National Academies Press: OpenBook

On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations (2004)

Chapter: Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis

« Previous: Appendix A: Biographic Sketches
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

Appendix B
Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis

CONTENT ANALYSIS STUDIES

  1. Adams, L., Tung, K. K., Warfield, V. M., Knaub, K., Mudavanhu, B., and Yong, D. (2000). Middle school mathematics comparisons for Singapore mathematics, Connected Mathematics Program, and Mathematics in Context (including comparisons with the NCTM Principles and Standards 2000). Report to the National Science Foundation. Unpublished manuscript.

  2. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1999). Algebra textbooks: A standards-based evaluation. Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.

  3. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1999). Middle grades mathematics textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.

  4. Billstein, R. (1998). The STEM model. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 3(4), 282-286, 294-296.

  5. Bishop, W. (1997). An evaluation of selected mathematics textbooks. Available: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/bishop4.htm [7/14/03].

  6. Braams, B. (2003). The many ways of arithmetic in UCSMP Everyday Mathematics. Available: http://www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/links/em-arith.html [8/27/03].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Braams, B. (2003). Spiraling through UCSMP everyday mathematics. Available: http://www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/links/emspiral.html [8/27/03].

  2. Burrill, G., and Romberg, T. A. (1998). Statistics and probability for the middle grades: Examples from mathematics in context. In S. Lajoie (Ed.), Reflections of statistics: Agendas for learning, teaching, and assessment in K-12. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  3. Bush, W. (1996). Kentucky middle grades mathematics teacher network: An evaluation of four middle grades mathematics curriculum projects funded by the National Science Foundation (ESI-9253194). Unpublished manuscript.

  4. Clopton, P., McKeown, E., McKeown, M. and Clopton, J. (1998). Mathematically correct algebra 1 reviews. Available: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/algebra.htm (7/14/03).

  5. Clopton, P., McKeown, E., McKeown, M. and Clopton, J. (1999). Mathematically correct fifth grade mathematics review. Available: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/books5.htm (7/14/03).

  6. Clopton, P., McKeown, E., McKeown, M. and Clopton, J. (1999). Mathematically correct second grade mathematics review. Available: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/books2.htm (7/14/03).

  7. Clopton, P., McKeown, E., McKeown, M. and Clopton, J. (1999). Mathematically correct seventh grade mathematics review. Available: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/books7.htm (7/14/03). Unpublished document.

  8. Denny, R. (1993). STEM evaluation. Unpublished document.

  9. Klein, D. (2000). Weaknesses of everyday mathematics K-3. Available: http://www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/nychold/report-klein-em-00.html [8/27/03]. Unpublished manuscript.

  10. Klein, D., and Marple, J. (2000). A comparison of three K-6 mathematics programs: Sadlier, Saxon, and SRA McGraw-Hill. Available: http://mathematicallycorrect.com/k6books.pdf [7/14/03].

  11. McConnell, J. (1991). C & D 163 writing assignment program evaluation: UCSMP evaluation Glenbrook South high school. Unpublished manuscript.

  12. McQuire, M., and Simpson, N. (1991). UCSMP algebra adoption telephone survey, Florida report MR-103-2470. Unpublished manuscript.

  13. McQuire, M., and Simpson, N. (1991). UCSMP algebra user survey report MR-101-2469. Unpublished document.

  14. Milgram, R. J. (undated). An evaluation on CMP. Available: ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/report-on-cmp.html [8/27/ 03].

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Phillips, E., Lappan, G., Friel, S., and Fey, J. (2001). Developing coherent high quality curricula: The case of the connected mathematics project. Working draft of a background paper commissioned for the AAAS Project 2061 Science Textbook Conference, Washington, D.C., February 27-March 2. Unpublished document.

  2. Quirk, W. G. (2002). TERC hands-on math. The truth is in the details: An analysis of investigations in number, data, and space. Available: http://wgquirk.com/TERC.html.

  3. Robinson, E., and Robinson, M. (1996). A guide to standards-based instructional materials in secondary mathematics. Unpublished manuscript.

  4. Romberg, T., and Pedro, J. D. (1996). Developing mathematics in context: A research process. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  5. Romberg, T. A., de Lange, J., and Foster, S. (1995). Welcome to Mathematics in Context: A grade 5 to grade 8 curriculum that meets the NCTM standards. Madison. University of Wisconsin.

  6. Simpson, N. (1991). Summary of UCSMP Focus Group Meetings. University of Chicago Users Conference Report MR-103-2484. Unpublished manuscript.

  7. Slater, S. (1991-1992). UCSMP panel final report survey 2 and 3 report MR-103-2515. Market Research Department, Scott Foresman.

  8. Slater, S. (1992). Teacher lounge simulation, UCSMP teacher’s edition report MR-103-2537. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Slater, S. (1992). UCSMP panel survey #1 report MR-103-2503. Market Research Department, Scott Foresman.

  10. Slater, S. (1992). UCSMP panel survey #1, special request data compilation report MR-103-2505. Market Research Department, Scott Foresman.

  11. Slater, S., and Simpson, N. (1992). UCSMP focus groups report MR-103-2537. Market Research Department, Scott Foresman.

  12. Star, J. R., Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., and Smith, J. P., III. (2000). Algebraic concepts: What’s really new in new curricula? Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(7), 446-451.

  13. U.S. Department of Education’s Mathematics and Science Expert Panel. (1999). Exemplary and promising mathematics programs. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

  14. UCSMP. (1996). UCSMP user’s survey—functions, statistics, and trigonometry. Chicago. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. UCSMP. (undated). UCSMP user’s survey—precalculus and discrete mathematics. Chicago. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.

  2. Wu, H. (2000). Review of the Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP). Available: http://math.berkeley.edu/~wu/IMP2.pdf [8/27/03].

COMPARATIVE STUDIES

  1. Abrams, B. J. (1989). A comparison study of the Saxon algebra I text. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado at Boulder.

  2. Abt Associates, Inc. (Undated). Independent evaluation of the effectiveness of the math steps curriculum (Houghton Mifflin). Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Austin Independent School District. (2001). Austin collaborative for mathematics education, 1999-2000 evaluation. Unpublished manuscript.

  4. Austin, J., Hirstein, J., and Walen, S. (1997). Integrated mathematics interfaced with science. School Science and Mathematics, 97(1), 45-49.

  5. Bachelis, G. F. (1998). Reform vs. traditional math curricula: Preliminary report on a survey of the graduating classes of 1997 of Andover high school and Lahser high school, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, concerning their high school math programs and how well these programs prepared them for college math. Available: http://www.math.wayne.edu/~greg/original.htm [7/14/03].

  6. Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W., Benedetto, C., and Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among seventh grade students with different curricula experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(3), 247-273.

  7. Boaler, J. (2002). Stanford University mathematics teaching and learning study: Initial report: A comparison of IMP 1 and algebra 1 at Greendale School. Unpublished manuscript.

  8. Briars, D., and Resnick, L. (2000). Standards, assessments—And what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement. Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation at the National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, UCLA.

  9. Calvery, R., Bell, D., and Wheeler, G. (1993, November). A comparison of selected second and third graders’ math achievement: Saxon vs Holt. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Carroll, W. M. (1993). Mathematical knowledge of kindergarten and first-grade students in Everyday Mathematics. UCSMP Report. Unpublished manuscript.

  2. Carroll, W. M. (1994-1995). Third grade everyday mathematics students’ performance on the 1993 and 1994 Illinois state mathematics test. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Carroll, W. M. (1996). Use of invented algorithms by second graders in a reform mathematics curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(2), 137-150.

  4. Carroll, W. M. (1997). Mental and written computation: Abilities of students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. The Mathematics Educator, 2(1), 18-32.

  5. Carroll, W. M. (1998). Geometric knowledge of middle school students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 188-197.

  6. Carroll, W. M. (2001). A longitudinal study of children in the everyday mathematics curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.

  7. Carroll, W. M. (2001). Students in a standards-based curriculum: Performance on the 1999 Illinois state achievement test. Illinois Mathematics Teacher, 52(1), 3-7.

  8. Carroll, W. M., and Fuson, K. C. (1998). Multidigit computation skills of second and third graders in everyday mathematics: A follow-up to the longitudinal study. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Clarke, D., Wallbridge, M., and Fraser, S. (1996). The other consequences of a problem-based mathematics curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.

