|
|
References
Studies that fall outside the Middle School Math protocol or do not meet 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 University of Washington, Department of Applied Mathematics website: http://www.amath.washington.edu/~adams/full.pdf. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Desimone, L., Smith, T., Baker, D., & Ueno, K. (2006). Assessing barriers to the reform of United States mathematics instruction from an international perspective. American Educational Research Journal, 42(3), 501–535. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Ezarik, M. (2005). Lessons to learn: U.S. vs. Singapore math. District Administration, 41(5), 70. 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.
Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). From convergence to divergence: The development of mathematical problem solving in research, curriculum, and classroom practice in Singapore. ZDM—The International Journal on Mathematics Education, 39(5), 491– 501. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Garelick, B. (2006). A tale of two countries and one school district. Third Education Group Review/Essays, 2(8). Retrieved April 22, 2008 from: http://www.thirdeducationgroup.org/Review/Essays/v2n8.pdf. 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.
Garelick, B. (2006). Miracle Math. Education Next, 6(4). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Ginsburg, A., Leinwand, S., Anstrom, T., & Pollock, E. (2005). What the United States can learn from Singapore’s world-class mathematics system (and what Singapore can learn from the United States): An exploratory study. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Ho, K. F., & Hedberg, J. G. (2005). Teachers’ pedagogies and their impact on students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 24(3–4), 238–252. The study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Hoven, J., & Garelick, B. (2007). Singapore Math: Simple or complex? Educational Leadership, 65(3). The study is ineligible for review because it does not examine the effectiveness of an intervention.
Lee, P. Y. (2007). Teaching primary school mathematics: A resource book. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. The study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Leinwand, S., & Ginsburg, A. L. (2007). Learning from Singapore Math. Educational Leadership, 65(3), 32–36. 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.
Waight, M. M. (2006). The Implementation of Singapore Mathematics in a regional school district in Massachusetts 2000–2006: Remarks to National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Cambridge, MA. The study is ineligible for review because it does not provide enough information about its design to assess whether it meets standards.