Abstract
This report identifies mathematics and science curricula as well as professional
development models at the middle and high school levels that are effective based on their
success in increasing student achievement. The goal of the study was to provide some
choice to districts and schools that wanted guidance in selecting a curriculum and that
wished to use effectiveness as a selection criterion. Unexpectedly, most middle and high
school mathematics and science curricula did not have studies of student achievement
with comparison groups, and it proved especially difficult to find effects in either math or
science for subgroups by sex, minority status, and urban status. Findings strongly
suggest that science curricula is more effective when it is inquiry-based, although math
curricula can be effective when standards- or traditional-based.
REVIEW OF EVALUATION STUDIES OF
MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE CURRICULA AND
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODELS
By
Beatriz C. Clewell
Clemencia Cosentino de Cohen
The Urban Institute
and
Patricia B. Campbell
Lesley Perlman
Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc.
with
Nicole Deterding
Sarah Manes
Lisa Tsui
The Urban Institute
and
Shay N.S. Rao
Becky Branting
Lesli Hoey
Rosa Carson
Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc.
Submitted to the GE Foundation
December 2004
Acknowledgments
A number of individuals contributed to this effort in various ways. We were
fortunate to have the assistance of Gerhard Salinger of the National Science Foundation;
Jo Ellen Roseman of Project 2061 at the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS); Joan Abdallah at AAAS; and several staff members at the Center for
Science Education at the Education Development Center—Barbara Berns, Jeanne
Century, Joe Flynn, Elisabeth Hiles, Jackie Miller, Marian Pasquale, and Judith Sandler
—in helping us identify science curricula that might have evaluation studies. We are also
deeply indebted to those who reviewed our report and offered useful suggestions for
revising it: Jane Butler Kahle at Miami University of Ohio and Linda Rosen of
Education & Management Innovations, Inc. Thanks are due to William Bradbury and
Cara West, Urban Institute staff who helped in the production of the report. Most of all,
we wish to express our appreciation for the responsiveness of curriculum developers and
researchers whose curricula are reviewed in this report and who shared evaluation studies
with us.
Last, but not least, we thank our program officer, Roger Nozaki and his colleague,
Kelli Wells, both of the GE Foundation, for their insightful comments and suggestions on
the report draft that helped to make this document more user-friendly. We thank the GE
Foundation for funding this review and for taking an evidence-based approach to school
reform. We think it’s the only way to go.
REVIEW OF EVALUATION STUDIES OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE
CURRICULA AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODELS
Introduction
This report presents the findings of a review of about four hundred studies
evaluating mathematics and science curricula and professional development models for
middle school and high school. As requested by the GE Foundation, the main goal of this
review was to identify, in response to the GE Foundation’s request, mathematics and
science curricula as well as professional development models that had been deemed
effective based on their success in increasing student achievement. The Foundation’s
interest in these findings stems from its desire to initiate a program of funding to foster
sustainable improvement in academic achievement of underrepresented and
disadvantaged populations.
Historically, curriculum choice at the local level has often been made by a
committee that decides which curriculum to adopt based on considerations only
peripherally related to student achievement—such as state-imposed standards,
recommendations of others, cost, and presentations by publishers’ representatives. Choice
of professional development models follows a similar pattern. Indeed, there has been very
little else available to guide school districts in their curriculum selection process, since
for most curricula and textbooks the only data at hand are publishers’ figures on the
number of adoptions. That has been changing. There is a growing movement to assess the
effectiveness of math and science curricula through various methodologies, including
content analyses, comparative studies, case studies, and synthesis studies.1 And while
there have been several studies of the effectiveness of professional development
practices, very few have measured the effects of these practices on student achievement.
In this document, we describe the methodology used to conduct this review,
present our findings, and end with a summary of conclusions. To provide an international
perspective on these topics, the report includes a brief look at the research on
mathematics and science education in three countries that are similar in key dimensions
to the U.S.
Methodology
Criteria for Selecting Evaluation Studies
We developed a set of criteria to guide the selection of evaluation studies to be
included in our review. Studies were expected to have (1) rigorous methodological
design; (2) measures of impact on student outcomes (which include, but are not limited
1
The majority of these efforts have been undertaken by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science (AAAS), the National Research Council (NRC), and the U.S. Department of Education. The
AAAS study used content analysis, the NRC study did not rate specific curricular math programs, and the
U.S. Department of Education study reviewed middle school math programs only.
1
to, test scores); (3) comparative data, cross-sectional or longitudinal, with experimental
and quasi-experimental designs preferred over others; and (4) high quality and valid data.