  10. Coppola, A. J. (2001). Evaluation report on SAT scores. MATH Connections: A secondary mathematics core curriculum Southington CT public schools. Unpublished document.

  11. Covington-Clarkson, L. M. (2001). The effects of the Connected Mathematics Project on middle school mathematics achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, St. Paul.

  12. Denson, P. S. (1990). A comparison of the effectiveness of the Saxon and Dolciani texts and theories about the teaching of high school algebra. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Claremont Graduate School.

  13. Dowling, M., and Webb, N. L. (1997). Comparison on a quantitative reasoning test of grade 11 Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP) students with algebra II students at one high school. Project Report 97-4. University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  14. Dowling, M., and Webb, N. L. (1997). Comparison on problem solving and reasoning of grade 10 Interactive Mathematics Program

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

(IMP) students with geometry students at one high school. Project Report 97-3. University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  1. Dowling, M., and Webb, N. L. (1997). Comparison on statistics items of grade 9 Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP) students with algebra students at one high school. Project Report 97-2. University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  2. Drueck, J. V., Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., and Bell, M. S. (1995, April 20-24). Performance of U.S. first graders in a reform math curriculum compared to Japanese, Chinese, and traditionally taught U.S. students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

  3. Frauenholtz, T. R. (2001). Relationships among school factors and student mathematics achievement in schools with high and low contact with the SIMMS project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.

  4. Fuson, K. C., and Carroll, W. M. (undated). Performance of U.S. fifth graders in a reform math curriculum compared to Japanese, Chinese, and traditionally taught U.S. students. Unpublished manuscript.

  5. Fuson, K. C., and Carroll, W. M. (Undated). Summary of comparison of Everyday Math (EM) and McMillan (MC): Evanston student performance on whole-class tests in grades 1, 2, 3, and 4. Unpublished manuscript.

  6. Fuson, K., Carroll, W., and Drueck, J. (2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the standards-based curriculum Everyday Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 277-295.

  7. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (Undated). Study objective and methodology. New York: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill.

  8. Goodrow, A. (1998). Children’s construction of number sense in traditional, constructivist, and mixed classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Tufts University, Medford, MA.

  9. Hansen, E., and Greene, K. (2002) A recipe for math. What’s cooking in the classroom: Saxon or traditional? Available: http://www.secondaryenglish.com/recipeformath.html [8/27/03].

  10. Harpster, D. L. (1999). A study of possible factors that influence the construction of teacher-made problems that assess higher-order thinking skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montana State University.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Heany, C., Palassis R., and Turner B. (Undated). A mathematics program for academically gifted sixth graders in district five of Lexington and Richland counties. Unpublished manuscript.

  2. Hill, R., and Parker, T. (2003). A study of Core-Plus students attending Michigan State University (Draft). Unpublished manuscript. Available: http://www.math.msu.edu/~hill/HillParker5.pdf [8/27/03]

  3. Hirsch, C. R., and Schoen, H. L. (2002). Developing mathematical literacy: A Core-Plus mathematics project longitudinal study progress report. Unpublished manuscript.

  4. Hirschhorn, D. B. (1991). Implementation of the first four years of the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project secondary curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

  5. Hirschhorn, D. B., and Senk, S. (1992). Calculators in the UCSMP curriculum for grades 7 and 8. In J. T. Fey and C. R. Hirsch (Eds.), Calculators in mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  6. Hoover, M. N., Zawojewski, J. S., and Ridgway, J. (1997). Effects of the Connected Mathematics Project on student attainment. Unpublished manuscript.

  7. Huntley, M. A., Rasmussen, C. L., Villarubi, R. S., Sangtong, J., and Fey, J. T. (2000). Effects of standards-based mathematics education: A study of the Core-Plus mathematics project algebra and functions strand. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(3), 328-361.

  8. Johnson, J., Yanyo, L., and Hall, M. (2002). Evaluation of student math performance in California school districts using Houghton Mifflin mathematics. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Kahan, J. A. (1999). Relationships among mathematical proof, high school students, and a reform curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland at College Park.

  10. Kersaint, G. (1998). Preservice elementary school teachers’ ability to generalize functional relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University.

  11. Lafferty, J. F. (1994). The links among mathematics text, students’ achievement, and students’ mathematics anxiety: A comparison of the incremental development and traditional texts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University.

  12. Lapan, R., Reys, B., Barnes, D., and Reys, R. (1998). Standards-based middle grade mathematics curricula: Impact on student achievement. University of Missouri–Columbia

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Latterell, C. M. (2000). Assessing NCTM standards-oriented and traditional students’ problem-solving ability using multiple-choice and open-ended questions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.

  2. Lawrence, L. K. (1992). The long-term effects of an incremental development model of instruction upon student achievement and student attitude toward mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa.

  3. Leonard, J. D. (1997). Mathematics reform and the affective domain: Implementing reform at one high school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California–Los Angeles.

  4. Lundin, M. A. (2001). A comparison of former SIMMS and non-SIMMS students on three college-related measures. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montana State University.

  5. Malouf, S. G. (1999). A comparison of problem-centered learning model and guided-practice model on high school students’ mathematics performance and attitude. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco.

  6. Mathison, S., Hedges, L. V., Stodolsky, S., Flores, P., and Sarther, C. (1989). Teaching and learning algebra: An evaluation of UCSMP algebra. Unpublished manuscript.

  7. McCaffrey, D. F., Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Klein, S. P., Bugliari, D., and Robyn, A. (2001). Interactions among instructional practices, curriculum and student achievement: The case of standards-based high school mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(5), 493-517.

  8. McConnell, J. (1990). Performance of UCSMP sophomores on the PSAT Glenbrook South high school. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Merlino, F. J., and Wolff, E. (2001). Assessing the costs/benefits of an NSF “standards-based” secondary mathematics curriculum on student achievement: The Philadelphia experience: Implementing the Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP). Unpublished manuscript.

  10. Milgram, R. J. (1999). Outcomes analysis for Core-Plus students at Andover high school: One year later. Available: ftp://math.stanford.edu/pub/papers/milgram/andover-report.htm [7/14/03].

  11. Milgram, R. J. (1999). A preliminary analysis of SAT-I mathematics data for IMP schools in California. Available: http://math.stanford.edu/ftp/milgram/analysis-of-imp-in-california.html [8/27/03].

  12. Mokros, J., Berle-Carman, M., Rubin, A., and O’Neil, K. (1996, April 8-12). Learning operations: Invented strategies that work. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Mokros, J., Berle-Carman, M., Rubin, A., and Wright, T. (1994). Full year pilot grades 3 and 4: Investigations in numbers, data, and space. Cambridge, MA: TERC.

  2. Peters, K. G. (1992). Skill performance comparability of two algebra programs on an eighth-grade population. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

  3. Rentschler, R. V., Jr. (1995). The effects of Saxon’s incremental review of computational skills and problem-solving achievement of sixth-grade students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Walden University.

  4. Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., and Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics textbooks on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 74-95.

  5. Riordan, J. E., and Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 32(4), 368-398.

  6. Riordan, J. E., Noyce, P. E., and Perda, D. (2003, April 21-25). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts: A follow-up study of Connected Mathematics. Paper Presented at the American Educational Research Association Meeting, Chicago, IL.

  7. Roberts, F. H. (1994). The impact of the Saxon mathematics program on group achievement test scores. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Southern Mississippi.

  8. Romberg, T. A., Shafer, M. C., and Webb, N. (in press). The impact of teaching mathematics using Mathematics in Context on student achievement: The design of the longitudinal/cross-sectional study. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Sanders, B. B. (1999). The effects of using the Saxon mathematics method of instruction vs. a traditional method of instruction on the achievement of high school juniors. Georgia Southwestern State University. Available: http://www.gsw.edu/~fspaniol/homepage/7420sanders.PDF [8/27/03].

  10. Schneider, C. (2000). Connected Mathematics and the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

  11. Schoen, H. L., and Hirsch, C. R. (2003). Responding to calls for change in high school mathematics: Implications for collegiate mathematics. The American Mathematical Monthly 110(2), 109-123.

