| This research employed a quasi-experimental, sequential, explanatory, mixed-methods study design to investigate the efficacy of Robert Moses' Algebra Project. Frequently cited in the literature as an example of a curriculum grounded in culturally relevant and critical pedagogies, the program's effects on students were compared to several control groups. The study was conducted at a high school that served a diverse student body in Northern California and centered on answering three questions relative to: (a) students' academic performance, as measured by the Algebra I California Standards Test (CST); (b) students' affective response, as measured by Sandman's (1973) Mathematics Attitudinal Inventory (MAI); and (c) the identification of additional factors that impacted students' feelings towards mathematics, via a set of semi-structured questions offered during two focus group sessions. Results did not reveal a statistically significant effect in favor of the Algebra Project on the Algebra I CST or on the MAI assessment. Subsequent teacher interviews suggested that poor articulation between the curriculum, the state's algebra content standards, and the standardized assessments contributed to the negative findings. While some students described being more engaged by the experiential activities employed in the Algebra Project curriculum, they were also cognizant of differences in the content of the course, compared to their experiences in traditional algebra classes. Finally, the Algebra Project cohort members displayed a higher degree of relational equity amongst one another. This was particularly apparent when contrasted with the interactions in the Non-Algebra Project cohort, which were punctuated by several instances of microaggressions between the participants, and served to highlight the underlying tension that existed in their more racially polarized classroom. |