We offer several caveats regarding the quality of the evaluation studies that we
report in this document, especially those on mathematics and science curricula. Because
of the dearth of studies that met our criteria, we were forced to compromise and include a
number of evaluations that did not report effect sizes; a few that did not give the
statistical significance levels for differences; and several that lacked non-treatment
comparison groups. In some cases we were unable to verify the quality of the data on
which findings were based. It was also a source of great disappointment that so few of the
studies we identified disaggregated findings by sex, race/ethnicity, or urban school
location. We believe, however, that taken as a whole the studies that are included here
offer useful insight into the condition of mathematics and science curricula in middle and
high school.
Identification of Curricula/Professional Development Models
Using research databases such as the Education Resource Information Center
(ERIC), Education Abstracts, and web sites such as Northwest Regional Education
Laboratory’s Catalog of School Reform Models, we conducted a literature search of
articles and reports pertaining to (1) major mathematics and science curricula used at the
middle and high school level; and (2) empirical studies that examine how teacher
professional development in science and mathematics affects student outcomes. The
review team also gathered and reviewed relevant documents that were not accessible
through traditional research outlets. It was much more the case for science than for
mathematics that most of the evaluation studies of recent curricula were unpublished
reports of evaluations conducted by the program developers. On the other hand, a large
number of published mathematics curriculum studies were available for inclusion in this
review. Appendix D contains lists of all mathematics and science curricula for which
studies were sought.
Primary sources of mathematics reform models were the Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory’s database on whole-school reform models2 and Comprehensive
School Reform and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis.3 Primary sources of the
mathematics curriculum were National Science Foundation-funded projects; the U.S.
Department of Education’s “What Works Clearinghouse” and the Mathematics Expert
Panel; the Mathematical Sciences Education Board’s Review of the Evaluation Data on
the Effectiveness of NSF-Supported and Commercially Generated Mathematics
Curriculum Materials; and the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s
Project 2061.
2
http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog/index.shtml
Borman, G. D., G. M. Hewes, L. T. Overman, and S. Brown. 2002. Comprehensive School Reform and
Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. CRESPAR Report No. 59. Baltimore, Md.: CRESPAR/Johns
Hopkins University. http://www.csos.jhu.edu/CRESPAR/techReports/report59.pdf,
3
2
In order to ensure broad coverage of the science curriculum studies, we contacted
experts on science curricula at organizations such as the Education Development Center,
the Technology Education Research Center (TERC), the National Science Foundation,
Project 2061, and others. In view of how few published evaluations of science curricula
we were able to identify, we attempted to locate more recently developed curricula that
might not yet have produced published evaluation studies. Once these curricula were
identified through conversations with experts in the field, we obtained contact
information on the developers of these programs and approached each of them to
ascertain whether or not they had evaluation data or reports on the effectiveness of their
curricula that met our established criteria. Several developers either did not respond to
our requests or responded that they had not yet completed evaluation studies. We were
able, however, to secure a number of evaluation reports from developers and reviewed
these to determine whether or not they met our criteria for inclusion in this study. We
also scoured the Internet for sources of information on curricula and on relevant
evaluation studies.4
Finally, to facilitate our analysis of the data, we developed matrices into which we
entered relevant information on each of the studies that met our criteria. This information
included the methodological design, the analytic technique, student outcome areas
measured, outcome measures and instruments used, number in the sample, whether data
were disaggregated by race/ethnicity and sex, and impact. We also included descriptive
information about the curriculum, including the subject matter, targeted grades,
curriculum name, whether or not it had a professional development component,5 and its
principal instructional features.
We were able to locate very few studies of professional development models that
used student achievement measures of effectiveness.6 Most of these studies were found
via an extensive review of the literature, including ERIC, Education Abstracts, ProQuest,
EbscoHost and others. A matrix containing descriptive information on the professional
development models and on the study elements was prepared for all the professional
development evaluation studies that we identified.
4
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)’s Project 2061:
http://www.project2061.org/publications/articles/textbook/default.htm, Department of Education's
Mathematics and Science Education Expert Panels:
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/math-science.html, Eisenhower National
Clearinghouse for Mathematics and Science Education: http://www.enc.org, Center for the Social
Organization of Schools: http://www.csos.jhu.edu/, Education Development Center, Inc.’s Center for
Science Education: http://cse.edc.org, Education Resource Information Center (ERIC): http://eric.ed.gov,
Northwest Regional Education Lab: http://www.nwrel.org/scpd/catalog/index.shtml, National
Clearinghouse for Comprehensive School Reform: http://www.csrclearinghouse.org/ National Science
Resources Center: (http://www.nsrconline.org/), The Textbook League: (http://www.textbookleague.org/),
University of Wisconsin-Madison’s National Center for Mathematics and Science:
(http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ncisla/), curriculum company web sites, developer web sites (i.e., at Johns
Hopkins, LHS, etc.), with follow-up to authors of studies, and subscription electronic journal databases:
(ProQuest Research Library Plus, JSTOR, Education Abstracts, EbscoHost, and Project MUSE)
5
Most of the data on the mathematics curricula did not provide this information, while that on the science
curricula did.