  12. Schoen, H. L., Hirsch, C. R., and Ziebarth, S. W. (1998, April 15). An emerging profile of the mathematical achievement of students in the Core-Plus mathematics project. Paper presented at the Annual

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.

  1. Schoen, H. L., and Pritchett, J. (1998, April 16). Students’ perceptions and attitudes in a standards-based high school mathematics curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in San Diego, CA.

  2. Sconiers, S., Isaacs, A., Higgins, T., McBride, J., and Kelso, C. R. (2002). Three-state student achievement study project report (funded by the National Science Foundation). A Report by The Arc Center at the Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications (COMAP), Boston, MA. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Segars, J. E. (1994). Selected factors associated with eighth-grade mathematics achievement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mississippi State University.

  4. Senk, S. L. (1989). Assessing Students’ knowledge of functions. In C.A. Mahrer, G.A. Golding, and R. B. Davis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

  5. Senk, S. L. (1991). Functions, statistics, and trigonometry with computers at the high school level. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  6. Sinclair, N. R. W. (1990). A comparative study of the incremental approach to teaching mathematics and the traditional approach to teaching mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Alabama.

  7. Sistrunk, K., and Benton, G. (1992, November 11-13). A comparison of selected fourth graders’ math achievement scores after two years in Saxon mathematics: A follow-up study. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Mid-South Educational Research Association, Knoxville, TN.

  8. Souhrada, T. A. (2001). Secondary school mathematics in transition: A comparative study of mathematics curricula and student results. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Montana.

  9. Staffaroni, M. A. (1996). Student confidence and perceived usefulness of mathematics: A study of the Math Connections Program. MATH Connections: A Secondary Mathematics Core Curriculum. Unpublished research paper, Connecticut State Department of Education.

  10. Thompson, D. R., and Senk, S. L. (2001). The effects of curriculum on achievement in second-year algebra: The example of the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(1), 58-84.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Thompson, D. R., Senk, S. L., Witonsky, D., Usiskin, Z., and Kaeley, G. (2001). An evaluation of the second edition of UCSMP advanced algebra. Unpublished manuscript.

  2. Thompson, D. R., Witonsky, D., Senk, S. L., Usiskin, Z., and Kaeley, G. (2003). An evaluation of the second edition of UCSMP geometry. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Thompson, D. R. (1994). An evaluation of a new course in precalculus and discrete mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

  4. Tyson, V. V. (1995). An analysis of the differential performance of girls on standardized multiple-choice mathematics achievement tests compared to constructed response tests of reasoning and problem solving. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.

  5. Waite, R. D. (2000). A study of the effects of Everyday Mathematics on student achievement of third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade students in a large north Texas urban school district. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas.

  6. Walker, R. K. (1999). Students’ conceptions of mathematics and the transition from a standards-based reform curriculum to college mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University.

  7. Wasman, D. (2000). An investigation of algebraic reasoning of seventh- and eighth-grade students who have studied form the Connected Mathematics curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.

  8. Webb, N. L., and Dowling, M. (1995). Impact of the Interactive Mathematics Program on the retention of underrepresented students: Class of 1993 transcript report for school 1, “Brooks High School.” Project Report 95-3. Madison. University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  9. Webb, N. L., and Dowling, M. (1995). Impact of the Interactive Mathematics Program on the retention of underrepresented students: Class of 1993 transcript report for school 2, “Hill High School.” Project Report 95-4. Madison. University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  10. Webb, N. L., and Dowling, M. (1995). Impact of the Interactive Mathematics Program on the retention of underrepresented students: Class of 1993 transcript report for school 3, “Valley High School.” Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  11. Webb, N. L., and Dowling, M. (1996). Impact of the Interactive Mathematics Program on the retention of underrepresented students:

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

Cross-school analysis of transcripts for the class of 1993 for three high schools. Project Report 96-2. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  1. Webb, N. L., and Dowling, M. (1997). Replication study of the comparison of IMP students with students enrolled in traditional courses on probability, statistics, problem solving, and reasoning. Project Report 97-5. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  2. Webb, N. L., and Dowling, M. (1997). Comparison of IMP students with students enrolled in traditional courses on probability, statistics, problem solving, and reasoning. Project Report 97-1. Madison, University of Wisconsin–Madison. Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  3. White, P. A., Gamoran, A., and Smithson, J. (1995). Math innovations and student achievement in seven high schools in California and New York. University of Wisconsin–Madison. Consortium for Policy Research in Education and the Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  4. Woodward, J., and Baxter, J. (1997). The effects of an innovative approach to mathematics on academically low-achieving students in inclusive settings. Exceptional Children, 63(3), 373-388.

  5. Zahrt, L. T. (2001). High school reform math programs: An evaluation for leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eastern Michigan University.

CASE STUDIES

  1. Baxter, J., Woodward, J., and Olson, D. (2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low-achievers in five third-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 101(5), 529-547.

  2. Bay, J., Beem, J., Teys, R., Papick, I., and Barnes, D. (1999). Student reactions to standards-based mathematics curricula: The interplay between curriculum, teachers, and students. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 182-188.

  3. Bay, J. M. (1999). Middle school mathematics curriculum implementation: The dynamics of change as teachers introduce and use standards-based curricula. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri, Columbia.

  4. Bay, J. M. (2000, April 24-28). The dynamics of implementing standards-based mathematics curricula in middle schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Carroll, W. M. (1995). Report on the field test of fifth grade Everyday Mathematics. UCSMP Report. Unpublished document.

  2. Carroll, W. M. (1996). A follow-up to the fifth-grade field test of Everyday Mathematics: Geometry, and mental and written computation. UCSMP Report. Unpublished document.

  3. Carroll, W. M. (1996). Mental computation of students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 97(6), 305-311.

  4. Carroll, W. M. (2000). Invented computational procedures of students in a standards-based curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 111-121.

  5. Carroll, W. M., and Porter, D. (1994). A field test of fourth grade Everyday Mathematics. UCSMP report. Unpublished manuscript.

  6. Carter, M. A. (1999). Student autonomy and making meaning in an urban small school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Chicago.

  7. Collins, A. M. (2002). What happens to student learning in mathematics when a mutli-faceted, long-term professional development model to support standards-based curricula is implemented in an environment of high stakes testing? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston College.

  8. Dapples, B. C. (1994). Teacher-student interactions in SIMMS and non-SIMMS mathematics classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Montana State University.

  9. De Groot, C. (2000). Three female voices: The transition to high school mathematics from a reform middle school mathematics program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University.

  10. Dowling, M. (1996). Changes in teaching by IMP teachers: A report of findings from a questionnaire administered in 1995. Unpublished manuscript.

  11. Doyle, M. (2000, April 24-28.). Making meaning of teacher leadership in the implementation of a standards-based mathematics curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  12. Drueck, J. V. (1996, April 8-12). Progression of multidigit addition and subtraction solution methods in high, average, and low math-achieving second graders experiencing a reform curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, New York.

  13. Fuson, K. C., Diamond, A., and Fraivillig, J. L. (Undated). Implementation of reform norms in Everyday Mathematics classrooms. Unpublished manuscript.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2000). How discourse structures norms: A tale of two middle school mathematics classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

  2. Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Smith, J., and Star, J. (1999, April). Middle school students’ algebra learning: Understanding linear relationships in context. Discussion draft prepared for the Research Pre-Session of the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, San Francisco, CA, April 22-24, and the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

  3. Hetherington, R. A. (2000). Taking collegial responsibility for implementation of standards-based curriculum: A one-year study of six secondary school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University.

  4. Hull, L. S. H. (2000). Teachers’ mathematical understanding of proportionality: Links to curriculum, professional development, and support. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

  5. Jansen, A., and Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (2001, April 10-14). Moving from a reform junior high to a traditional high school: Affective, academic, and adaptive mathematical transitions. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

  6. Keiser, J., and Lambdin, D. (2001). The clock is ticking: Time constraint issues in mathematics teaching reform. The Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 23-31.

  7. Kett, J. R. (1997). A portrait of assessment in mathematics reform classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University.

  8. Kramer, S., and Keller, R. (2003). Tale of synergy: The joint impact of 4x4 block scheduling and an NCTM standards-based curriculum on high school mathematics achievement. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Lambdin, D., and Preston, R. (1995). Caricatures in innovation: Teacher adaptation to an investigation-oriented middle school mathematics curriculum. Journal of Teacher Education, 46(2), 130-140.

