National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix C: Outcomes Measures
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

Index

A

AAAS. See American Association for the Advancement of Science

Ability to Do Quantitative Thinking (ITED-Q), 107–108

Accuracy, of content analyses, 78–79

Achieved curriculum, 38

Achievement, importance of social class to, 110

Advanced mathematics at the research level, 13

Advanced Placement (AP) courses, 52

exams in, 49

Alternative experimental approaches, 64

agent-based models, 64

dynamical systems, 64

game theory, 64

large-scale simulations, 64

American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 69–70, 89

Project 2061, 74

American Mathematical Association of Two-Year Colleges, 123

An Incremental Development, 21

Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), 127–128, 157, 166

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), 127, 166

Anchor items, 106

ANCOVA. See Analysis of Covariance

ANOVA. See Analysis of variance

AP. See Advanced Placement courses

ARC Implementation Center study, 100, 105

Askey, Richard, 24, 79–82, 88

Assessment of existing studies, 2–3

case studies, 3, 5

comparative studies, 2–4

content analysis, 2, 5, 90–91

final report, 5

synthesis studies, 3

Assignment. See Random assignment

Attrition, indications of, 51

Authors’ backgrounds

in case studies, 32

in comparative studies, 32

in content analysis, 32

qualifications of, 43

single vs. teams of, 55

by study type, 32

in synthesis studies, 32

Automaticity, associated with mastery of standard algorithms, 160

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

B

Balance, in content analyses, 83–85

Balanced assessment, of outcome measures, 116

“Between” comparisons, 157

Bias

evaluator, 138

randomization to avoid, 63

reducing, 110

Bonferroni method, 111

C

Calculators, allowing during test taking, 53–54

Case studies, 28, 30, 60, 167–180.

See also Comparative studies;

Content analyses;

Synthesis studies

assessment of, 3, 5

authors’ backgrounds in, 32

comments on, 178–180

criteria for inclusion, 168–169

differential impact on different student populations, 172–175

in establishing curricular effectiveness, 8–9

findings, 171

interactions among curricula and common practices, beliefs, and understandings, 176–177

patterns in findings, 172

professional development, 177–178

school location, by study type, 33

the studies, 169

time management, 178

Case studies methodology, 60, 170–171

backing claims by evidence and argument, 170

defining the case, 170

“minimally methodologically adequate” studies, 97, 101–103, 115, 118–119, 136–137, 150, 155, 164

replicability of design, 170–171

revealing mechanisms at play during implementation of a curriculum, 171

triangulation of evidence from multiple sources, 60

Catalytic programs, 53

Chi-square tests, 128, 157

Claims, backing with evidence and argument, 170

Clarity of objectives, of content analyses, 77–78

Classroom observations, 114

Classroom teachers. See Teachers

CMP. See Connected Mathematics Project

Commercial publishers. See Publishers

Commercially published (non-NSF-funded) curricula, 15, 20–22, 97, 99–100, 105, 120, 142–143, 145, 149, 152–153, 156, 158–159, 162–164, 168, 198

for elementary school, 21, 29, 169

and the filters, studies of, 142

for high school, 22, 29, 169

major textbook publishers, 20–21

market studies not useful in evaluating curricular effectiveness, 28

for middle school, 21, 29, 169

secrecy with which market share data are held, 20

Community factors, 44

Comparative analyses, 7–8

appropriate statistical tests, 7

constraints as to generalizability of study, 7

disaggregated data, 7, 158, 200

in establishing curricular effectiveness, 7–8

extent of implementation fidelity, 7

outcome measures that can be disaggregated, 7

random assignment, 7

Comparative curricula, for content analyses, selection of, 74–75

Comparative research designs, 58–59

Comparative studies, 2–4, 28, 30, 57–58, 96–166

assessment of, 2–4

authors’ backgrounds in, 32

“between” comparisons, 157

comparability of samples, 3

conclusions from, 164–166

defining, 97

description of comparative studies database on critical decision points, 104–164

an evolving methodology, 96

implementation fidelity, 3

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

“minimally methodologically adequate,” 97, 101–103, 115, 118–119, 136–137, 150, 155, 164