6
The paucity of such studies has been mentioned by several researchers (Harlen 2004; Kennedy 1998;
Marek and Methven 1991).
3
The International Component
Criteria for selecting countries for international comparison. Our report includes
an international comparative study of a set of countries that may contribute useful
information to the research at hand. The goal of this comparison is to garner additional,
corroborating evidence on best practices. This required that countries be selected
carefully and purposefully, based on the degree to which their experiences may be useful
to the U.S. We selected nations based on two main criteria: (1) average country
achievement on different mathematics and science tests (only high achievers were
considered);7 and (2) similarity to the U.S. on key features of their educational systems—
namely, degree of centralization of decisionmaking with respect to the curriculum; degree
of centralization of decisionmaking with respect to textbook use; and degree of
stratification or selectivity of the system. Focusing on those countries that performed well
on average and whose educational systems were closest to the U.S. yielded three nations
for comparison: Canada, Australia, and England.8 The section entitled “International
Comparative Study” provides a discussion of findings, as well as additional information
regarding country selection.
Identification of relevant research on selected nations. We conducted a review of
the literature on the three selected countries based on several sources. These included
databases such as ERIC and Proquest, as well as institutional sources—such as OECD,
UNESCO, and the World Bank—and studies arising from the tests used for selection
herein—Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and
Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). The review focused first on
studies of characteristics of candidate educational systems and then on curriculum,
pedagogy, and professional development at selected countries.
Findings of the Review
Interpreting Results: Some Things to Consider
The validity of the test.
Issues for mathematics curriculum studies. During the past 15 years, mathematics
curriculum development has moved in two different directions. Traditional curricula have
continued the hierarchical structure of mathematics courses broken out by specific
subject area: algebra, followed by geometry, followed by a more advanced
algebra/trigonometry and pre-calculus. Calculus is made available for accelerated
7
Country performance was based on three tests— Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) 1995 and 1999, and Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000.
8
England is not a “high achiever”, as it experiences achievement levels similar to the U.S., but it was
included for reasons spelled out on page 12, under “The International Comparative Study: Conclusions.”
4
students, usually those who took algebra in the eighth grade. Standards-based curricula
tend to be more interdisciplinary, providing students with a range of subject areas the first
year and returning to them during each subsequent year, allowing for deeper analysis and
understanding that tends to be more focused on longer-term problem solving.
The content and skills covered by most standardized achievement tests tend to
reflect more closely the content and skills covered by traditional mathematics curricula
than those covered by standards-based curricula, causing them to have better “content
validity” for traditional curricula. Many researchers of standards-based curricula are
aware of this and develop their own student achievement tests that more accurately test
the skills and content of standards-based curricula. If students taking one curriculum
score higher than others on both types of test, there is no question of interpretation.
Beyond that, however, judgments of efficacy must take into account the content validity
of the tests in order to determine which type of curriculum is more effective.
Issues for science curriculum studies. As inquiry-based science curricula have
become a major tool for standards-based reform efforts across the U.S., a dilemma has
arisen regarding the appropriateness and credibility of assessments to measure
effectiveness of these curricula in terms of student achievement. Basically, the dilemma
can be described in the words of Walker and Schaffarzick (1974), who concluded from
their review of innovative curricula that: “innovative students do better when the criterion
is well-matched to the innovative curriculum, and traditional students do better when the
criterion is matched to the traditional curriculum” (p. 94). To address potential lack of
“fit”, curriculum developers have developed their own assessments that more closely
measure the intended effects on students. Results from standardized tests, however, carry
greater credibility and are used by most states for accountability purposes (although less
for science than for mathematics). The dilemma posed, which is similar to that faced in
mathematics, does not seem, nevertheless, to be as much of a problem in science.
Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport (1983), for example, in conducting their large metaanalysis, compared the results of standardized tests to those of other forms of assessment
and found very small differences. More recently, Hamilton, McCaffrey, Stecher, Klein,
Robyn, and Bugliari (2003) report that the differences between multiple-choice
(standardized) and open-response tests of student achievement that they observed in
evaluating the effects of standards-based mathematics and science instruction at 11 sites
were not significant. Ruby (2001) discovered that the positive relationship of hands-on
science and test scores that he found did not differ by type of test.