  10. Lewis, G., Lazarovici, V., and Smith, J. (2001, April 10-14). Meeting the demands of calculus and college life: The mathematical experiences of graduates of some reform-based high school programs. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

  11. Lubienski, S. T. (1996). Mathematics for all? Examining issues of class in mathematics teaching and learning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

  12. Lubienski, S. T. (1997, March 24-28). Successes and struggles of

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

striving toward “Mathematics for All”: A closer look at socio-economics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  1. Lubienski, S. T. (2000). Problem solving as a means toward mathematics for all: An exploratory look through a class lens. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 454-482.

  2. Manouchehri, A., and Goodman, T. (1998). Mathematics curriculum reform and teachers: Understanding the connections. Journal of Educational Research, 92(1), 27-41.

  3. Manouchehri, A., and Goodman, T. (2000). Implementing mathematics reform: The challenge within. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 42, 1-34.

  4. Middleton, J. A. (1999). Curricular influences on the motivational beliefs and practice of two middle school mathematics teachers: A follow-up study. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 30(3), 349-358.

  5. Murphy, L. (1998). Learning and affective issues among higher- and lower-achieving third-grade students in math reform classrooms: Perspectives of children, parents, and teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.

  6. Pligge, M., Kent, L., and Spence, M. (2000, April 24-28). Examining teacher change within the context of mathematics curriculum reform: Views from middle school teachers. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  7. Preston, R. V., and Lambdin, D. V. (1997, March 24-28). Teachers changing in changing times: Using stages of concern to understand changes resulting from use of an innovative mathematics curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  8. Schoen, H. L., Finn, K. F., Griffin, S. F., and Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement in a standards-oriented curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(3), 228-259.

  9. Smith, J., and Urdell, B. C. (2001, April 10-14). “The math is different, but I can deal”: Studying students’ experiences in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle WA.

  10. Smith, J. P., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Star, J., and Jansen, A. (2000, April 20-21). Quantitative pathways to understanding using algebra: Possibilities, transitions, and disconnects. Paper presented at the Research Pre-Session of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Smith, S. Z. (1998). Impact of curriculum reform on a teacher’s conception of mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  2. Tetley, L., and DuBose, S. (undated). Problem solving performance of 6th and 7th grade STEM students. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Missouri.

  3. Van Dyke, C. L. (2001). The shape of things to come: Mathematics reform in the middle school. Unpublished master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University.

  4. van Reeuwijk, M. (in press). Making instructional decisions: Assessment to inform the teacher. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

  5. Webb, D. C. (2000, April 14-28). Variations in teachers’ classroom assessment practices. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  6. Webb, D. C. (2001). Instructionally embedded assessment practices of two middle grades mathematics teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

SYNTHESIS STUDIES

  1. Billstein, R., and Williamson, J. (2002). Middle grades mathematics: The STEM project. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 251-284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  2. Carroll, W. M., and Isaacs, A. (2002). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79-108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  3. Carter, A., Beissinger, J., Cirulis, A., Gartzman, M., Kelso, C., and Wagreich, P. (2002). Student learning and achievement with Math Trailblazers. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 45-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  4. Cichon, D., and Ellis, J. G. (2002). The effects of Math Connections on student achievement, confidence, and perception. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 345-374). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  1. Lott, J. W., Hirstein, J., Allinger, G., Walen, S., Burke, M., Lundin, M., Souhrada, T., and Preble, D. (2002). Curriculum and assessment in SIMMS Integrated Mathematics. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 399-423). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  2. Mokros, J. (2002). Learning to reason numerically: The impact of Investigations. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 109-131). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  3. Ridgway, J., Zawojewski, J., Hoover, M., and Lambdin, D. (2002). Student attainment in the Connected Mathematics curriculum. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 193-223). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  4. Romberg, T., and Shafer, M. (2002). Mathematics in context: Preliminary evidence about student outcomes. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 225-250). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  5. Romberg, T. A. (1997). Mathematics in context: Impact on teachers. In E. Fennema, and B. S. Nelson (Eds.), Mathematics teachers in transition (pp. 357-380). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  6. Romberg, T. A. (2000). Implementation of Mathematics in Context (MiC): Impact on teachers. Madison, WI. Unpublished manuscript.

  7. Schoen, H., Fey, J. T., Hirsch, C. R., and Coxford, A. F. (1999). Issues and opinions in the math wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 80(6), 444-453.

  8. Schoen, H. L., and Hirsch, C. R. (2002). The Core-Plus mathematics project: Perspectives and student achievement. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 311-343). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  9. Senk, S., and Thompson, D. (2002). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  10. Senk, S. L. and. Thompson, D. R. (2003). Effects of the UCSMP secondary curriculum on students’ achievement. In S. L. Senk, and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics cur-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

ricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 425-456). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  1. Shafer, M. C. (in press). Expanding classroom practices (Chapter 3). In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

  2. Webb, N. (2002). The impact of the Interactive Mathematics Program on student learning. In S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 375-398). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND INFORMATIVE STUDIES

Two hundred twenty-five studies were identified as background information or informative studies. These studies were placed in this category because of their potential to shed light on the meaning or interpretation of evaluation data for particular curricula. This category contains the most numerous studies in this review; the distribution of these studies is shown in Table App B-1. They take forms that include dissertations, master’s theses and term papers, publisher product promotional materials, unpublished material, and published studies in research or practitioner journals.

Overall, the historical background and informative studies represent more than half of the total studies under review. The committee grouped these studies in the following categories.

  • Papers on theories of learning underlying a particular study.

  • Data on student or school outcomes or teacher characteristics reported in publishers’ descriptions of a particular curriculum. Such data may have been reported by schools using that curriculum and may not have been part of an organized evaluation study.

  • Comparative studies that were conducted prior to 1989 because these were listed as background information because much has changed in education since this time (e.g., inception of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards in1989 and 2000, NSF program solicitations for mathematics instructional materials). These studies provide valuable information, especially in curricula that span the years before and after NSF sponsored the development of mathematics curricula. They offer various philosophies of curriculum design, student achievement data, and potential, and provide insight about how these have changed over time when compared with more current studies of the same curricula.

  • Case studies that examine only one curriculum unit and are less than one semester in length.

  • Short reports on student achievement in particular districts.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  • Use of a particular curriculum to study another concept; for example, the development of students’ understanding of angle in a nondirect learning environment.

  • Informative studies on teacher responses to a particular curriculum.

  • Stories of implementation.

  • “How to do it” or curricular implementation discussions by a teacher or school districts.

  • Interim or final reports to funding agencies or school districts participating in evaluation studies.

  • Book reviews.

  • Historical background and program review.

  • Curriculum and use of technology.

Although not evaluation studies per se, these studies contribute valuable information about program theory and how decisions were reached that affect curricular design. Reviews of particular curricular programs could find helpful and informative information by reviewing these more closely.

  1. Abeille, A., and Hurley, N. (2001). Final evaluation report, Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW). San Francisco: WestEd.

  2. Accountability and Development Associates Inc. (1998). The Arkansas statewide systemic initiative: The ASSI pilot of the Connected Math Project. An evaluation report. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Alper, L., Fendel, D., Fraser, S., and Resek, D. (1997). Designing a high school curriculum for all students. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 148-178.

  4. Alper, L., Fendel, D., and Fraser, S. R. D. (1995). Is this a mathematics class? Mathematics Teacher, 88(8), 632-638.

  5. Anderson, T. (1999, August 2-3). Using the TI-92 graphing calculator in UCSMP Geometry. Paper presented at the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Inservice Conference, Chicago, IL.

  6. Arron, D. (1993). Classroom implementation and impact of Everyday Mathematics K-3: Teachers’ perspectives on adopting a reform mathematics curriculum. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Chicago.

  7. Askey, R. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics. American Educator/American Federation of Teachers. Available: http://www.aft.org/american_educator/fall99/amed1.pdf [7/14/03].

  8. Barnard, J. (1995, August). Sample lessons for UCSMP Algebra Paper. Presented at the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Inservice Conference.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J., Fitzgerald, W., Benedetto, C., and Miller, J. (1997, March 24-28). A study of proportional reasoning among seventh and eighth grade students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.

