|
|
References
Meets WWC evidence standards with reservations
Schneider, C. L. (2000). Connected Mathematics and the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(02), 503A. (UMI No. 3004373)
Studies that fall outside the Middle School Math review protocol or do not meet WWC evidence standards
Adams, L. M., Tung, K. K., Warfield, V. M., Knaub, K., Yong, D., & Mudavanhu, B. (2002). Middle school mathematics comparisons for Singapore Mathematics, Connected Mathematics Program, and Mathematics in Context (including comparisons with the NCTM Principles and Standards 2000). Retrieved from: http://www.amath.washington.edu/~adams/full.pdf. University of Washington, Seattle. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Adams, R. L. (2005). Standards-based accountability: Improving achievement for all students through standards-based mathematics instruction (Doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(06). (UMI No. 3180485) The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1999). Middle grades mathematics textbooks: A benchmarks-based evaluation. Washington, DC: Author. 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.
Anderson, N. C. (2008). Walk the line: Making sense of y = mx +b. In C. E. Greenes, & R. Rubenstein (Eds.), 2008 yearbook of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Algebra and algebraic thinking in school mathematics (pp. 233–246). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Asquith, P., Stephens, A., Knuth, E., & Alibali, M. (2007). Middle school mathematics teachers’ knowledge of students’ understanding of core algebraic concepts: Equal sign and variable. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 9(3), 249–272. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Bay, J. M. (1999). Middle school mathematics curriculum implementation: The dynamics of change as teachers introduce and use standards-based curricula (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri–Columbia, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(12). 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.
Bay, J. M., Beem, J. K., Reys, R. E., Papick, I., & Barnes, D. E. (1999). Student reactions to standards-based mathematics curricula: The interplay between curriculum, teachers, and students. School Science and Mathematics, 99(4), 182–188. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1997a). Development of proportional reasoning in a problem-based middle school curriculum. University of Maryland, College Park. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED412091). The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Additional source:
Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1997b). A study of proportional reasoning among seventh and eighth grade students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among seventh grade students with different curricular experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36(3), 247–273. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Bennett, C. L. (2007). A curriculum project of vocabulary development in the Connected Math program Moving Straight Ahead. Unpublished master’s thesis. State University of New York College at Brockport. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Bledsoe, A. M. (2002). Implementing the Connected Mathematics Project: The interaction between student rational number understanding and classroom mathematical practices (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri–Columbia, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 63(12). 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.
Bray, M. S. (2005). Achievement of eighth grade students in mathematics after completing three years of the Connected Mathematics Project. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Cai, J., & Moyer, J. C. (2006). A conceptual framework for studying curricular effects on students’ learning: Conceptualization and design in the LieCal project. Poster presented at the 2006 Annual Meeting of the International Group of Psychology of Mathematics Education, Prague, Czech Republic. 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.
Cain, J. S. (2002). An evaluation of the Connected Mathematics Project. Journal of Educational Research, 32(4), 224–233. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Capraro, M. M., Kulm, G., & Capraro, R. M. (2005). Middle grades: Misconceptions in statistical thinking. School Science and Mathematics, 105, 165–174. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Choppin, J. (2006). Studying a curriculum implementation using a communities of practice perspective. Paper presented at the 28th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Mérida, Mexico. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Clarkson, L. M. C. (2001). The effects of the Connected Mathematics Project on middle school mathematics achievement (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(12), 4709A. (UMI No. 9997642) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.
Collins, A. M. (2002). What happens to student learning in mathematics when a multi-faceted, long-term professional development model to support standards-based curricula is implemented in an environment of high stakes testing? (Doctoral dissertation, Boston College, 2002). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(2). The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Danielson, C. (2005). Walking a straight line: Introductory discourse on linearity in classrooms and curriculum (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 67(2). 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.
De Groot, C. (2000). Three female voices: The transition to high school mathematics from a reform middle school mathematics program (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(4). 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.
Durkin, N. M. (2005). Using Connected Math Program: Its impact on the Delaware State Testing scores of 8th-grade students at Milford Middle School (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College, 2005). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66(4). (UMI No. 913516241) The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Fauth, T. (2007). Using the Connected Math Project to improve seventh grade math scores at Wapato Middle School. Unpublished master’s thesis, Heritage University, Toppenish, WA. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Folsom, M. L. (2002). Empowering girls in math: The influence of curriculum on female beliefs about mathematics (Master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University, 2002). Masters Abstracts International, 41(2). 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.
Genz, R. (2006). Determining high school students’ geometric understanding using van Hiele levels: Is there a difference between standards-based curriculum students and non–standards-based curriculum students? Unpublished master’s thesis, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Goodman, E. (2004). Connected Mathematics Project: A constructivist view of mathematics education in the middle grades. Masters Abstracts International, 43(2). 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.
