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
[11]  
Latterell C.M., CPMP III versus Algebra II, Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 28, 2, pp. 20-36, (2006)
[12]  
Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics, (1989)
[13]  
Principles and standards for school mathematics, (2000)
[14]  
National Research Council, Weiss I.R., Knapp M.S., Hollweg K.S., Burrill G., Committee on understanding the influence of standards in K-12 Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education, Investigating the influence of standards: A framework for research in mathematics, science, and technology education, (2002)
[15]  
National Research Council, On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations, (2004)
[16]  
Remillard J.T., Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula, Review of Educational Research, 75, pp. 211-246, (2005)
[17]  
Remillard J.T., Bryans M.B., Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning, Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, pp. 352-388, (2004)
[18]  
Reys R., Reys R., Two high school mathematics curricula paths—which one to take?, Mathematics Teacher, 102, 8, pp. 568-570, (2009)
[19]  
Schoenfeld A.H., What doesn’t work: The challenge and failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula, Educational Researcher, 35, 2, pp. 13-21, (2006)
[20]  
Senk S., Thompson D., Viktora S., Usiskin Z., Ahbel N., Rubenstein R., Levin S., UCSMP Advanced Algebra, (2001)