Measures used. The evaluation studies reported here for mathematics and science
curricula used a variety of assessments—some standardized, some state-mandated, some
self-developed, and some developed by others specifically for standards-based curricula.
The types of assessment tools used in the evaluations are specified for each study, and
judgments regarding the content validity of the assessments used should guide
determinations about the effectiveness of these curricula.
5
The size of the difference. Most impact studies for both mathematics and science
curricula reported the statistical significance of their results.9 Statistical significance
represents the probability that an observed difference really exists and is not due to
chance. It does not say anything about the size or meaningfulness of a result. (Being
statistically significant is a first step—if there are no statistically significant differences
then there are no differences.) If differences are statistically significant then there is
another measure, called an effect size, which provides a measure of size—that is, shows
how big the difference is. Effect sizes greater than .4 are considered large; between .2 and
.4 are considered moderate; and less than .2 are considered small (Glass, McGaw, and
Smith, 1981). Readers can also look at the size of statistically significant differences and
decide for themselves how meaningful they are.
The target population or district context. Unfortunately, very few studies
presented data on effects by sex, race/ethnicity, or urban school location. Where data are
disaggregated by these characteristics, we have highlighted these findings, which enhance
our knowledge about the effectiveness of curricula for populations or districts targeted by
the Foundation for funding.
Middle and High School Mathematics Curricula: Conclusions
Our review netted 89 middle and high school curricula including eight
mathematics curricula that were developed as part of whole school reform efforts (out of
31 whole school reform efforts examined) and 81 other middle and high school
mathematics curricula. A total of 156 studies of student mathematics achievement with
comparison group data were found for 18 of the curricula (20 percent of the total number
of curricula identified). A table listing the math curricula that had credible evaluations
appears in appendix A together with overviews of the 18 mathematics curricula and their
impact studies. The overviews include: the type of student achievement measure used, the
number and direction of the results, and, if available, the size of any differences between
groups. If the results were broken out by sex and/or by race/ethnicity, this, too, is
indicated. We concluded from our review of these evaluation studies that:
Most middle and high school mathematics curricula do not have studies of student
achievement with comparison groups that can be found through literature or web
searches.
As indicated above, studies of student achievement with comparison groups could be
found for only 20 percent (18) of the curricula. Only three of the studies found specified
the curriculum to which the target curriculum was being compared. The rest compared
their curriculum to some unnamed curriculum, making comparisons across curricula
impossible.
9
Where inferential statistics were used, only differences that reached the conservative minimum acceptable
statistical significance level of .05 were included. Inferential statistics were used in all science studies with
one exception, which is noted in the description.
6
If students are going to be judged on the results of an external test, the mathematics
curriculum selected should cover the areas and skills that are included on that test
(i.e., the test and curriculum should be aligned).
Different mathematics curricula cover different content areas at different times. Three of
the 18 curricula—Saxon Math, Direct Instruction, and Advanced Placement Calculus—
cover traditional mathematics subject areas (i.e., algebra, geometry) while the remaining
15 integrate traditional mathematics subject areas across years rather than covering a
subject area per year. Whether a curriculum is “integrative” or “traditional” has
implications for testing. As would be expected, students tend to score higher on tests
focusing on the content and skills covered in their curriculum. Traditional math curricula
have greater content validity than do standards-based curricula in most standardized and
state tests. Integrative mathematics curricula, which are standards based, have greater
content validity with standards-based tests than do most traditional curricula.
Studies of six of the curricula (Cognitive Tutor, Connected Mathematics, Interactive
Mathematics Program, Prentice Hall: Tools for Success, Saxon Math and University
of Chicago School Mathematics Project [UCSMP]) found that students who use the
curriculum being tested scored higher than comparison students on a majority of
standardized and/or state tests used as well as on a majority of the curriculumbased tests used.
One of the six curricula, Saxon, focuses on traditional course breakdowns (i.e., algebra,
geometry), while four curricula—Connected Mathematics, Interactive Mathematics,
Prentice Hall, and UCSMP—are integrative. The last curriculum, Cognitive Tutor,
includes both traditional and integrative components. Moderate to large achievement
differences between target and comparison students, as indicated by effect size, were
found in favor of four of the six curricula (Cognitive Tutor, Connected Mathematics,
Interactive Mathematics, and Prentice Hall). All six curricula cover middle school and
three—Cognitive Tutor, Saxon, and UCSMP—cover high school as well.
The few results broken out by sex were inconsistent.