  2. Billstein, R. (1997). The STEM experience: Some things we’ve learned and their implication for teacher preparation and inservice. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 1(1), 1-13.

  3. Billstein, R. (1998). Middle grades mathematics: The STEM Project—A look at developing a middle school mathematics curriculum. In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the middle (pp. 93-106). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  4. Billstein, R., Williamson, J., et al. (undated). Six through eight mathematics project design (overview to NSF). Unpublished manuscript.

  5. Bishop, W. (2003). Review of standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Edited by S. L. Senk and D. R. Thompson. Available: http://www.math.nyu.edu/mfdd/braams/nychold/rev-bishop-0302.html [July 15, 2003].

  6. Bradfield, P. (1992). An evaluation of Lamar CISD algebra programs. Rosenberg, TX: Lamar Consolidated Independent School District.

  7. Briars, D. J. (1987). A comparison of three approaches to algebra I: Applications, incremental and traditional. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh Public Schools.

  8. Brinker, L. (1996). Representations and students’ rational number reasoning. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  9. Brinker, L. (1998). Using recipes and ratio tables to build on students’ understanding of fractions. Teaching Children Mathematics, 5(4), 218-224.

  10. Brombacher, A. A. (1997). High school mathematics teachers’ transition to a standards-based curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia.

  11. Budzynski, B. (1994). Letter of October 5th to Zalman Usiskin regarding scores of students in Ludington (MI) Area Schools on the MEAP tests. Ludington, MI: Ludington Area Schools.

  12. Bussey, J. (2001). Mathematics for the alternative high school student. Journal of Court, Community, and Alternative Schools (Spring), pp. 45-51.

  13. Calhoun, D. (1996). Interactive mathematics project progress report 1992-1996. Fresno, CA: Fresno Unified School District.

  14. Carroll, W. M., and Fuson, K. C. (1998). Computation skills and strategies of second and third graders in Everyday Mathematics:

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

Interview results from the longitudinal study. Unpublished manuscript.

  1. Celedon, S. (1998). An analysis of a teacher’s and students’ language use to negotiate meaning in an ESL/mathematics classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin.

  2. Cichon, D. (1997). Site visit interim report #3 for Math Connections: Analysis of the year’s site visits, 1996-97 school year. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Clarke, B. A. (1995). Expecting the unexpected: Critical incidents in the mathematics classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  4. Clarke, D. M. (1993). Influences on the changing role of the mathematics teacher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  5. Cole, K., Coffey, J., and Goldman, S. (1999). Using assessment to improve equity in mathematics. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 56-58.

  6. Connected Mathematics Project. (2001). Connected Mathematics Project: Research and evaluation summary. Available: http://www.phschool.com/math/cmp/research_evaluation/ [August 22, 2003].

  7. Coxford, A. F., and Hirsch, C. R. (1996). A common core math for all. Educational Leadership, 53(8), 22-25.

  8. Crawford, J., and Raia, F. (1986). Analysis of eighth grade math texts and achievement (executive summary and full report). Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Diamond, A., and Fuson, K. C. (1995). Types of teacher questions in classrooms using a reform mathematics curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.

  10. Doyle, J. (1999). A review of the ACT mathematics scores. Sheboygan (WI) Area School District Internal Report. Unpublished manuscript.

  11. Everyday Mathematics. (1997). Mathematics evaluation report, year two. Chicago: Everyday Learning Corporation/SRA/McGraw-Hill.

  12. Everyday Mathematics. (2000). Everyday Mathematics sourcebook: A guide for parents, teachers, and administrators. Chicago: Everyday Learning Corporation/SRA/McGraw-Hill.

  13. Everyday Mathematics. (2001). Student performance on the Illinois standards achievement test. Chicago: Everyday Learning Corporation/SRA/McGraw-Hill.

  14. Everyday Mathematics. (2001). Student performance on the Massachusetts comprehensive assessment system. Chicago: Everyday Learning Corporation/SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Feijs, E. (in press). Constructing a learning environment that promotes reinvention. In R. Nemirovsky, A. Rosebery, J. Solomon, and B. Warren (Eds.), Everyday matters in science and mathematics: Studies of complex classroom events.

  2. Fisher, A. (1998). Fragile future. Popular Science, 253(6), 92-98.

  3. Flowers, J. (1998). A study of proportional reasoning as it relates to the development of multiplication concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.

  4. Fouch, D., and Moore, D. (undated). Report on advanced placement calculus and statistics at Traverse City high schools, MI. Unpublished manuscript.

  5. Fraivillig, J. (1996). Case studies and instructional frameworks of expert reform mathematics teaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University.

  6. Fraivillig, J., Murphy, L., and Fuson, K. (1999). Advancing children’s mathematical thinking in Everyday Mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematical Education, 30(2), 148-170.

  7. Frykholm, J., and Pittman, M. (2001). Fostering student discourse: “Don’t ask me! I’m just the teacher!” Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 7(4), 218-221.

  8. Garfunkel, S. (2000). ARISE: Final report for period 8/92–11/98 to NSF. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (2002). Glencoe algebra 1 learner verification research. Educational Publishing Research Center.

  10. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (2002). Glencoe pre-algebra learner verification research. Educational Publishing Research Center.

  11. Glencoe/McGraw-Hill. (2002). High school learner verification research summary. Author.

  12. Goldman, S., Knudsen, J., and Latvala, M. (1998). Engaging middle schoolers in and through real-world mathematics. In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the middle (pp. 129-140). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  13. Goodrow, A. M. (1998, July). Modes of teaching and ways of thinking. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Bern, Switzerland.

  14. Graue, M. E., and Smith, S. Z. (1993, April 12-16). Conceptualizing assessment from an instructional perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

  15. Graue, M. E., and Smith, S. Z. (in press). Shaping assessment through instructional innovation. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

Press. Also published in Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15, 113-136, (1996).

  1. Greeno, J. G. (1997). The Middle-School Mathematics Through Applications Project group: Theories and practices of thinking and learning to think. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 85-127.

  2. Griffin, L., Evans, A., Timms, T., and Trowell, J. (2000). Arkansas grade 8 benchmark exam (1998-99). Available: http://www.phschool.com/math/cmp/research_evaluation/data.pdf [8/22/03].

  3. Grunow, J. E. (1998). Using concept maps in a professional development program to assess and enhance teachers’ understanding of rational numbers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  4. Gutstein, E., Lipman, P., Hernandez, P., and de los Reyes, R. (1997). Culturally relevant mathematics teaching in a Mexican American context. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 709-737.

  5. Hart, D. (1996). A tale of two schools: LAUSD and Saxon. Unpublished manuscript.

  6. Hedges, L. V., Stodolsky, S., Flores, P. V., Matheson, D., Sarther, C., and Zhang, J. (1988). Formative evaluation of UCSMP advanced algebra. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.

  7. Hedges, L. V., Stodolsky, S., Mathison, S., and Flores, P. V. (1986). Transition mathematics field study. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.

  8. Her, T., and Webb, D. C. (in press). Retracing a path to assessing for understanding. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

  9. Hirsch, C. (1998). Core-Plus Mathematics Project final report to NSF. Unpublished manuscript.

  10. Hirsch, C., Coxford, A., Fey, J., and Schoen, H. (1995). Teaching sensible mathematics in sense-making ways with the CPMP. Mathematics Teacher, 88(8), 694-700.

  11. Hirsch, C. R., and Coxford, A. F. (1997). Mathematics for all: Perspectives and promising practices. School Science and Mathematics, 97(5), 232-241.

  12. Holt, Rinehart and Winston. (undated). Holt middle school math, scientific research base. Austin, TX: Author.

  13. Hull, B. (1999, August 2-3). UCSMP advanced algebra. Paper presented at the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Inservice Conference, Chicago, IL.

  14. Hung, C. C. (1995). Students’ reasoning about functions using dependency ideas in the context of an innovative, middle school math-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

ematics curriculum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  1. Hutchinson, E. J. (1998). Preservice teacher’s knowledge: A contrast of beliefs and knowledge of ratio and proportion. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  2. Interactive Mathematics Program. (undated). Interactive Mathematics Program, phase II: Final summative report to NSF. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Isaacs, A., Wagreich, P., and Gartzman, M. (1997). The quest for integration: School mathematics and science. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 179-206.

