Confirmatory factor analysis on FICSMath data confirms the 4C/ID Model's four components fit secondary-tertiary mathematics instructional experiences (CFI = 0.907, RMSEA = 0.050)¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2020 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? CFA fit indices met accepted cutoffs, confirming the 4C/ID components have meaningful relationships with observed instructional-experience variables from the FICSMath dataset. → Wade 2020

Evidence¶

Wade 2020¶

Wade, C. H., Wilkens, C., Sonnert, G., & Sadler, P. M. (2020). Four component instructional design (4C/ID) model confirmed for secondary tertiary mathematics. In Sacristán, A.I., Cortés-Zavala, J.C. & Ruiz-Arias, P.M. (Eds.), Mathematics Education Across Cultures: Proceedings of the 42nd Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education. doi:10.51272/pmena.42.2020-386

q3 · i? · associational · r2

Confirmatory factor analysis of FICSMath survey responses from 5,985 college calculus freshmen about their last high school mathematics course. Table 1 reports CFI = 0.907 (cutoff > 0.90) and RMSEA = 0.050 (cutoff < 0.08), both marked significant, confirming the model's fit.

"the Comparative Fit Index (CFI ) and the Root Mean Square Error Approximation (REMSA) confirm the components in the 4C/ID Model have meaningful relationships with the observed variables in the FICSMath dataset ."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• FICSMath instructional experiences converge into four 4C/ID-aligned factors: complex tasks (4 items), whole-task concept overviews (17), procedural support (16), and practice opportunities (13) — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• The objective-based measure yields a confirmed three-factor structure with acceptable fit in the full sample — related
• The self-report measure supports a refined 13-item, four-factor model with good fit — related
• A confirmatory factor analysis across all six studies favored the three-factor model over a unitary-factor model of cognitive load — related
• A confirmatory factor analysis supports a four-factor structure of collaborative group engagement (behavioural, social, cognitive, conceptual-to-consequential) for the QCGE self-assessment scale — related
• The MRIM scale has a three-factor structure of planning, monitoring, and evaluating of interactive metadiscourse, cross-validated by EFA and CFA — related
• The ACE-HE measurement model of institutional support for ABC engagement also fits the data well — related
• The ACE-HE measurement model of affective, behavioral, and cognitive engagement fits online/blended survey data well — related
• A one-factor unidimensional model is the most reasonable fit for MAP computerized adaptive Reading and Mathematics tests across grades, terms, and ten states, though Michigan Mathematics misses the RMSEA criterion — related
• The SRL-O supports both ten lower-order subscales and two superordinate factors (motivational beliefs and learning strategies) — related
• The TEFA-T model syntax meets goodness-of-fit criteria in confirmatory factor analysis, supporting its construct validity — related