multiple outcome measures, 3, 5

professional development activity, 3

results disaggregated by content strands or by performance by student subgroups, 3

school location, by study type, 33

“within” comparisons, 157

Comparative studies database, description on critical decision points, 104–164

Comparativeness, 132

Comprehensiveness

of content analyses, 78

of outcome measures, 9

Conceptions of mathematics, studies of, 102

Connected Mathematics Project (CMP), 19, 74, 78, 88–89, 99–100, 118–119, 121–122, 133, 172, 175, 177

Connoisseurial assessments, 197

Conservative test scores, 124

Contemporary Mathematics in Context (Core-Plus) (CPMP), 20, 80–81, 88, 100, 107, 123, 129, 175, 177–178

Content, compatible with all students’ abilities, 65

Content analyses, 6–7, 57

disciplinary perspectives, 6

in establishing curricular effectiveness, 6–7

learner-oriented perspectives, 7

resource-oriented perspectives, 7

teacher-oriented perspectives, 7

Content analysis, 28, 30, 41–43, 65–95

assessment of, 2, 5

authors’ backgrounds in, 32

as connoisseurial assessment, 197

dimensions of content analyses, 71–95

the discipline, the learner, and the teacher as dimensions of, 77

inclusion of content and/or pedagogy, 75–76

increasing sophistication of, 95

literature review, 68–71

needing definition, 24

participation in content analyses, 72–74

selection of standards or comparative curricula, 74–75

Content strands, 149–153

Control groups, using comparative curricula with, 166

“Controlled” experiments, 62

Core Content for Assessment, 71

Core-Plus. See Contemporary Mathematics in Context (CPMP)

“Corruptibility of indicators,” 51

CPMP. See Contemporary Mathematics in Context (Core-Plus)

Criteria for inclusion, of case studies, 168–169

Critical decision points in comparative studies, 104–164

alternative hypotheses on effectiveness, 137–139

analysis by test type, 148

choosing statistical tests, 127–132, 199

commercial materials studies and the filters, 142

content strand, 149–153

defining the unit of analysis, 112–114, 128–130, 147

equity analysis, 153–158

experimental or quasi-experimental design, 75, 104–108, 165, 199

filtering studies to increase rigor, 139–142, 199

impact of generalizability on probabilities, 146–147

impact of identification of curricular

program on probabilities, 143–145

impact of treatment fidelity on probabilities, 143, 147

impact of units of analysis on probabilities, 140, 146, 165

using the wrong unit, 138

implementation components, 114–127

interactions among content and equity, by grade band, 159–164

NSF studies and the filters, 141–142

random assignment studies not using, 108–112

results and limitations to generalizability resulting from design constraints, 132–134, 140

results of filtering on evaluations of NSF-supported curricula, 142

summary of results by student achievement among program types, 134–137

Cultural factors, 44

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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

alignment with systemic factors, 125

ambiguity in use of term, 38

defining, 38–39

in educational practice, 1

guidelines for implementation, 4

Curricula under review, 19–22

commercially published non-NSF-funded curricula, 15, 20–22, 97, 99–100, 105, 120, 142–143, 145, 149, 152–153, 156, 158–159, 162–164, 168, 198

curricula programs supported by the NSF, 19–20, 97, 99–100, 105, 120, 142–144, 146, 149, 151–153, 156, 158–159, 162–164, 171, 180, 198, 202

“hybrid” between NSF-supported and commercially generated curricular programs, 22