Only five of the 18 curricula—Cognitive Tutor, Connected Mathematics, Interactive
Mathematics, MATH Connections, and Mathematics with Meaning—broke out results by
sex. In Connected Mathematics and MATH Connections, no sex differences were found,
while in Mathematics with Meaning, boys scored slightly higher than girls. In Cognitive
Tutor, the results were mixed. Girls taking Interactive Mathematics were slightly more
apt than boys to continue on to three or more years of mathematics.
Connected Mathematics appeared to be reducing racial/ethnic gaps.
Four Connected Mathematics studies looked at the relative growth in achievement by
race/ethnicity. In two studies, African-American and Hispanic students showed greater
growth than the other Connected Mathematics students. In a third study, AfricanAmerican students showed greater growth than others, while in a final study Hispanic,
7
White, African-American and Asian-American students’ scores increased while Native
American students’ scores decreased.
With the exception of Connected Mathematics, too few results per curriculum were
broken out by race to allow us to draw general conclusions regarding racial/ethnic
effects.
Five curricula presented results by race/ethnicity (Cognitive Tutor, Connected
Mathematics, MATH Connections, Mathematics in Context, and Mathematics with
Meaning). A MATH Connections study found no significant difference by race/ethnicity
among MATH Connections students, while in Mathematics with Meaning, white students
outperformed minority students. Other studies compared target students with comparison
students of the same race/ethnicity. African-American Mathematics in Context students
in one study were found to score better than comparison students. In one Cognitive Tutor
study, African-American students scored better than comparison students, while there
was no difference for Hispanic students. In a second study, Hispanic students using
Cognitive Tutor did better than comparison students. As detailed in the section above,
Connected Mathematics studies provided more consistent evidence that the curriculum
was successful in reducing racial/ethnic gaps.
Middle and High School Science Curricula: Conclusions
We identified 80 science curricula at the middle and high school levels.10
Similar to the mathematics curriculum, which was included in eight whole-school reform
efforts, we found seven science curricula that had been developed specifically as a part of
whole school reform.
A total of 45 studies of student achievement in science were found that met our criteria,
covering 26 percent (21) of the total science curricula identified. A table listing these
curricula as well as brief descriptions of each and the results of the studies are given in
appendix B. As with the mathematics curricula, the study descriptions include the type of
student achievement measures used, a description of the results from each study, and, if
available, the effect sizes of any differences between groups. Results by sex,
race/ethnicity, limited English-proficiency (LEP) status, or urban schools are provided
where available. Our review of evaluation studies of science curricula led us to the
following conclusions:
As with mathematics curricula, most middle and high school curricula do not have
evaluation studies of student achievement with comparison groups that can be
found through published literature or web searches.
Of the 80 curricula identified, studies that met our criteria (45) could only be found for 21
curricula. None was a publisher’s textbook series. In contrast to the mathematics
10
Of the 80 science curricula identified, 59 had no evaluations or had evaluations that did not meet our
criteria, or evaluations were out of print, or we did not receive a response from the developers.
8
curricula, however, many of which had been the subjects of multiple studies, most of the
science curricula had only one evaluation or study, usually unpublished works available
through the developer. Because the National Science Foundation (NSF) was a pioneer in
developing standards-based science curricula (the first wave of these appeared in the
sixties), there were published meta-analyses that examined the effect on student
achievement of a large group of NSF-funded science programs—all inquiry-based—on
student achievement as compared to the effect of traditional, textbook-based science
curricula. We believe that the dearth of evaluation studies of single science curricula can
be explained by the relatively recent development of the new generation of science
curricula, many of which were also funded by NSF. Not enough time has elapsed for
these curricula to have been the subject of multiple studies, and those studies that are
available have been conducted mostly as evaluations by the developers of the curricula.
Science curricula based on the inquiry approach are consistently more effective
than traditional science curricula as measured by student achievement.
The preponderance of evidence provided by meta-analyses and evaluations of individual
curricula seem to confirm that inquiry-based science curricula produce larger effects on
student achievement than do the more “traditional” science curricula. The largest study of
this kind (Shymansky, Kyle, and Alton 1983), which was reanalyzed in 1990
(Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth), involved 81 studies (reanalysis figures). While
this meta-analysis found that inquiry-based science programs had the greatest impact on
student achievement and process skill development in the primary grades (with
significant differences in effect sizes found at the intermediate elementary level [four
through six] for attitudes and perceptions only), by the junior high and high school levels,
significant impact was found on achievement, attitude, and process skills. Other metaanalyses have reported greater positive effects on student performance for inquiryoriented science than traditional approaches for high school curricula (Weinstein,
Boulanger, and Walberg 1982); inquiry-discovery teaching techniques (Wise and Okey
1983); and an inductive rather than a deductive approach to teaching (although this effect
was very small) (Lott 1983).11 No meta-analysis on inquiry-based science curricula of
the magnitude undertaken by Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport in 1983 (and Shymansky,
Hedges, and Woodworth in 1990) has been published on more recent inquiry-based
science curricula, although researchers at Education Development Center are currently
conducting such a study, and the National Research Council held a meeting in May 2004
on the topic of evaluating inquiry-based science.