Grandau, L., & Stephens, A. C. (2006). Algebraic thinking and geometry. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 11(7), 344–349. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Griffith, L., Evans, A., & Trowell, J. (2000). Arkansas grade 8 benchmark exam: How do Connected Mathematics schools compare to state data? Little Rock, AR: Arkansas State Department of Education. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Halat, E. (2007). Reform-based curriculum & acquisition of the levels. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 41–49. 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.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2000). How discourse structures norms: A tale of two middle school mathematics classrooms (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(1). 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.
Hull, L. S. H. (2000). Teachers’ mathematical understanding of proportionality: Links to curriculum, professional development, and support (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(2). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Izsak, A. (2008). Mathematical knowledge for teaching fraction multiplication. Cognition and Instruction, 26(1), 95–143. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include a student outcome.
Izsak, A., Tillema, E., & Tunc-Pekkan, Z. (2008). Teaching and learning fraction addition on number lines. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(1), 33–62. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Jansen, A. (2006). Seventh graders’ motivations for participating in two discussion-oriented mathematics classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 106(5), 409–428. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Katwibun, D. (2004). Middle school students’ mathematical dispositions in a problem-based classroom (Doctoral dissertation, Oregon State University, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(5). 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.
Keiser, J. M. (1997). The development of students’ understanding of angle in a non-directive learning environment (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(8). 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.
Kersaint, G. (1998). Preservice elementary teachers’ ability to generalize functional relationships: The impact of two versions of a mathematics content course (Doctoral dissertation, Illinois State University, 1998). Dissertation Abstracts International, 59(5). 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.
King, D. A. (2007). A study to ascertain the effects of the Connected Mathematics Project on student achievement in the Buffalo public schools. Unpublished master’s thesis, State University of New York at Buffalo. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Krebs, A. S. (2003). Middle grades students’ algebraic understanding in a reform curriculum. School Science and Mathematics, 103(5), 233–245. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Additional source:
Krebs, A. S. (1999). Students’ algebraic understanding: A study of middle grades students’ ability to symbolically generalize functions (Doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60(06), 1949A. (UMI No. 9936570)
Lambdin, D. V., & Lappan, G. (1997). Dilemmas and issues in curriculum reform: Reflections from the Connected Mathematics Project. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lapan, R., Reys, B., Reys, R., & Holliday, G. (2001). Assessing the performance of middle grade students using standards-based mathematics instructional materials. University of Missouri–Columbia. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.
Additional source:
Lapan, R. T., Reys, B. J., Barnes, D. E., & Reys, R. E. (1998). Standards-based middle grade mathematics curricula: Impact on student achievement. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Lewis, R. M. (2002). Mathematics for all? The cultural relevance of Connected Mathematics (Master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University, 2002). Masters Abstracts International, 41(2). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lowe, P. (2004). A new approach to math in the middle grades. Principal, 84(2), 34–39. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lubienski, S. T. (2000a). A clash of social class cultures? Students’ experiences in a discussion-intensive seventh-grade mathematics classroom. Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 377–403. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lubienski, S. T. (2000b). Problem solving as a means toward mathematics for all: An exploratory look through a class lens. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31(4), 455–482. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Mathematics and Science Expert Panel for the U.S. Department of Education. (1999). Mathematics and science expert panel: Promising and exemplary mathematics programs, evaluation report prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Mathis, E. (2004). A comparison of two NSF-funded middle school mathematics curricula in Delaware’s Appoquinimink and Caesar Rodney school districts. (Doctoral dissertation, Wilmington College, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(1). (UMI No. 765270181) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.
McNeil, N., Grandau, L., Knuth, E., Alibali, M., Stephens, A., Hattikudur, S., et al. (2006). Middle-school students’ understanding of the equal sign: The books they read can’t help. Cognition and Instruction, 24(3), 367. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Meiler, J. (2006). Does a problem-centered curriculum foster positive or negative changes in students’ attitude and learning in mathematics?: A case study of three sixth-grade students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University, Tacoma, WA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
O’Clair, K. K. (2005). Impact on student achievement: Going to scale with a middle school math initiative. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, CO. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.
O’Neal, S. W., & Robinson-Singer, C. (2003). The Arkansas statewide systemic initiative pilot of the Connected Mathematics Project: An evaluation report. Albuquerque, NM: Accountability & Development Associates, Inc. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Post, R. A. (2004). Generation of mathematical knowledge through teacher practice: Study of a novice elementary teacher. Dissertation Abstracts International, 65(12). 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.