Curricular approaches, 37

“college preparation approach,” 37

“modeling and applications approach,” 37

“skills-based, practice-oriented approach,” 37

Curricular effectiveness

alternative hypotheses on, 137–139

complexity and urgency of establishing, 10

defining, 36–37

difficulty determining, 3

efficacy, 37

establishing, 4–9

framework for establishing, 37–38

weaker findings about, 8

Curricular options

decisions that involve multiple groups of decision makers, 96

value of diverse, 9

D

Dahl, Terri, 46

Data gathering, 22–24

Decision makers, 1

expressed needs or preferences of, 43

providing information to, 18

Design principles, guidelines for, 4

Design replicability, 170–171

Dimension One of content analyses, 77–86

accuracy, 78–79

balance, 83–85

clarity of objectives, 77–78

comprehensiveness, 78

mathematical inquiry and mathematical reasoning, 79–82

organization, 82–83

Dimension Three of content analyses, 92–93

pedagogy, 92

professional development, 92

resources, 92–93

Dimension Two of content analyses, 86–91

assessment, 90–91

student engagement, 86–88

timeliness and support for diversity, 88–90

Disaggregating data from comparative analyses, 7, 158, 200

in common content strands, 50, 147

by gender, 7, 158, 200

by performance levels, 7, 158, 200

by race/ethnicity, 7, 158, 200

by socioeconomic status, 7, 158, 200

Disciplinary perspectives, in content analyses, 6, 77

District curriculum specialists, as decision makers, 1

Diverse curricular options, value of, 9

Diversity, support for in content analyses, 88–90

E

Educator independence, 61

Effect size, in statistical tests, 127–132, 199

Effectiveness. See Curricular effectiveness

Elementary school curricula, 19, 21, 29, 169

Everyday Mathematics, 19, 83, 100, 107, 174, 176, 181

Harcourt Math, 21

Investigations in Number, Data and Space, 19

Math K-5, 21

Math Trailblazers, 19, 100

Eligibility, 111

EM. See Everyday Mathematics

Embedded assessment, 47

Enacted curriculum, 38

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

Engagement. See Student engagement

Equity analysis, of comparative studies, 153–158

Errors

mathematical, 79

Type I, 62

Establishing curricular effectiveness, 4–9

case studies, 8–9

comparative analyses, 7–8

content analyses, 6–7

scientific, 5, 14, 19

Ethnographic evaluation, 60

Evaluation of curricular effectiveness, 11, 50, 54–64, 190

accumulation of knowledge and the meta-analysis, 61–64

articulation of program theory, 54–56

controversy surrounding, 204–205

cost-efficiency, 11

credibility, 11

educator independence, 61

ethnographic perspectives, 60

including representative samples, 155

informativeness, 11

selection of research design and methodology, 57–60

time elements, 61

validity, 11

Evaluator bias, 138

Everyday Mathematics (EM), 19, 83, 100, 107, 174, 176, 181

example of synthesis studies, 181

Existing studies, assessment of, 2–3

Expectations, standardizing, 156–157

Experimental approaches, 63

alternative, 64

randomization to avoid bias, 63

Experimental vs. quasi-experimental design, 75, 104–108, 165, 199

“Extended students’ thinking,” 176

Exxon Education Foundation, 182

F

Federally funded curricula, 4

Filtering studies

by critical decision points to increase rigor, 139–142, 199

results on evaluations of NSF-supported curricula, 142

Findings

in case studies, 171

inconclusive, 3

Fisher, R. A., 62

Formative assessment, 47

Framework for evaluating curricular effectiveness, 36–64

evaluation design, measurement, and evidence, 54–64

guidelines for future evaluations, 4

implementation components, 43–48

intervention strategies, 52–53

measures of student outcomes, 49–51

primary components, 40–51

program components, 40–43

secondary components, 52–54

systemic factors, 52

unanticipated influences, 53–54

G

Gagne-type hierarchical structure, 82