The direction of the effects of inquiry-based science curricula on student achievement
and performance is generally positive, as shown in the individual evaluations of the
curricula that are identified in this report. Programs showing the greatest positive effects
11
These earlier meta-analyses used the terms “new” and “innovative” to describe inquiry-based science
curricula. The distinction between “new” and “traditional” curricula was set forth by Shymansky and his
colleagues (1983), with “new” curricula (a) having been developed after 1955; (b) emphasizing the nature,
structure, and processes of science; (c) integrating lab activities as an integral part of the class routine; and
(d) emphasizing higher cognitive skills and appreciation of science. “Traditional” curricula were defined as
(a) having been developed before 1955; (b) emphasizing knowledge of scientific facts, laws, theories, and
applications; and (c) using lab activities as secondary applications of concepts previously covered in class.
9
are (1) a set of activity models for use in physical science and technology education
courses in middle and high school (Designs/Designs II); (2) a comprehensive, laboratorybased program in which students in grades seven through nine construct their own
knowledge through experiential, hands-on learning (Foundational Approaches in Science
Teaching [FAST]); (3) curriculum materials to support the development of integrated
science understanding for middle school students in urban schools (Center for Learning
Technologies in Urban Schools [LeTUS]); (4) a supplemental program for average-togifted students in grades two through eight employing problem-based learning to engage
students in the study of the concept of systems, specific science content, and the scientific
research process (National Science Curriculum for High Ability Learners); (5) a program
to promote understanding of physics principles in the context of experiences relating to
the daily lives of high school students (Physics Resources and Instructional Strategies for
Motivating Students [PRISMS]); and (6) an inquiry-based, technology-supported
environmental science curriculum for high school (WorldWatcher/LATE).
It is difficult to determine the effect of these science curricula on different
subgroups of students—such as girls, minority group members, and urban students.
Very few of the curricula had studies that met our criteria and disaggregated their
findings by sex, language minority status, or urban location. Surprisingly, none of the
studies reported data disaggregated by race/ethnicity.
Sex. In one evaluation study of Constructing Ideas in Physical Science (CIPS),
participation did not appear to have closed the gender achievement gaps on multiplechoice content, process questions, or open-ended content items. One of two studies on
Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS) provided evidence that
participating in at least one LeTUS unit reduced the boy-girl achievement differences on
statewide examinations. Evaluation data on Modeling Instruction in High School Physics
show that, in terms of performance, male students consistently outperform female
students. The Designs/Designs II evaluation reported that on measures of conceptual
knowledge, there was no significant difference in the gains made by girls versus boys.
Thus, one (LeTUS) of the four curricula that reported data by sex showed greater gains in
(some areas of) achievement for female students. Two (CIPS and Designs/Designs II)
showed no differences and a fourth showed larger gains for boys. A large meta-analysis
of NSF-funded inquiry-based programs (Shymansky, Kyle, and Alport 1983), which was
resynthesized in 1990 (Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth), found that the NSFfunded “new” science curricula had a significant positive effect on males but not on
females in terms of composite performance; analytic skills of females, nevertheless,
improved significantly in the inquiry-based science programs.
Race/Ethnicity, LEP Status, or Urban School Attendance. Interestingly, evaluations of
two inquiry-based curricula reported positive results for English Language Learners
(ELLs). The use of FOSS in fourth and sixth grade classes for ELLs showed a positive
relationship between years in the science program and standardized test scores. The
evaluation of Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB) reported consistent gains
in all science subject areas over five years for one school where the number of immigrant
10
(ELL) students grew by 22 percent. This school also had a high percentage of
economically disadvantaged students (i.e., students on free and reduced lunch).
The large meta-analysis of NSF-funded inquiry-based programs (Shymansky, Kyle, and
Alport, 1983), which was re-synthesized in 1990 (Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth),
found that the NSF-funded inquiry-based programs, while having a greater effect on all
students than did the traditional programs, showed (1) a much greater effect on the
composite and achievement scores of urban students than on their suburban or rural
counterparts and (2) a much greater effect on the analytic scores of urban students than
on their suburban counterparts. WorldWatcher/Learning about the Environment (LATE)
reported higher gains for urban students than for suburban students. It is surprising that
none of the studies that provided disaggregated data on urban students showed separate
outcomes by race/ethnicity.