Post, T. R., Harwell, M. R., Davis, J. D., Maeda, Y., Cutler, A., Andersen, E., et al. (2008). “Standards”-based mathematics curricula and middle-grades students’ performance on standardized achievement tests. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(2), 184–212. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Prentice Hall. (2006). CMP: Research and evaluation summary. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Author. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Preston, R. V., & Lambdin, D. V. (1997). Teachers changing in changing times: Using stages of concern to understand changes resulting from the use of an innovative mathematics curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. 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.
Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34(1), 74–95. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.
Additional source:
Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2004). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement: Corrections. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(2), 152.
Richards, K. T. (2004). Communications in mathematics. Masters Abstracts International, 43(2). 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.
Rickard, A. (1995). Teaching with problem-oriented curricula: A case study of middle-school mathematics instruction. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(1), 5. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
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. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Ridgway, J. E., Zawojewski, J., & Hoover, M. (2000). Problematising evidence-based policy and practice. Evaluation and Research in Education, 14(3;4), 181–192. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Ridgway, J. E., Zawojewski, J. S., Hoover, M. N., & Lambdin, D. V. (2002). Student attainment in the Connected Mathematics curriculum. In S. L. Senk, & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 193–224). 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.
Additional source:
Hoover, M., Zawojewski, J. S., & Ridgway, J. E. (1997). Effects of the Connected Mathematics Project on student attainment. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. (2005). Designing knowledge scaffolds to support mathematical problem solving. Cognition and Instruction, 23(3), 313–349. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
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.
Schoenfeld, A., Burkhardt, H., Daro, P., Ridgeway, J., Schwartz, J., & Wilcox, S. (1999). Balanced assessment: Middle grades assessment. New York, NY: Dale Seymour Publications. 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.
Seifer, M. D. (2005). Collaborating with colleagues to improve student learning using the Connected Mathematics Project. Unpublished master’s thesis, Bank Street College of Education, New York, NY. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Smith III, J. P., & Star, J. R. (2007). Expanding the notion of impact of K–12 standards-based mathematics and reform calculus programs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(1), 3–34. The study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention, such as a meta-analysis or research literature review.
Star, J., & Hoffmann, A. (2005). Assessing the impact of standards-based curricula: Investigating students’ epistemological conceptions of mathematics. The Mathematics Educator, 15(2), 25–34. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Star, J. R., Smith III, J. P., & Jansen, A. (2008). What students notice as different between reform and traditional mathematics programs. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(1), 9–32. 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.
Stevens, B. B. A. (2005). The development of pedagogical content knowledge of a mathematics teaching intern: The role of collaboration, curriculum, and classroom context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri–Columbia. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Tarr, J., Chávez, Ó., Appova, A., & Regis, T. (2005). Discordant implementation of mathematics curricula by middle school mathematics teachers. Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Roanoke, VA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(3), 247–280. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.
Additional source:
Reys, R., Reys, B., Tarr, J., & Chavez, O. (2006). Assessing the impact of standards-based middle school mathematics curricula on student achievement and the classroom learning environment. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.
Triantos, L. M. (2005). The aftermath of implementing a standards-based curriculum in a K–8 district: Is there a correlation between hands-on instruction and math scores? Unpublished master’s thesis, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Van Dyke, C. L. (2001). The shape of things to come: Mathematics reform in the middle school (Master’s thesis, Pacific Lutheran University, 2001). Masters Abstracts International, 40(2). The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Wasman, D. G. (2000). An investigation of algebraic reasoning of seventh- and eighth-grade students who have studied from the Connected Mathematics Project curriculum (Doctoral dissertation, University of Missouri–Columbia, 2000). Dissertation Abstracts International, 61(09), 3498A. (UMI No. 9988711) The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Winking, D. (1998). The Minneapolis Connected Mathematics Project: Year two evaluation. Retrieved from: http://tis.mpls.k12.mn.us/sites/5df1b159-7ce3-4aa3-8e71-8e60a7b98e6c/uploads/connected_mathematics_2.pdf. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Additional source:
Winking, D. (2000a). Minneapolis data: Excerpts from the year two evaluation report. Connected Mathematics Project, East Lansing, MI.
Winking, D. (2000b). Minneapolis data: Excerpts from the year one evaluation report. Connected Mathematics Project, East Lansing, MI. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the intervention and comparison groups are not shown to be equivalent at baseline.
Woodward, J., & Brown, C. (2006). Meeting the curricular needs of academically low-achieving students in middle grade mathematics. The Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 151. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—there was only one unit assigned to one or both conditions.
Zawojewski, J. S., Robinson, M., & Hoover, M. (1999). Reflections on developing formal mathematics and the Connected Mathematics Project. Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 4(5), 324–330. The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Zvoch, K., & Stevens, J. (2006). Longitudinal effects of school context and practice on middle school mathematics achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), 347–357. The study does not meet WWC evidence standards because the measures of effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to the intervention—the intervention was combined with another intervention.