Game theory, 64

Gender, disaggregated data by, 7, 158, 200

Generalizability

associated with mastery of standard algorithms, 160

in comparative analyses, constraints on, 7

impact on probabilities, 146–147

limitations on, 132–134, 140, 200

results and limitations resulting from design constraints, 132–134, 140

of results to future circumstances, 56, 132

Generic controls, 58

Group work, 175

Guidelines for future evaluations, 4

curricular implementation, 4

outcomes of student learning over time, 4

program materials and design principles, 4

Gutstein, Eric, 24

H

Harcourt Brace, 23

Harcourt Math, 21

Hawthorne effect, 138

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

Heath Mathematics, 174

Hierarchical linear modeling, 128

Hierarchical structure, Gagne-type, 82

High school curricula, 20, 22, 29, 169

Contemporary Mathematics in Context (Core-Plus) (CPMP), 20, 80–81, 88, 100, 107, 123, 129, 175, 177–178

Integrated Mathematics, 22, 66, 87, 180

Interactive Mathematics Program, 20, 91, 100, 108

Larson Series, 22

MATH Connections, 20

Mathematics: Modeling Our World, 20, 86

Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science, 20, 84, 177, 182

University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, 97–100, 105, 115, 120, 123–125, 130, 136–137, 142–143, 146–147, 164, 168, 198, 202

High school graduates, with adequate levels of mathematical knowledge, 13

High School Subject Tests—Geometry Form B, 124

Hirsch, Christian, 88

Home schooling, 43

Howe, Roger, 24, 44, 76

“Hybrid” curricula, between NSF-supported and commercially generated curricular programs, 22

I

IAAT. See Iowa Algebraic Aptitude Test

Identification of curricular program, impact on probabilities, 143–145

Illinois Goal Assessment Program, 181

IMP. See Interactive Mathematics Program

Implementation components, 43–48, 114–127

appropriate assignment of students, 44

assessment, 47–48

ensuring adequate professional capacity, 44–46

identification of a set of outcome measures and forms of disaggregation, 120–127, 140

implementation fidelity, 114–118, 139

instructional quality and type, 47

“opportunity to learn,” 47, 124, 194

parental influence and special interest groups, 48

professional development, 118–119, 139

teacher effects, 119–120, 140

Implementation fidelity, 3

in comparative studies, 7, 114–118, 139

Implementation of a curriculum development of a community of practitioners for, 185–186

factors undercutting, 138

mechanisms at play during, 171

trustworthiness of, 8–9, 56

Indicators, “corruptibility of,” 51

Instructional quality and type, 47

“Integrated Mathematics Project,” 182

Intended curriculum, 38

Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP), 20, 91, 100, 108

International tests, 49

Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 49, 72, 92, 106, 108

Investigations in Number, Data and Space, 19

Iowa Algebraic Aptitude Test (IAAT), 132

Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), 49, 116, 158

Iowa Tests of Education Development, 107

ITBS. See Iowa Test of Basic Skills

ITED-Q. See Ability to Do Quantitative Thinking

J

Joint Committee on Standards for Educational Evaluation, 109, 193

K

Kentucky Middle Grades Mathematics Teacher Network, 71

L

Large-scale assessments, 49, 121

Large-scale simulations, 64

Larson Series, 22

Learner-oriented perspectives, in content analyses, 7, 77

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

Lehrer, Richard, 43

Literature of content analysis, 68–71

American Association for the Advancement of Science, 69–70, 74, 89

Core Content for Assessment, 71

Kentucky Middle Grades Mathematics Teacher Network, 71

Mathematically Correct website, 70–71

Middle School Mathematics Comparisons for Singapore Mathematics, Connected Mathematics Program, and Mathematics in Context, 71, 85