Most science curricula include a professional development component.
At least 16 of the 21 science curricula for which we report evaluation studies have
professional development components. Inclusion of a professional development
component as a part of the curriculum is far more prevalent in science than in
mathematics because science curricula tend to be more discretionary and variable than
mathematics curricula (Kennedy 1998), leading developers to provide more guidance to
teachers regarding the appropriate instructional approaches to be used for specific
curricula.
Professional Development Programs: Conclusions
We identified 18 evaluation studies of professional development in science and
mathematics that used student achievement outcomes as measures of effectiveness.12 A
matrix outlining general features of these studies appears in appendix C. Our search for
studies that met established criteria was facilitated by the research of Mary Kennedy
(1998). The following are the conclusions that we draw from a review of these 18 studies
and others:
Providing professional development for teachers of standards-based science
curricula is associated with higher levels of student achievement.
The re-analysis of the large 1983 meta-analysis of inquiry-based science curricula
(Shymansky, Hedges, and Woodworth 1990) found larger effect sizes on student
performance measures for students of teachers in inquiry-based courses who had
participated in professional development linked to the use of inquiry-based materials.
(Students of teachers using inquiry who had not had professional development still
outperformed students in traditional courses, but the former were outperformed by
students in inquiry-based courses whose teachers had received professional
development.) Similarly, an evaluation of an inquiry-based science curriculum, Project
Inquiry, found that teachers who received professional development in implementing
12
Five of these were connected to specific mathematics or science curricula.
11
standards-based, inquiry-oriented instructional strategies (and who used the specific
science materials linked to the program) had students who performed significantly higher
on two science assessments (Rose-Baele 2003). This is also true of an evaluation of
Modeling Instruction in High School Physics. This evaluation found that the students of
high school physics teachers who had completed the modeling workshop series
demonstrated much greater gains on a widely used physics assessment tool than physics
students of the same teachers the year before participation in the professional
development series and a comparison group of high school physics students a decade ago
(Hestenes 2000).
Professional development that is tied to curriculum, to knowledge of subject matter,
and/or to how students learn the subject is more effective in terms of improving
student achievement than is professional development that focuses only on teaching
behaviors.
A number of studies have concluded that the content of professional development is more
important than its format and that content should be linked to subject matter knowledge, a
specific curriculum, or the process of student learning. In her analysis of 12 studies of
professional development models that reported effects on student achievement, Kennedy
(1998) found that the models showing the largest effect sizes were those that focused on
subject matter knowledge and on student learning of a particular subject. This finding
was echoed in the work of McCaffrey, Hamilton, and Stecher (2001) in a large-scale
study of high school standards-based mathematics reform in a large urban school district
that was part of NSF’s Urban Systemic Initiative program. One of their conclusions was
that in order to be effective, professional development for teachers should consider
curriculum and instructional practices in combination. In the researchers’ words, “Simple
prescriptions for how to teach are unlikely to be effective” (p. 10). Cohen and Hill (1998)
addressed the question of whether students of teachers who received professional
development focused on student curriculum scored higher on state mathematics
assessments in California. They found that teachers who attended curriculum-centered
workshops and who had learned about the state assessment system had students who
received higher achievement scores on the state test than students of teachers who had not
participated in the workshops or learned about assessment.
The amount of professional development provided is an important factor in
influencing both change in teaching behavior of teachers and change in the
classroom environment.
The amount of professional development provided to teachers is another factor that has
received attention in the literature. While several studies suggest that professional
development, to be effective, should be intensive and sustained, (Kahle and Rogg 1996;
Supovitz and Turner 2000), we found only one study that specifically investigated how
many hours of professional development were required to effect a change in teaching
behavior (towards inquiry-based teaching practice). This study found that behavioral
change was only evident after teachers had received a minimum of 80 hours of intensive
professional development (Supovitz and Turner 2000). The same study found that it was
12
only after 160 hours of professional development that the teachers’ classroom
environment acquired a “culture of investigation.”13 Evaluators of Project Inquiry found
that the number of self-reported hours of Project Inquiry-sponsored professional
development was positively associated with science achievement of students (Rose-Baele
2003). Kennedy (1998), however, cautions against adopting a “more is better” approach
to professional development. She points out that of the 12 professional development
models that she investigated, amount of contact time was not the most important factor
determining the largest effect sizes (although, coincidentally, the most effective model
reported 80 in-service contact hours, which was the minimum effective contact time
found by other research [Supovitz and Turner 2000]).
