school

students throughout the United States has been made. Thus, the sample may not be representative

of the population, which limits the generalizability of the study results. However, convenience

sampling makes it possible to conduct this study, and this sample size is sufficiently large to

account for any students moving from the school and being withdrawn from the study. Only

focusing on students in one specific grade level for convenience also eliminates the variable of

different math topics based on grade level skills. Students enrolling after the start of the study

will not be included in the data collection.

Measures

To analyze students’ academic growth in Math, students will take a pre and post Math

test from the Bridges Unit 5 curriculum. All 40 students in the study will take the pre and

posttest. The pretest and posttest are the same which will measure students’ growth from the

beginning of the unit to the end of the unit. The test is all short answer and assess students

understanding of skills taught in unit 5 of Bridges. The test focuses on place value to 1000 and
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 8

will be worth 19 total points. Students scores will be collected from both the control group and

experimental group and compared in a T chart to determine the learning that took place in each

of the groups. The test will be graded following the rubric in Appendix A.

This study will measure students’ engagement with mathematics by having them

complete the Attitudes Toward Mathematics (ATM) Self-report survey (see Appendix B).

According to Fredericks and McColskey (2012), self-report measures are the most common

method for assessing student engagement. Appleton et al. (2006), argues that self-report methods

should only be used to assess emotional and cognitive engagement because collecting data on

these subtypes through other methods is highly inferential. o measure students’ engagement in

math, this study will use a student self-report. The ATM has subscales that focus on

self-regulation, deep cognitive strategy use, shallow cognitive strategy use, and persistence.

According to Fredericks and McColskey, the Attitudes Toward Mathematics Survey (ATM) had

an internal consistency (reliability) of .63-.81 (Fredericks and McColskey, 2012).

Procedures

Unit 5 of the Bridges Math Curriculum aligns with the second-grade curriculum and

focuses on place value to 1000. Place value is a major focus in second grade, and it is continually

built upon so students must have a basic understanding of place value to succeed in math

throughout their second-grade year. After securing institutional review board approval and

consent from the school system, teachers, and parents of the sample students, teachers will

receive training about how to administer pre- and post-tests, as well as how to implement the unit

lessons in a standardized manner. The control group and experimental group will be determined,

and the teacher will be notified. The ATM and the Bridges Unit 5 Assessment will be

administered by the classroom teachers as pre-tests to gauge students’ attitude towards math
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 9

prior to the unit instruction. During the four-week unit, students will receive direct instruction on

place value. At the end of the unit, teachers will administer the Bridges Unit 5 Post-Test, as well

as the ATM self-survey scales.

The researchers will collect and analyze the data for both outcomes: academic

achievement in math and engagement in math. Pre- and post-test data from the motivational

scales will be compared and analyzed. All collected data will be compared across groups and

conditions, and then organized into both visual and written form. From this analysis, conclusions

will be drawn in relation to the study hypothesis. Finally, the results, implications, and needs for

further investigation will be reported.

Design

The design of this study will be a pretest-posttest control group. My study is focusing on

the effects of productive struggle in math on students’ cognitive engagement and academic

performance. I will be focusing on students in second grade. The control group is my co-workers

second grade class with 20 total students. The experimental group is my second-grade class with

20 total students. The control group will not complete productive struggle at the start of math

each day and the experimental group will have students complete productive struggle at the

beginning of math each day. Both groups of students will complete the Unit 5 Bridges

pre-assessment at the start of the unit which will be the pre-test data point. When the unit is

complete, both groups of students will complete Unit 5 Bridges post-assessment as the post-test

data point.

The two classes were chosen because the students are similar in demographic makeup

and academic level. I will collect data from both classes to determine if by implementing

productive struggle at the start of math each day increases students’ cognitive engagement in
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 10

math and therefore improves students’ academic performance in math. After the unit is complete,

I will gather quantitative data about students’ engagement by having students complete the ATM

self-report survey. I will also collect quantitative data based on students’ performance on Bridges

Unit 5 Pre and Post Test.

One internal validity threat is from selection since a random sample will not be used.

Although all students in pre-existing second grade classes will be participants, the sample will be

formed based on convenience and will unlikely be representative of the entire population. There

may be additional construct validity threats in this study as well. The design has external validity

threats since convenience sampling will be used and all participants will be from one school in

one state so the results may not be generalizable to the population of all United States elementary

students. The study incorporates methods to minimize these validity threats, such as the use of

multiple measures and the establishment of a control group.

Data Analysis

I am using a pretest-posttest control group design for my study on the impact productive

struggle has on student performance and engagement in mathematics. The sample will consist of

forty total second grade students. Both the control group and experimental group will learn about

Place Value to 1000 during Bridges Unit 5 daily lessons. At the start of the unit, all forty students

will take the Bridges Unit 5 Pre-Test. The experimental group will complete a productive

struggle activity at the beginning of each math lesson. The control group will not complete a

daily productive struggle activity. At the end of the unit, all forty students will take the Bridges

Unit 5 Post-Test.

Student scores will be separated into two data sets for both my control group and my

experimental group using a group comparative design. The students in both groups will be taking
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 11

the same pre-test and the same post-test to ensure an accurate demonstration of growth. In this

dataset, student scores of the post-test will be compared to their original scores on the pre-test to

determine growth. The difference in test scores will be demonstrated by a t-test. T-tests are used

to compare average outcomes when there are two groups. In my study, the two groups will be the

control group and the experimental group. I will compare the difference of average posttest

scores between my two groups to determine if the daily productive struggle tasks impacted

students’ academic performance. After the unit is complete, I will also gather quantitative data

about students’ engagement by having students complete the ATM self-report survey.