Robinson and Robinson, 70

U.S. Department of Education, 68–69

Longitudinal evaluation, 58, 106–107, 195

of individual student learning, 48, 50

M

“Major content strands,” defining, 149

“Major portion,” defining, 39

MANOVA. See Multiple Analysis of Variance

Market share data, held in secrecy, 20

Market studies, not useful in evaluating curricular effectiveness, 28

Matched comparison groups, 59

Math 65, 82

MATH Connections, 20

Math K-5, 21

Math Trailblazers, 19, 100

“Mathematical empowerment,” rhetoric of, 175

Mathematical inquiry and mathematical reasoning, in content analyses, 79–82

Mathematical Science Education Board, 14

Mathematical sciences

careers in, 163

intensive careers in technology fields, 13

Mathematical scientists, 192

Mathematically Correct website, 70–71

reviews on, 90

Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW), 20, 86

Mathematics educators, 192

Mathematics in Context (MiC), 20, 74, 78, 89, 182

example of synthesis studies, 182–183

Mathematics teaching, in U.S., extreme limits of, 47

MathScape, 20

MathThematics (STEM), 20

McCallum, William, 24, 43, 73, 76

McGraw-Hill, 21

Measures of student outcomes, 49–51

international tests, 49

large-scale assessments, 49, 121

national standardized tests, 49

Meta-analysis, accumulation of knowledge and, 61–64

Methodology

call for increasing rigor, 8

in case studies, 170–171

standardizing, 156–157

MiC. See Mathematics in Context

Middle school curricula, 19–20, 21, 29, 169

An Incremental Development, 21

Applications and Connections, 21

Connected Mathematics Project, 19, 74, 78, 88–89, 99–100, 118–119, 121–122, 133, 172, 175, 177

Mathematics in Context, 20, 74, 78, 89, 182

MathScape, 20

MathThematics (STEM), 20

Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project, 20

Middle School Mathematics Comparisons for Singapore Mathematics, Connected Mathematics Program, and Mathematics in Context, 71, 85

Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project (MMAP), 20

Milgram, R. James, 24, 73, 76

“Minimally methodologically adequate” studies, 97, 101–103, 115, 118–119, 136–137, 150, 155, 164

MMAP. See Middle School Mathematics Through Applications Project

MMOW. See Mathematics: Modeling Our World

Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA), 127–128, 157, 166

Multiple methodologies, 8, 37, 50, 191

Multiple outcome measures, 3, 5

Multiple regressions, 128

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

N

NAEP. See National Assessment of Educational Progress (Nation’s Report Card)

National Assessment of Educational Progress (Nation’s Report Card) (NAEP), 13, 49, 106–108

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 45, 202

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 46

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM), 8, 69, 181

Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics, 69

Principles and Standards for School Mathematics 2000, 71, 197

revised standards written by, 74

standards written by, 12, 52, 98

National decline, blaming curricula for, 188

National policy makers

as decision makers, 1

need for sound evaluation of curricular developments, 11

National Research Council (NRC), 1, 19, 112, 167, 186

National Science Foundation (NSF), 1, 3, 168, 187

Implementation Centers, 23

Request for Proposals, 55, 153, 160–161

National Science Foundation (NSF)-supported mathematics curriculum materials, 7–8, 12, 19–20, 66, 97, 99–100, 105, 120, 142–144, 146, 149, 151–153, 156, 158–159, 162–164, 171, 180, 198, 202

