The Effects of Four Selected Components of Opportunity to Learn on Mathematics Achievement of Grade 12 Students

Janet Maria Collie-Patterson


The purpose of this study was to determine if a single dimension of opportunity to learn (OTL) could be identified using four selected components of teachers, students, schools and classroom characteristics; and to determine if each of the four components of OTL was related to mathematics achievement as measured by the results of the June 1999 Bahamas General Certificate of Secondary Education mathematics examination.

The findings of this study indicated that the model-data-fit was reasonable, suggesting that a significant relationship existed between opportunity to learn and three selected components of teachers, students and school characteristics.

The fourth component, classroom characteristics, was not significantly related to OTL. Each of the four components of schools, students, teachers and classroom characteristics were significantly related to mathematics achievement.

Full Text:



Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Small Waters Corporation.

Ballantine, J. H. (1989). The sociology of education: A systematic analysis. (2nd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Bentler, P. M. (1995). ESQ structural equation program manual. Multi variate Software.

Boyer, E. L. (1993). Ready to learn: A mandate for the nation. Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64(8),723-733.

Clements, D. H., & McMillen, S. (1996). Rethinking concrete manipulatives. Teaching Children Mathematics, 2(5), 270-280.

Duke, D. L. (1993). Removing barriers to professional growth. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(9), 702-704 & 710-712.

Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A study of schooling: Some findings and hypotheses. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(7), 465–470.

Goodlad, J. I. (1983). A study of schooling: Some implications for school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 64(8), 552–558.

Irwin, K. (1994). Ongoing development as a teacher of mathematics. In J. Neyland (Ed.), Mathematics education: A handbook for teachers, Vol. 1,(pp. 367-374). Wellington College of Education.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1979). Cooperation, competition, and individualization. In W. J. Walberg (Ed.), Educational environment and efforts: Evaluation, policy, and productivity (pp. 101-119). McCutchan.

Kennedy, L. M. (1986). A rationale. Arithmetic Teacher, 33(6), 6-7, 32.

Kinney, C. J. (1997-1998). Building an excellent teacher corps: How Japan does it. American Educator, 21(4), 16-23.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

Kober, N. (1991). What we know about mathematics teaching and learning. EDTALK. (ED343793). ERIC.

Koerner, B. I. (1999, January 18). Parental power. US News & World Report, 126(2). 72. https://search-ebscohost-com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=1423506&site=ehost-live

Leder, G. C. (1992). Mathematics and gender: Changing perspectives. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning: A project of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (pp. 597–622). Macmillan.

Lueder, D. C. (1998). Creating partnerships with parents: An educator’s guide. Technomic.

McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17 (3), 305-322.

McLaughlin, M. W. (1991). Enabling professional development: What have we learned? In A. Lieberman & L. Miller (Eds.), Staff development for education in the ‘90s: New demands, new realities, new perspectives. (2nd ed.) (pp. 61-82). Teachers College Press Columbia University.

Moos, R. H. (1979). Educational climates. In H. J. Walberg (Ed.), Educational environments and effects: Evaluation, policy and productivity. McCutchan Publishing.

Morton, I. (1993). Teacher collaboration in Urban secondary schools. ERIC/CUE Digest, 93. (ED363676). ERIC.

National Educational Goals Panel. (1997). The National Education Goals report: Building a nation of learners. U.S. Government Printing Office.

Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (1994). Tracking and ability grouping: a structured barrier to access and achievement. In J. I. Goodlad & P. Keating (Eds.), Access to knowledge: the continuing agenda for our nation’s schools. (Rev. ed.). (pp. 187-206). College Entrance Examination Board.

Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structures inequality. Yale University Press.

Rogus, J. F. (1983). How principals can strengthen school performance. NASSP Bulletin, 67(459), 1-7.

Schmidt, W. H., & McKnight, C. C. (1995). Surveying educational opportunity in mathematics and science: An international perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17(3), 337-353.

Smithson, J. L., Porter, A. C., & Blank, R. K. (1995, March). Describing the enacted curriculum: Development and dissemination of opportunity to learn indicators in science education. Council of Chief State School Officers. (ED385430). ERIC.

Stevens, F. I. (1996, April 8-12). The need to expand the opportunity to learn conceptual framework: Should students, parents, and school resources be included? [Presentation]. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. (ED397523). ERIC.

Szendrei, J. (1996). Concrete materials in the classroom. In A. J. Bishop, K. Clements, C. Keitel, J. Kilpatrick, & C. Laborde (Eds.), International handbook of mathematics education, vol. 4. (pp. 411-434). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Waller, W. (1932). Sociology of teaching. Russell & Russell.

Wolf, A. (1977). The relationship between poverty and achievement. Occasional paper produced by the Compensatory Education Study Group, National Institute of Education.


Copyright (c) 2003 J. Collie-Patterson