THIRD-YEAR HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM: EFFECTS OF CONTENT ORGANIZATION AND CURRICULUM IMPLEMENTATION

被引:0
作者
Chávez
Tarr J.E. [2 ]
Grouws D.A. [2 ]
Soria V.M. [2 ]
机构
[1] University of Texas at San Antonio, San Antonio, TX
[2] University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
关键词
curriculum comparison; high schools; HLM; mathematics; mathematics curriculum; secondary curriculum; textbooks;
D O I
10.1007/s10763-013-9443-7
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
We examined the effect of curriculum organization in US high schools where students could freely choose to study mathematics from textbooks that employed one of two types of content organization, an integrated approach or a (traditional) subject-specific approach. The study involved 2,242 high school students, enrolled in either Course 3 or Algebra 2, in 10 schools in 5 geographically dispersed states. Taking account of curriculum implementation and students’ prior mathematics learning, we analyzed two end-of-year outcome measures: a test of common objectives and a standardized achievement test. Our hierarchical linear models with three levels showed that students in the integrated curriculum scored significantly higher than those in the subject-specific curriculum on the common objectives test. In both outcome measures, gender and prior achievement were significant student-level predictors. In the standardized achievement test, ethnicity was a moderating factor. At the teacher-level, in addition to curriculum type, teachers’ orientation and free and reduced lunch eligibility were significant moderating factors. Opportunity to learn, implementation fidelity, teacher experience, and professional development were not significant predictors. © 2013, National Science Council, Taiwan.
引用
收藏
页码:97 / 120
页数:23
相关论文
共 29 条
[1]  
Cai J., Wang N., Moyer J.C., Wang C., Nie B., Longitudinal investigation of the curricular effect: An analysis of student learning outcomes from the LieCal Project in the United States, International Journal of Educational Research, 50, pp. 117-136, (2011)
[2]  
CME project: Algebra 2: Student edition, (2009)
[3]  
Chavez O., Papick I., Ross D.J., Grouws D.A., Developing fair tests for mathematics curriculum comparison studies: The role of content analyses, Mathematics Education Research Journal, 23, 4, pp. 397-416, (2011)
[4]  
Coxford A.F., Fey J.T., Hirsch C.R., Schoen H.L., Burrill G., Hart E.W., Ritsema B., Contemporary mathematics in context: A unified approach (course 3), (2003)
[5]  
Cuoco A., Goldenberg E.P., Mark J., Organizing a curriculum around mathematical habits of mind, Mathematics Teacher, 103, pp. 682-688, (2010)
[6]  
Dossey J., Halvorsen K., McCrone S., Mathematics education in the United States 2008: A capsule summary book written for the eleventh International Congress on Mathematical Education (ICME-11), (2008)
[7]  
Feldt L.S., Forsyth R.A., Ansley T.N., Alnot S.D., Iowa Tests of Educational Development (Form B), (2003)
[8]  
Grouws D.A., Smith M.S., Sztajn P., The preparation and teaching practices of United States mathematics teachers: Grades 4 and 8, Results and Interpretations of the 1990 through 2000 Mathematics Assessments of the National Assessment of Educational Progress, pp. 221-267, (2004)
[9]  
Grouws D.A., Tarr J.E., Chavez O., Sears R., Soria V., Taylan R.D., Curriculum and implementation effects on high school students’ mathematics learning from curricula representing subject-specific and integrated content organizations, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 44, 2, pp. 416-463, (2013)
[10]  
House P.A., Integrated mathematics: An introduction, Integrated mathematics: Choices and challenges, pp. 3-11, (2003)