design specifications shared by, 7–8

for elementary school, 19, 29, 169

and the filters, 141–142

for high school, 20, 29, 169

for middle school, 19–20, 29, 169

results of filtering on evaluations of, 142

reviews available on, 203

written primarily by university faculty, 25, 28

National standardized tests, 49, 162, 177

AP exams, 49

Iowa Test of Basic Skills, 49

National Assessment of Educational Progress, 49

not sensitive to curricular approaches, 138, 148

SAT, 49

NCES. See National Center for Education Statistics

NCTM. See National Council of Teachers of Mathematics

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 14, 164, 196

NRC. See National Research Council

NSF. See National Science Foundation

O

Open-ended tasks, measures of, 50

“Opportunity to learn,” 47, 124, 194

Organization, of content analyses, 82–83

Orleans-Hanna Algebraic Prognosis Test, 124

Ortiz-Franco, Luis, 24

Outcome measures, 165–166, 259

careful attention to, 126

and forms of disaggregation, 120–127, 140

inadequate, 138

that can be disaggregated in comparative analyses, 7

Outcomes of student learning over time, 4

changes in, 138

P

Parents

as decision makers, 1

expressing their needs or preferences, 43

fears concerning change, 138

influence of, 48

Participation, in content analyses, 72–74

Patterns of results

in case studies, 172

inferences to be drawn from, 15

separating issues of method from, 7

Pearson, 21

Pedagogy, in content analyses, 92

Performance levels, disaggregated data by, 7, 158, 200

Performance monitoring, 43

of students at all levels of achievement, 51, 194

Pilot sites, 140

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test (PSAT), 162, 182

Prior knowledge, 139

measuring from school databases, 50

Problem-based mathematics, 175

Problem sets, 56n

Process evaluation, 43

Process variables, 44

Professional capacity, ensuring adequate, 44–46

Professional development activity, 3

in case studies, 177–178

in comparative studies, 118–119, 139

in content analyses, 92

different types of, 46

Program monitoring, 43

Program theory, articulation of, 54–56

PSAT. See Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test

Public discourse, 175

Publishers

need for sound evaluation of curricular developments, 11

pressures on, 52

Q

“Quasi-experiments,” 58–59

generic controls, 58

longitudinal studies, 58

matched comparison groups, 59

statistically equated control, 58

R

Race/ethnicity, disaggregated data by, 7, 158, 200

Random assignment, 108

to avoid bias, 63

in comparative analyses, 7

studies not using, 108–112

Randomized experiments, 62

Randomized field trials, 59

Recommendations, 9–10, 185–205

at district and local levels, 10

to federal and state agencies and publishers, 9–10, 201–205

framework and key definitions, 189–190

regarding quality of the evaluations, 188–189

scientifically establishing curricular effectiveness, 191–193

Recommended practices for evaluators, 6, 193–201

case studies, 200–201

comparative studies, 198–200

content analyses, 197–198

curricular validity of measures, 6, 9, 49, 122, 126, 195

documentation of implementation, 6

implementation components, 165, 194

multiple student outcome measures, 6

outcome measures, 194–197

representativeness, 6

Reed Elsevier, 21

Reform Practices, 116–117

“Reform school” evaluation, 111

Reliability, of treatment administration, 108

Remedial mathematics activities, 13

Replicability of design, 170–171

Reporting the data, varied methods of, 50

Research design and methodology, 57–60

case studies, 60

comparative designs, 58–59

comparative studies, 57–58

content analyses, 57

Resource-oriented perspectives, in content analyses, 7, 44, 92–93

Results, disaggregated by content strands or by performance by student subgroups, 3