Timeline

The following timeline of steps provides a guiding framework for the completion of this

study.

September-October

● Write the research proposal, including the

o Review of the related literature.

o Formulation of research questions or hypothesis and anticipated outcomes

o Outline of the study design and procedures

o Selection of the school and sample with an analysis of the demographics.

o Selection of bridges math Unit.

o Creation and selection of testing measures for engagement and math academic

achievement.

October-November

● Secure consent from the school principal.

PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 12

● Prepare and submit proposal to the institutional review board for approval; revise as

needed.

● Develop lesson instructions and materials for use with students during the unit.

● Develop training materials to instruct the teachers about unit implementation and

administration of assessments.

December

● Secure consent from the second-grade teachers; secure parental consent and informed

assent from the second-grade student participants.

● Begin to plan daily productive struggle activities

January-February.

● Conduct training for the teachers.

● Administer and score attitude towards math and bridges unit 5 pre-test.

● Monitor progress of targeted instruction during the four-week unit of study to ensure

uniform delivery methods and adherence to the established lesson procedures.

● Administer and score attitude towards math and bridges unit 5 post-test.

February-March.

● Analyze the data and compare across groups and conditions.

● Organize the data into visual form and describe in written form.

● Draw conclusions in relation to the hypothesis.

● Identify results, implications, and areas for further study.

● Write and disseminate the report of the study.

Anticipated Outcomes
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 13

This study will produce results in two areas: engagement with mathematics and

understanding of place value. I expect that the students in the experimental group completing the

productive struggle will increase their cognitive engagement and academic achievement in math.

The control group that does not complete daily productive struggle activities will not see a

change in their engagement with mathematics or a significant increase in their understanding of

place value.

The implications for teachers would be additional verification that daily productive

struggle activities increase students’ engagement and academic achievement in math.

Incorporating productive struggle tasks into daily math lessons will effectively engage students

and improve their academic achievement in math. This study only targeted one grade level at

one elementary school. The study could be extended in the same school with sample participants

from other elementary grade levels and productive struggle activities specific to each grade

levels math content. Researchers may consider adding a qualitative component to the study, such

as interviews to collect additional data about students’ feelings about math.

If the results of the study do not turn out as expected and students’ academic engagement

and achievement in math are not improved after implementing productive struggle activities,

internal and external factors should be investigated to see what may have impacted students’ no

change in students’ academic achievement and engagement with math. If a review shows that

there are no flaws in the study, it may be suggested that daily productive struggle activities may

not have a huge impact on improving students’ academic achievement and engagement in ma
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 14

References

Baltimore County Public Schools. (2021). School profile for Carney Elementary School.

Retrieved from https://carneyes.bcps.org/

Bomia, L., Beluzo, L., Demeester, D., Elander, K., Johnson, M. & Sheldon, B. (1997). The

impact of teaching strategies on intrinsic motivation. Champaign, IL: ERIC

Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Peterson, P., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using Knowledge of

Children’s Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An Experimental Study.

American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 499-531

Fredericks, J., McColskey, W. (2012). The Measurement of Student Engagement: A Comparative

Analysis of Various Methods and Student Self-report Instruments. Handbook of Research

on Student Engagement, DOI 10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_37

Gunuc, S. (2014). The relationships between student engagement and their academic

achievement. International Journal on New Trends in Education and their

implications, 5(4), 216-231

Harper, S. R. & Quaye, S. J. (ed.) (2009). Student Engagement in Higher Education. New York

and London: Routledge.

Hu, S. & Kuh, G. D. (2001). Being (Dis) Engaged in Educationally Purposeful Activities: The

Influences of Student and Institutional Characteristics. Paper presented at the American

Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Seattle, WA, 10–14 April.

Maamin, M, Maat, S.M, & Iksan, Z. (2022). The Influence of Student Engagement on

Mathematical Achievement among Secondary School Students. Mathematics, 10 (1), 41.

PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 15

Mills, G.E. & Gay, L.R. (2019). Educational research: Competencies for analysis and

applications (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Metallidou, P. and Vlachou, A. (2007), Motivational beliefs, cognitive engagement, and

achievement in language and mathematics in elementary school children. International

Journal of Psychology, 42: 2-15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590500411179

Mrachko, A., & Vostal, B. (2020). Using the “Universal Design for Learning” Framework to

Plan for All Students in the Classroom: Engagement through Choice. Elementary STEM

Journal, 25(2), 29–31.

Mrachka, A. (2020). Using the Universal Design for Learning Framework to Plan for All

Students in the Classroom: Representation and Visual Support. Elementary STEM

Journal, 25(1), 22–24.

Murdock, K. (2020). Getting Buy-In for Productive Struggle. Retrieved from

https://www.eschoolnews.com/2020/02/14/getting-buy-in-for-productive-struggle/2/

Patten, M.L. & Galvan, M.C. (2019). Proposing Empirical Research: A Guide to the

Fundamentals (6 th ed.). Routledge.

SanGiovanni, J., Katt, S., Dykema, K., (2020). Productive Math Struggle: A 6-Point Plan for

Fostering Perseverance. Corwin.

Stovall, I. (2003). Engagement and Online Learning. UIS Community of Practice for

E-Learning. http://otel.uis.edu/copel/EngagementandOnlineLearning.ppt
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 16

Appendix A

Rubric that will be used to score bridges unit 5 pre and post assessment

‘
PRODUCTIVE STRUGGLE IN MATH 17

Appendix B