  4. Isaacs, A. C. W., and. B. M. (2001). A research-based curriculum: The research basis of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.

  5. Jakucyn, N. (1999, August 2). FST for new and experienced teachers. Paper presented at the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Inservice Conference, Chicago, IL.

  6. Johnson, D. M. and Smith, B. (1981). An evaluation of Saxon’s algebra test. Journal of Educational Research, 81, 97-102.

  7. Kapolka, D. (undated). Beginners and advanced users of FST and PDM and technology. Paper presented at the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Conference.

  8. Keiser, J. M. (1997). The development of students’ understanding of angle in a non-directive learning environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.

  9. Keiser, J. M. (2000). The role of definition. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5(8), 506-511.

  10. Klingele, W. E., and Reed, B. W. (1984). An examination of an incremental approach to mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 65, 712-713.

  11. Koebley, S. C. (1996). The effects of a constructivist-oriented mathematics classroom on student and parent beliefs about and motivation toward being successful in mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati.

  12. Krebs, A. K. (1999). Students’ algebraic understanding: A study of middle grades students’ ability to symbolically generalize functions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

  13. Lambdin, D., and Lappan, G. (1997, April 24-28). Dilemmas and issues in curriculum reform: Reflections from the Connected Mathematics Project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Lappan, G. (1997). The challenges of implementation: Supporting teachers. American Journal of Education, 106(1), 207-239.

  2. Lappan, G., and Bouck, M. K. (1998). Developing algorithms for adding and subtracting fractions. The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics 1998 yearbook. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  3. Lappan, G., and Phillips, E. (1992). The first ten months. Report to NSF. Unpublished manuscript.

  4. Lappan, G., and Phillips, E. (1993). Report of activities for April 1, 1992–April 1, 1993 (ESI-9150217). Report to NSF. Unpublished manuscript.

  5. Lappan, G., and Phillips, E. (1994). Report of Activities for April 1, 1993–April 1, 1994 (ESI-9150217). Report to NSF. Unpublished manuscript.

  6. Lappan, G., and Phillips, E. (1995). Report of activities for April 1, 1994–April 1, 1995 (ESI-9150217). Report to NSF. Unpublished manuscript.

  7. Lappan, G., and Phillips, E. (1998). Teaching and learning in the Connected Mathematics Program. In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the middle (pp. 83-92). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  8. Lappan, G., and Phillips, E. (2001). Connecting teaching, learning and assessment. Final report to NSF May, 2001. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Leinwand, S. (1996). President’s message: “Capturing and sharing success stories.” NCSM Newsletter: Leadership in Mathematics Education, 25(4), 1-2.

  10. Lloyd, G. M., and Wilson, M. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher’s conceptions of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29(3), 248-274.

  11. Lubienski, S. T. (1997). Class matters: A preliminary excursion. In Multicultural and gender equity in the mathematics classroom, the gift of diversity 1997 yearbook (pp. 46-59). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  12. MATH Connections. (undated). Final and interim reports: Math Connections: A secondary mathematics core curriculum. Report to NSF. Unpublished manuscript.

  13. Math Trailblazers. (undated). Student achievement: Results, reactions and success stories from the users of Math Trailblazers. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

  14. MathScape Curriculum Center at EDC. (2001). MathScape: Data from five school systems. Unpublished manuscript.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Mayers, K. S. (1985). The effects of using the Saxon algebra I textbook on the achievement of ninth-grade algebra students from 1989-1993. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Delta State University.

  2. McBee, M. (1982). Dolciani vs. Saxon: A comparison of two Algebra I textbooks with high school students. Oklahoma City Public Schools. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. McDougal Littell. (2002). The Larson series impact data (Larson, Boswell, Kanold, Stiff). Houghton Mifflin/McDougal Littell.

  4. Meno, L. R. (1995). Letter to the Texas board of education. Evaluation report for districts with approved waivers to purchase mathematics textbooks by Saxon Publishers. Unpublished document.

  5. Meyer, M. R., Delagardelle, M. L., and Middleton, J. A. (1996). Addressing parents’ concerns over curriculum reform. Educational Leadership, 53(7), 54-57.

  6. Meyer, M. R., and Ludwig, M. A. (1999). Teaching mathematics with MiC: An opportunity for change. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4(4), 264-269.

  7. Middleton, J. A. (1993, April 12-16). The effect of an innovative curriculum project on the motivational beliefs and practice of middle school teachers. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

  8. Middleton, J. A. (1994, April 4-8). Engineering and structural stability as a contextually rich domain for teaching 6th grade geometry. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  9. Miller, J. (1999). Report on CMP professional development activities. Portland, OR. Unpublished manuscript.

  10. Nguyen, K., Elam, P., and Weeter, R. K. G. (1993). The 1992-1993 Saxon mathematics program evaluation report. Unpublished manuscript.

  11. Nguyen, K., and Weeter, R. K. G. (1994). The 1993-1994 Saxon mathematics program executive summary. Unpublished manuscript.

  12. Phillips, E., Lappan, G., and Grant, Y. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics curricula: Preparing the community, the district, and teachers. Supported by NSF, ESI-9714999. Unpublished manuscript.

  13. Phillips, E. A., Smith, J. P., Star, J., and Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (1998). Algebra in the middle grades. New England Mathematics Journal, 30(2), 48-60.

  14. Pierce, R. D. (1984). A quasi-experimental study of Saxon’s incremental development model and its effect on student achievement in first-year algebra. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tulsa.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Platano, D., and Stanziale, L. (1992, November 7-8). Team Teaching UCSMP to Special Students: A combined effort of an LD certificate and mathematics teacher. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Users Conference, Chicago, IL.

  2. Plude, M. (1992). Middlebrook math recommendations (1992-1994) and Transition Math testing results. Wilton, CT: Middlebrook School.

  3. Reed, B. W. (1983). Incremental, continuous-review versus conventional teaching of algebra. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas.

  4. Research Communications Limited. (1994). An evaluation of the STEM sixth grade modules: Executive summary. Dedham, MA: Author. Unpublished document.

  5. Research Communications Limited. (1995). An evaluation of the STEM seventh grade modules: Summary. Dedham, MA: Author.

  6. Research Communications Limited. (1996). An evaluation of the STEM eighth grade modules: Summary. Dedham, MA: Author.

  7. Research Communications Limited. (1997). An evaluation of the STEM curriculum: Sixth, seventh, and eighth grade modules: Summary. Dedham, MA: Author.

  8. Rickard, A. (1993). Teachers’ use of a problem-solving oriented sixth-grade mathematics unit: Two case studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.

  9. Rickard, A. (1995). Teaching with problem-oriented curricula: A case study of middle school mathematics instruction. Journal of Experimental Education, 64(1), 5-26.

  10. Rickard, A. (1995). Problem solving and computation in school mathematics: Tensions between reforms and practice. National Forum of Applied Educational Research Journal, 8(2), 41.

  11. Rickard, A. (1996). Connections and confusion: Teaching perimeter and area with a problem-solving oriented unit. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(3), 303-327.

  12. Rickard, A. (1998). Conceptual and procedural understanding in middle school mathematics. In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the middle (pp. 25-29). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  13. Rodriguez, B. (2000, April 24-28). An investigation into how a teacher uses a reform-oriented mathematics curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  14. Romberg, T. A. (1976). Answering the question “Is it any good?”—The role of evaluation in multi-cultural education through competency-based teacher education. In C. Grant (Ed.), Sifting and win-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

nowing: An exploration of the relationship between multi-cultural education and CBYTE. Madison, WI: Teacher Corps Associates.

  1. Romberg, T. A. (1997). The development of an “achieved” curriculum for middle school mathematics or Mathematics in Context: A connected curriculum for grades 5-8. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education.

  2. Romberg, T. A. (1998). Algebra for the middle grades: An example of cooperative developmental research between American and Dutch scholars. Paper presented at The Fourth UCSMP International Conference on Mathematics Education, Chicago, IL. Unpublished document.