Reviewer’s expertise, 73

Reviews available, on curricula programs supported by the NSF, 203

Robinson, Eric, 81–82

S

Sample populations, 166

comparability of, 3

size of, 140

SAT, 49

preparation courses for, 52

Saxon materials, 98–100, 112, 143, 147, 164

pedagogical approach, 56, 82, 87, 112, 125

Schifter, Deborah, 24, 76

School boards, as decision makers, 1

School location, by study type, 33–34

rural area, 34

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

suburban area, 34

wealthy area, 137

School scheduling, importance to administrators, 109

Scientific method, limitations of, 64

Scientific Research in Education, 57, 186–187

Scientific validity, 4, 190, 193

Second International Mathematics Study (SIMS), 127

SES. See Socioeconomic status

Silver Burdett, 112

SIMMS. See Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science

SIMS. See Second International Mathematics Study

Single authors, 55

Socioeconomic status (SES), 112, 139, 141, 175

disaggregated data by, 7, 158, 200

importance to achievement, 110

Sophistication of content analysis, increasing, 95

Special interest groups, 48

Standardized tests, 49

Standards, for content analyses, selection of, 74–75

State accountability systems, 49

State adoption boards

as decision makers, 1

expressed needs or preferences of, 43

Statistical significance, 127–132, 199

Statistical tests in comparative studies, 7, 127–132, 199

Analysis of Covariance, 127–128, 157, 166

Analysis of Variance, 127, 166

Chi-square tests, 128, 157

hierarchical linear modeling, 128

Multiple Analysis of Variance, 127–128, 157, 166

multiple regression, 128

t-tests, 127, 157

Statistically equated control, 58

STEM. See MathThematics

Strong-implementing teachers, 116

Student achievement, summary of results among program types, 134–137

Student affect, studies of, 102

Student engagement, in content analyses, 86–88

Student-generated reasoning, 160

Student populations, differential impact on, 172–175

Students. See also Performance monitoring

appropriate assignment of, 44

top-performing, 138

variation in learning by, 48

Study characteristics, 25–30

for categories 1 through 4, 30–35

Study matrix, 24–25

Study types

case studies, 28, 30, 167–180

comparative studies, 2–4

content analysis, 28, 30, 41–43, 65–95

synthesis studies, 28, 30, 180–184

Subtest scores, 195

Supplemental curricular materials, 138

Synthesis studies, 28, 30, 180–184

assessment of, 3

authors’ backgrounds in, 32

examples of, 181–183

Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science (SIMMS) Integrated Mathematics: A Modeling Approach Using Technology, 20, 84, 161, 177, 182

T

t-tests, 127, 157

Teacher data, by study type, 34–35

expressed needs or preferences of, 43

volunteer teachers, 35

Teacher effects, 119–120, 140

in comparative studies, 119–120, 140

strong- vs. weak-implementing teachers, 116

Teacher feedback, 114

Teacher-oriented perspectives, in content analyses, 7

Teacher preference

importance to administrators, 109

self-selecting, 138

Teachers

as decision makers, 1

a dimension of content analysis, 77

Teaching techniques, new, 138

Teams of authors, 55

TerraNova, 176

Test taking, allowing calculators during, 53–54

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

Test type, analysis by, 148

Textbook publishers, 20–21

McGraw-Hill, 21

Pearson, 21

Reed Elsevier, 21

Vivendi, 21

Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), 49, 72, 92, 106, 108

Time elements, 61

Time management, 178

Timeliness, in content analyses, 88–90

TIMSS. See Third International Mathematics and Science Study

Traditional curricula, 106, 123

Traditional Practices, 116–117

Treatment fidelity, impact on probabilities, 143, 147

Trustworthiness, of implementation, 8–9, 56

Type I errors, 62

U

UCSMP. See University of Chicago School Mathematics Project

Units of analysis

defining, 112–114, 128–130, 147

impact on probabilities, 140, 146, 165

using the wrong unit, 138

University faculty, authoring curricular programs supported by the NSF, 25, 28

University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP), 97–100, 105, 115, 120, 123–125, 130, 136–137, 142–143, 146–147, 164, 168, 198, 202

Integrated Mathematics, 22, 66, 87, 180

U.S. Department of Education, 68–69, 203

Panel on Exemplary Programs in Mathematics, 12

program reviews from, 83

V

Validity, curricular validity of measures, 6, 9, 49, 122, 126, 195

Vivendi, 21

Volunteer teachers, 35

W

Wang, Frank, 55

Weak-implementing teachers, 116

Wierenga, Timothy, 46

“Within” comparisons, 157

Workshops, defining effectiveness, 23–24

Wu, Hung Hsi, 24, 73, 76

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

 

Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 261
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 262
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 263
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 264
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 265
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 266
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 267
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 268
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 269
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 270
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 271
Suggested Citation:"Index." 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 272
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!