Peters, K. G. (1992). Skill performance comparability of two algebra programs on an eighth-grade population. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54(01), 77A. (UMI No. 9314428)
Davis, J. D., & Shih, J. C. (2007). Secondary options and post-secondary expectations: Standards-based mathematics programs and student achievement on college mathematics placement exams. School Science and Mathematics, 107(8), 336–346. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Fan, L., & Zhu, Y. (2007). Representation of problem-solving procedures: A comparative look at China, Singapore, and U.S. mathematics textbooks. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 66(1), 61–75. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A., Lubienski, S. T., & Id-Deen, L. (2006). Reconsidering the study of mathematics instructional practices: The importance of curricular context in understanding local and global teacher change. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 9(4), 313–345. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Lee, K. (2005). Student conceptual understanding and application on algebra-problem-based curricula. Research in Mathematical Education, 9(2), 125–133. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Mathison, S., Hedges, L. V., Stodolsky, S., Flores, P., & Sarther, C. (1989). Teaching and learning algebra: An evaluation of UCSMP Algebra (Evaluation Rep. No. 88/89-ALG-1). Chicago: University of Chicago. This study is ineligible for review because it does not disaggregate findings for the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Thompson, D. R., & Senk, S. L. (2006). Methods for controlling for opportunity-to-learn. Conference Papers—Psychology of Mathematics & Education of North America, 2, 179–186. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
Thompson, D. R., Senk, S. L., Witonsky, D., Usiskin, Z., & Kaeley, G. (2006). An evaluation of the second edition of UCSMP Algebra. Chicago: University of Chicago School Mathematics Project. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
UCSMP. (2007). Fidelity of implementation in the UCSMP secondary component. UCSMP Newsletter, 9. This study is ineligible for review because it does not include an outcome within a domain specified in the protocol.
UCSMP. (2007). Opportunity to learn: A critical variable in UCSMP curriculum research. UCSMP Newsletter, 3–6. This study is ineligible for review because it is not a primary analysis of the effectiveness of an intervention.
Wood, F. R. (2006). The relationship between the measured changes in mathematics scores of eighth grade New Jersey students and the implementation of a standards-based mathematics program. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Widener University, Chester, PA. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a comparison group.
Zahrt, L. T. (2001). School reform math programs: An evaluation for leaders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI. This study is ineligible for review because it does not use a sample within the age or grade range specified in the protocol.
Zhu, Y., & Fan, L. (2006). Focus on the representation of problem types in intended curriculum: A comparison of selected mathematics textbooks from mainland China and the United States. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 4(4), 609–626. This study is ineligible for review because it does not take place in the geographic area specified in the protocol.
For more information about specific studies and WWC calculations, please see the WWC UCSMP Algebra Technical Appendices.
|Institute of Education Sciences
Middle School Math