  3. Romberg, T. A. (1998). Designing middle school mathematics materials using problems created to help students progress from informal to formal mathematical reasoning. In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the middle (pp. 107-119). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  4. Romberg, T. A. (1999). Realistic instruction in mathematics. In J. Block, S. Everson, and T. Guskey (Eds.), Comprehensive school reform (pp. 287-314). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

  5. Romberg, T. A. (2000). External reviews of Mathematics in Context. Madison, WI. Unpublished manuscript.

  6. Romberg, T. A. (undated). A causal model to monitor changes in school mathematics. In T. A. Romberg and D. M. Stewart (Eds.), The monitoring of school mathematics: Background papers. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  7. Romberg, T. A., and de Lange, J. (2000). Realistic mathematics education. Madison, WI. Unpublished manuscript.

  8. Romberg, T. A., and de Lange, J. (in press). Monitoring student progress. In T. A. Romberg and J. de Lange (Eds.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

  9. Romberg, T. A., and Spence, M. S. (1995). Some thoughts on algebra for the evolving work force. In C. Lacampagne, W. Blair, and J. Kaput (Eds.), The Algebra Initiative Colloquium, Volume 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

  10. Romberg, T., and Stewart, D. (1987). The monitoring of school mathematics: Background papers. Volume 1: The monitoring project and mathematics curriculum. Unpublished manuscript.

  11. Romberg, T. A., Webb, D. C., Burril, J., and Ford, M. J. (2001). NCISLA middle school design collaborative: Final report to the Verona area school district. Madison, WI: National Center for Im-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

proving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  1. Romberg, T. A., Webb, D. C., Burril, J., and Ford, M. J. (in press). Spreading out the risk for innovation: Building school capacity for teaching for understanding. In T. A. Romberg and T. P. Carpenter (Eds.), Understanding mathematics and science matters. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  2. Rush, T. (1996). A case study of the first year of implementation of the pilot program entitled ‘Six Through Eight Mathematics’ (STEM). Unpublished master’s thesis, National-Louis University.

  3. Russell, S. J. (2000). Investigations in Number, Data, and Space: Final report to NSF (ESI-9050210). Unpublished manuscript.

  4. Sanders, G. (undated). Letter to Catherine (last name not given) and report regarding results of using Transition Mathematics in Lawrence (KS) school district. Unpublished document.

  5. Saxon, J. (1981). The breakthrough in algebra, II. National Review, 1204-1205.

  6. Saxon, J. (1981). Incremental development: A breakthrough in mathematics. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 482-484.

  7. Saxon Publishers. (2001). Mathematics results. Norman, OK: Author.

  8. Saxon Publishers. (2002). Research support: Saxon math. Norman, OK: Author.

  9. Saxon Publishers. (2002). The 2002 Saxon report card. Norman, OK: Author.

  10. Saxon Publishers. (undated). Mathematics and phonics: Saxon results. Norman, OK: Author.

  11. Schoen, H. (1993). Impact study of mathematics education projects funded by the National Science Foundation, 1983-1991: Interactive Mathematics Project report (draft). Unpublished manuscript.

  12. Schoen, H. (1997). Core-Plus mathematics project phase II longitudinal study: A brief status report. Unpublished manuscript.

  13. Schoen, H. L., and Ziebarth, S. W. (1997). A progress report on student achievement in the Core-Plus Mathematics Project field test. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 1(3), 15-23.

  14. Schoenfeld, A. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Education Researcher, 31(1), 13-25.

  15. Senk, S. (1985). How well do students write geometry proofs? Mathematics Teacher, 78, 448-456.

  16. Senk, S. (1989). Van Hiele levels and achievement in writing geometry proofs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 309-321.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Senk, S. L. (1983). Proof-writing achievement and Van Hiele levels among secondary school geometry students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.

  2. Shafer, M., and Sherian, F. (1997). Changing face of assessment. Principled Practice in Mathematics and Science Education, 1(2), 1-8.

  3. Shafer, M. C. (1996). Assessment of student growth in a mathematical domain over time. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  4. Shafer, M. C., and Romberg, T. A. (1999). Assessment in classrooms that promote understanding. In E. Fennema and T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Mathematics classrooms that promote understanding (pp. 159-184). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  5. Shew, J. A. (1996). Students’ beliefs about mathematics and the way it should be learned: A story of struggle and change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  6. SIMMS Integrated Mathematics. (1993). The SIMMS project, monograph 1: Philosophy statements. Unpublished manuscript.

  7. SIMMS Integrated Mathematics. (1997). The SIMMS project: Final report. Unpublished manuscript.

  8. SIMMS Integrated Mathematics. (1997). The SIMMS project, monograph 3: Final report. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. SIMMS Integrated Mathematics. (1998). The SIMMS project, monograph 4: Assessment. Unpublished manuscript.

  10. SIMMS Integrated Mathematics. (1998). The SIMMS project, monograph 5: The classroom. Unpublished manuscript.

  11. SIMMS Integrated Mathematics. (undated). SIMMS integrated mathematics: A modeling approach using technology brochure. Boston: Pearson Custom Publishing.

  12. Simon, A. N. (1997). Students’ understanding of the comparison of the linear, quadratic and exponential functions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  13. Smith, J., and Berk, D. (2001, April 10-14). The “Navigating Mathematical Transitions Project”: Background, conceptual frame, and methodology. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

  14. Smith, J. P., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., Jansen, A., and Star, J. (2000, April 24-28). Studying mathematical transitions: How do students navigate fundamental changes in curriculum and pedagogy? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

  15. Smith, J. P., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., and Star, J. (1999). Middle school students’ algebra learning: Understanding linear relationships in context. NCTM Research Pre-session of the Annual Meeting of the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Reston, VA: NCTM. Unpublished document.

  1. Smith, J. P., and Phillips, E. A. (1997). Problem-centered algebra in middle school access via a broader set of skills. Unpublished manuscript.

  2. Smith, J. P., Phillips, E. A., and Herbel-Eisenmann, B. (1998). Middle school students’ algebraic reasoning: New skills and understanding from a reform curriculum. Proceedings from the 20th Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Mathematics Education, North American Chapter, Raleigh, NC, October 1998 (pp. 173-178).

  3. Smith, M. E. (2000). Classroom assessment and evaluation: A case study of practices in transition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  4. Smith, M. E. (in press). Practices in transition: A case study of classroom assessment. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

  5. Snipes, J., and Doolittle, F., and. H. C. (2002). Foundations for success: Case studies of how urban school systems improve student achievement. MDRC for the Council of the Great City Schools.

  6. Spence, M. S. (1997). Psychologizing algebra: Case studies of knowing in the moment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

  7. Spencer, D. A. (2001). Students’ performance in mathematics. Madison School District, Phoenix, AZ. Unpublished manuscript.

  8. St. John, M., Heenan, B., Houghton, N., and Tambe, P. (2001). The NSF implementation and dissemination centers: An analytic framework. Inverness, CA: Inverness Research Associates.

  9. Swafford, J. O., and Kepner, H. S. (1978). A report of the evaluation of algebra through applications. Unpublished manuscript.

  10. Swafford, J. O. and Kepner, H. S. (1980). The evaluation of an application-oriented first-year algebra program. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 11, 190-201.

  11. Swann, J. M. (1995). Transition Math and PSAT scores. Internal memorandum of February 15, 1995, to Michael Turner. Unpublished document.

  12. Tetley, L. (1998). Implementing change: Rewards and challenges. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4(3), 160-165.

  13. Thompson, D. R., and Senk, S. L. (1993). Assessing reasoning and proof in high school. In N. L. Webb and A. F. Coxford (Eds.), Assessment in the mathematics classroom 1993 yearbook (pp. 167-176). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  14. True, G. N. (undated). The effect of continuous distributed review on mathematics achievement. Unpublished manuscript.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. Truitt, B. A. (1998). How teachers implement the instructional model in a reformed high school mathematics classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa.

  2. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1990). UCSMP advanced algebra second edition: Summary of evaluation from teacher’s edition. Chicago: Author.

  3. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1990). UCSMP algebra second edition: Summary of evaluation from teacher’s edition. Chicago: Author.

  4. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1990). UCSMP geometry second edition: Summary of evaluation from teacher’s edition. Chicago: Author.

  5. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1990). UCSMP spring newsletter, no. 7. Chicago: Author.

