References

Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations

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. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(10), 3933A. (UMI No. 9992659)

Studies that fall outside the Elementary School Math review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards

Allen, C. (2007). An action based research study on how using manipulatives will increase students’ achievement in mathematics. Unpublished research study, Marygrove College, Detroit, MI. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

ARC Center. (2000a). Everyday Mathematics: Glendale, CA. In The ARC Center’s implementation stories from the field. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc/. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

ARC Center. (2000b). Everyday Mathematics: Kent, WA. In The ARC Center’s implementation stories from the field. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc/. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

ARC Center. (2000c). Everyday Mathematics: Portage, WI. In The ARC Center’s implementation stories from the field. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc/. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

ARC Center. (2003). The ARC Center tri-state student achievement study: Executive summary. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.comap.com/product/?idx=965. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Barnes, S. (2007). The effects of curriculum structure on the achievement of grade 3 and grade 5 mobile students as measured by the Maryland School Assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duquesne University, Pittsburgh, PA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Baxter, J., Woodward, J., & 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. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Briars, D. J. (2004, July). The Pittsburgh story: Successes and challenges in implementing standards-based mathematics programs. Paper presented at the meeting of the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Leadership Institute, Lisle, IL. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Briars, D. J., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Standards, assessments—and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement (CSE Technical Report 528). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Carroll, W. M. (1993). Mathematical knowledge of kindergarten and first-grade students in Everyday Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M. (1995a). Report on the field test of fifth-grade Everyday Mathematics. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, Elementary Component. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine an intervention implemented in a way that falls within the scope of the review.

Carroll, W. M. (1995b). Third-grade Everyday Mathematics students’ performance on the 1993 and 1994 Illinois state mathematics test. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. (Study: Third-grade Illinois state test.) In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Carroll, W. M. (1996a). A follow-up to the fifth-grade field test of Everyday Mathematics: Geometry and mental and written computation. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M. (1996b). Mental computation of students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 96(6), 305–311. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M. (1996c). Use of invented algorithms by second graders in a reform mathematics curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 15(2), 137–150. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Carroll, W. M. (1997). Results of third-grade students in a reform curriculum on the Illinois state mathematics test. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(2), 237–242. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M. (1998). Geometric knowledge of middle school students in a reform-based mathematics curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 98(4), 188–197. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. (Study: Geometric knowledge of fifth- and sixth-grade students.) In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Carroll, W. M. (2000). Invented computational procedures of students in a standards-based curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 18(2), 111–121. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M. (2001a). A longitudinal study of children in the Everyday Mathematics curriculum. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/about/research/CarrollLongitudinalSdy01.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Additional sources:
Carroll, W. M., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Achievement results for fourth graders using the standards-based curriculum Everyday Mathematics. Unpublished manuscript.

Carroll, W. M., & Fuson, K. C. (n.d.). Performance of US fifth graders in a reform-math curriculum compared to Japanese, Chinese, and traditionally-taught US students. Unpublished manuscript.

Carroll, W. M., Fuson, K. C., & Drueck, J. D. (n.d.). A longitudinal study of second and third graders using the reform curriculum Everyday Mathematics by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. Unpublished manuscript.

Carroll, W. M. (2001b). Students in a standards-based mathematics curriculum: Performance on the 1999 Illinois State Achievement Test. Illinois Mathematics Teacher, 52(1), 3–7. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M., Fuson, K. C., & Diamond, A. (2000). Use of student-constructed number stories in a reform-based curriculum. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 19(1), 49–62. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003a). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. (Study: Mental computation and number sense of fifth graders.) In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003b). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. (Study: Multidigit computation in third grade.) In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M., & Isaacs, A. (2003c). Achievement of students using the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project’s Everyday Mathematics. (Study: School district studies: HVRSD.) In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 79–108). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Carroll, W. M., & Porter, D. (1994). A field test of fourth grade Everyday Mathematics: Summary report. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project, Elementary Component. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Confrey, J. (2006). Comparing and contrasting the National Research Council report on evaluating curricular effectiveness with the What Works Clearinghouse approach. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(3), 195–213. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Cummins-Colburn, B. J. L. (2007). Differences between state-adopted textbooks and student outcomes on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills examination. Dissertation Abstracts International, 68(06A). (UMI No. 1682299) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Drueck, J. V. (1996, April). 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 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Drueck, J. V., Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Bell, M. S. (1995, April). Performance of US first graders in a reform math curriculum compared to Japanese, Chinese, and traditionally taught US students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996a). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. (Study: Greensburg Salem and Everyday Mathematics.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996b). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. (Study: Illinois Goals Assessment Program performance.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996c). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. (Study: Kalamazoo sucess story.) Chicago: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996d). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. (Study: Northwestern University analysis of students.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996e). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. (Study: UCSMP fourth grade field test.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Everyday Learning Corporation. (1996f). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies. (Study: UCSMP in Wheeling, Illinois.) Chicago: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Fuson, K. C., & Carroll, W. M. (n.d.). Summary of comparison of Everyday Mathematics (EM) and McMillan (MC): Evanston student performance on whole-class tests in grades 1, 2, 3, and 4. Unpublished manuscript. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
Carroll, W. M., & Fuson, K. C. (1998). A comparison of Everyday Mathematics (EM) and McMillan (MC) on Evanston student performance on whole-class tests: Recommendations for revision of Everyday Mathematics grades 1, 2, 3, and 4. (Available from Karen C. Fuson, School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, 2115 N. Campus Drive, Evanston, IL 60208-2610.)

Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Drueck, J. V. (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. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Garelick, B. (2006). A tale of two countries and one school district. Third Education Group Review, 2(8). Retrieved April 22, 2008 from http://www.npe.ednews.org/Review/Essays/v2n8.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Garelick, B. (2006). A textbook case in textbook adoption. Third Education Group Review, 2(6). Retrieved April 30, 2008 from http://www.npe.ednews.org/Review/Essays/v2n6.htm. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Hedges, L. V., Stodolsky, S. S., & Mathison, S. (1987). A formative evaluation of kindergarten Everyday Mathematics (Evaluation Rep. No. 86/87–KEM-1). Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

Helfant, M. T. (2005). The relationship between third and fourth grade Everyday Mathematics assessments and performance on the New Jersey Assessment of Skills and Knowledge in Fourth Grade (NJASK/4). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seton Hall University, South Orange, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Mathematics Evaluation Committee of the Hopewell Valley Regional School District. (1997). Mathematics evaluation report: Year two. Pennington, NJ: Hopewell Valley Regional School District. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

McCabe, K. J. (2001). Mathematics in our schools: An effort to improve mathematics literacy. Masters Abstracts International, 40(04), 835. (UMI No. 1407560) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Miller, K. (2006). A comparison of student math scores on the MAP test and Everyday Mathematics program. Unpublished master’s thesis, Northwest Missouri State University, Maryville. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Murnane, R. J., & Nelson, R. R. (2005). Improving the performance of the education sector: The valuable, challenging, and limited role of random assignment evaluations. NBER Working Paper No. W11846. National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.

Murphy, L. A. (1998). Learning and affective issues among higher- and lower-achieving third-graders in math reform classrooms: Perspectives of children, parents, and teachers. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(12), 4358A. (UMI No. 9913852) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

New math curriculum formula for success. (2007, November). Curriculum Review, 47, 3. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.

Northwestern Longitudinal Study of Everyday Mathematics. (1998). Fourth-grade feedback on specific lessons. Unpublished report. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4), 368–398. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Sconiers, S., Isaacs, A., Higgins, T., McBride, J., & Kelso, C. R. (2003). The ARC Center tri-state student achievement study. Lexington, MA: The Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Additional source:
SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Illinois, Massachusetts, and Washington achievement study.) Chicago: Author.

Sood, S., & Jitendra, A. K. (2007). A comparative analysis of number sense instruction in reform-based and traditional mathematics textbooks. Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 145–157. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001a). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: California SAT-9.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001b). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001c). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: Illinois Standards Achievement Test.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001d). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: Kentucky Commonwealth Accountability Testing System.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001e). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001f). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: MAT-7 in Wichita, Kansas.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001g). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: Michigan Educational Assessment Program.) Chicago: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001h). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: Pennsylvania State Assessment System.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001i). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 3. (Study: SAT-9 in Santa Ana, California.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001j). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001k). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Illinois Standards Achievement Test.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001l). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Kentucky Core Content Test.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001m). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Michigan Educational Assessment Program.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001n). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: North Carolina ABCs Accountability Model.) Chicago: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001o). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: South Carolina Palmetto Achievement Challenge Test.) Chicago: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001p). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Stanford-9 in Tucson, Arizona.) Chicago: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001q). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Tennessee Comprehensive References Assessment Program.) Chicago: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001r). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Texas Assessment of Academic Skills.) Chicago: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.

SRA/McGraw-Hill. (2001s). Everyday Mathematics student achievement studies: Volume 4. (Study: Washington Assessment of Student Learning.) Chicago: Author. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.

Woodward, J., & 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. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effect cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit of analysis in one or both conditions.