  6. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1990). UCSMP Transition Math: Summary of evaluation from teacher’s edition. Chicago: Author.

  7. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1992). UCSMP functions, statistics and trigonometry: Summary of evaluation from teacher’s edition. Chicago: Author.

  8. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1992). UCSMP precalculus and discrete mathematics: Summary of evaluation from teacher’s edition. Chicago: Author.

  9. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1996). UCSMPerspectives spring newsletter, no. 13. Chicago: Author.

  10. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1996-1997). UCSMP winter newsletter, no. 20. Chicago: Author.

  11. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1998). UCSMPerspectives spring newsletter, no. 15. Chicago: Author.

  12. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1999). 1999 August inservice evaluations. In University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL, August 2-3.

  13. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (1999). Program for 11th annual secondary inservice conference. In University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL, August 2-3.

  14. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2001). Seventeenth annual secondary conference program booklet. In University of Chicago School Mathematics Project Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL, November 10-11.

  15. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2001). The University of Chicago School Mathematics Project 2000-01 descriptive brochure. Chicago: Author.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2001). 2001 November secondary conference evaluations. In University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, Chicago, IL, November 10-11.

  2. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (2002-2003). UCSMP winter-spring newsletter, no. 30. Chicago: Author.

  3. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (undated). Study skills handbook. Chicago: Author.

  4. University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. (undated). UCSMP research and development. Chicago: Author.

  5. Usiskin, Z. (1969). The effects of teaching Euclidean geometry via transformations on student attitudes and achievement in tenth-grade geometry. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

  6. Usiskin, Z. (1972). The effects of teaching Euclidean geometry via transformations on student attitudes and achievement in tenth-grade geometry. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 3, 249-259.

  7. Usiskin, Z. (1982). Van Hiele levels and achievement in secondary school geometry. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.

  8. Usiskin, Z. (1997). The evaluation of new curricula. Unpublished manuscript.

  9. Usiskin, Z. (in press). A personal history of the UCSMP secondary school curriculum 1960-1999. In G. M. A. Stanic and J. Kilpatrick (Eds.), A history of mathematics education. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

  10. Usiskin, Z., and Bernhold, J. (1973). Three reports on a study of intermediate mathematics. Unpublished manuscript.

  11. Usiskin, Z., Senk, S., Hynes, C., and Siegel, C. (1990). Report on the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project 1989 secondary summer institute. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project.

  12. van Amerom, B. (2002). Reinvention of early algebra. Utrecht, Netherlands: CD–B Press, Center for Science and Mathematics Education.

  13. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1996). Assessment and realistic mathematics education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universiteit Utrecht, Netherlands.

  14. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (1996). Developing assessment on problems on percentage: An example of developmental research on assessment problems conducted within the MiC project along the lines of Realistic Mathematics Education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
  1. van den Heuvel-Panhuizen, M. (in press). Developing assessment on problems on percentage. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

  2. van Reeuwijk, M. (1993). Assessment tasks designed to improve learning of mathematics. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.

  3. van Reeuwijk, M., and Wijers, M. (1997). Students’ construction of formulas in context. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 2(4), 230-236.

  4. Van Zoest, L. R., and Ritsema, B. E. (1998). Fulfilling the call for mathematics education reform. NCSM Journal of Mathematics Education Leadership, 1(4), 5-15.

  5. Verkaik, M. (undated). CPMP student performance. Holland Christian High School, Holland, MI. Unpublished manuscript.

  6. Webb, D. C. (in press). Enriching assessment opportunities through classroom discourse. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

  7. Webb, D. C., Ford, M. J., Burrill, J., Romberg, T. A., and Kwako, J. (2001). NCISLA middle school design collaborative third year student achievement data technical report. Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  8. Webb, D. C., and Meyer, M. R. (2001). Summary report of student achievement data for Mathematics in Context: A connected curriculum for grades 5-8. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  9. Webb, D. C., Romberg, T. A., Ford, M. J., Kwako, J., and Reif, J. (2001). NCISLA middle school design collaborative second year student achievement data technical report. Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.

  10. Wijers, M. (in press). Analysis of an end-of-unit test. In T. A. Romberg (Ed.), Insight stories: Assessing middle school mathematics. New York: Teachers College Press.

  11. Williams, D. (1986). The incremental method of teaching algebra 1. Unpublished research paper for University of Missouri, Kansas City course ED-621.

  12. Wilson, M. R., and Lloyd, G. M. (1995). High school teachers’ experiences in a student-centered mathematics curriculum. In D. T. Owens, M. K. Reed, and G. M. Millsaps (Eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

(Vol. 2, pp. 162-167). Columbus, OH: The ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.

  1. Winking, D. (1997). The Connected Mathematics Project: Helping Minneapolis middle school students “Beat the Odds,” year one evaluation report. Unpublished manuscript.

  2. Winking, D. (1998). The Minneapolis Connected Mathematics Project: Year two evaluation report. Unpublished manuscript.

  3. Wolff, E. (1997). Summary of matched-sample Stanford 9 analysis comparing IMP and traditional students at Central High School, Philadelphia, PA. Unpublished manuscript.

  4. Wolff, E., and Decktor, P. (1997). Summary of matched-sample analysis comparing IMP and traditional students at the Philadelphia High School for Girls on mathematics portion of Stanford 9 test. Unpublished manuscript.

  5. Zawojewski, J., Robinson, M., and Hoover, M. (1999). Reflections on developing formal mathematics and the Connected Mathematics Project. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4(5), 324-330.

  6. Ziebarth, S., Slezak, J., Lagrange, D., and Kleinfelter, N. (1997). Teaching a reformed high school mathematics curriculum: Inservice and preservice perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators, Washington, DC.

  7. Ziebarth, S. W. (1998). Iowa Core-Plus Mathematics Project is evaluated as a success. ICTM Journal, 26, 12-21.

  8. Zucker, A. A., and Shields, P. M. (1995). Evaluations of the National Science Foundation’s statewide systemic initiatives (SSI) program second-year case studies: Connecticut, Delaware, and Montana. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×

TABLE B-1 Distribution of Background Information and Informative Studies by Curricula

 

Number of Studies

NSF-Supported Curriculum Name

202

Everyday Mathematics

16

Investigations in Number, Data and Space

9

Math Trailblazers

6

Connected Mathematics Project (CMP)

42

Mathematics in Context (MiC)

52

Math Thematics (STEM)

13

MathScape

5

MS Mathematics Through Applications Project (MMAP)

7

Interactive Mathematics Project (IMP)

12

Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW/ARISE)

5

Contemporary Mathematics in Context (Core-Plus)

19

Math Connections

6

SIMMS

10

Commercially Generated Curriculum Name

73

Addison Wesley/Scott Foresman

1

Harcourt Brace

0

Glencoe/McGraw/Hill

4

Saxon

21

Houghton Mifflin - McDougal Littell

1

Prentice Hall/UCSMP

46

Number of evaluation studies

225

Number of times each curricula are in each type

275

Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 224
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 225
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 226
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 227
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 228
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 229
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 230
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 231
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 232
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 233
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 234
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 235
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 236
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 237
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 238
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 239
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 240
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 241
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 242
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 243
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 244
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 245
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 246
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 247
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 248
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 249
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 250
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 251
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 252
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 253
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 254
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 255
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 256
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 257
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis." National Research Council. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11025.
×
Page 258
Next: Appendix C: Outcomes Measures »
On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $59.00 Buy Ebook | $47.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

This book reviews the evaluation research literature that has accumulated around 19 K-12 mathematics curricula and breaks new ground in framing an ambitious and rigorous approach to curriculum evaluation that has relevance beyond mathematics. The committee that produced this book consisted of mathematicians, mathematics educators, and methodologists who began with the following charge:

  • Evaluate the quality of the evaluations of the thirteen National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported and six commercially generated mathematics curriculum materials;
  • Determine whether the available data are sufficient for evaluating the efficacy of these materials, and if not;
  • Develop recommendations about the design of a project that could result in the generation of more reliable and valid data for evaluating such materials.
  • The committee collected, reviewed, and classified almost 700 studies, solicited expert testimony during two workshops, developed an evaluation framework, established dimensions/criteria for three methodologies (content analyses, comparative studies, and case studies), drew conclusions on the corpus of studies, and made recommendations for future research.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!