Widely held beliefs about what constitutes effective professional development are
not supported by research linked to student achievement.
In Kennedy’s study of 12 professional development models, she examined various
features of in-service programs that have been hypothesized as being important elements
of successful professional development (1998). These features are (1) program intensity
as measured by total contact time with teachers (discussed above); (2) dispersal of time
(whether it is concentrated or interspersed throughout the school year); (3) classroom
visits by experts for consultation or coaching; and (4) whole school or individual
provision of professional development. Her conclusions suggest that while professional
development in science seems to benefit from distributed time (sessions throughout the
academic year), the studies in mathematics do not support the hypothesis that distributed
time is beneficial. Four of the programs reviewed by Kennedy provided in-class
visitations, yet none produced greater influences on student learning than those that did
not. Kennedy’s study also found no compelling evidence that in-service programs
working with whole schools are more effective in terms of increasing student
achievement in mathematics or science; in fact, the programs in her study that worked
with whole schools demonstrated the smallest influences on student learning.
The International Comparative Study: Conclusions
As mentioned earlier, countries were selected based on the degree to which their
experiences may be useful to the U.S. We therefore selected, first, nations that were high
achieving on international tests of student achievement. Among these, we selected those
whose educational system was closest to the U.S.’s. This yielded three nations—
Australia, Canada, and England. Two of them—Canada and Australia—are ideal insofar
as their systems of education are closest to the U.S.’s. One of them—England—is more
centralized than the U.S. (with a national curriculum, for example); more selective (i.e.,
not a comprehensive system of education); and is not as high achieving as the others
(experiencing achievement levels similar to the U.S., sometimes higher and sometimes
13
“Teacher behavior” in this context refers to teachers’ use of specific pedagogical approaches in
instruction, such as inquiry-based teaching practices. “Change in the classroom environment” refers to
teacher facilitation of an investigative classroom culture through seating arrangements to stimulate
discussion, use of cooperative learning groups, encouraging students to explain concepts to one another,
and other such practices.
13
lower). All of them, however, share other characteristics that make them good points of
reference for the U.S. They are high-income, developed nations and spend similar shares
of GDP on kindergarden through twelfth grade education. They are also culturally closer
to the U.S. than the Asian and European countries that are generally highest achieving
(e.g., Japan and Netherlands). This provides a natural (albeit partial) control for cultural
disparities that may account for some of the observed achievement differences. Lastly,
these nations have experienced, like the U.S., pressure from federal authorities seeking to
influence educational policy.14 The conclusions below are based on a review of the
relevant literatures on these three nations and are presented (selectively) as a complement
to the conclusions arising from the literature review of curricula and professional
development in U.S. mathematics and science discussed above.
Curriculum: Trends in the selected countries follow those found to be effective in the
U.S.—shift from theory to applications, integration of subjects.
It is important to note that, like the U.S., two of the selected countries—Australia and
Canada—have no national curriculum while one does (England). Australia delegates
curriculum decisions to the member states, much like the U.S. Canada does the same
thing, but de facto experiences convergence in curriculum coverage across provinces due
to coordination through a Council of Ministers and through book purchases (the same
publishers furnish books for all the provinces).
These countries have experienced a shift from theory to applications and utility. There is
greater emphasis on math and science relevance and importance. There is also emphasis
on integrating mathematics and science with other subjects and disciplines, as well as
over time (i.e., building better course/content sequences). These changes—as well as the
pedagogical ones mentioned below—often clash with testing requirements, as existing
tests (usually the centerpiece of accountability efforts as well as certification of student
achievement levels) tend to focus on acquired knowledge, on theory rather than on
processes, or on demonstrated problem-solving skills. This goes back to the issue of
“content validity” discussed earlier—that is, the degree to which the material covered in
the test and the curriculum are aligned.
Pedagogy: Strategies prevalent in the selected nations are those found to be effective
in the U.S. literature.
The tendency in all of these nations has been to transition, in both math and science,
away from traditional textbook-based instruction and into inquiry-based, hands-on
pedagogical approaches. They emphasize problem-solving skills over rote memorization,
active modeling/activity-based instruction over passive textbook or lecture-based
learning. There is also greater emphasis on “data analysis” and on real-world
applications, particularly in mathematics. They also are moving towards increased use of
technology in classroom instruction. These changes come hand in hand with a decreased
emphasis on textbook use (though there is evidence of continued reliance on textbooks)
14
The case of England is an extreme example of this, as it has a national curriculum and unprecedented
national government influence in education since 1988.
14
and greater diversity of materials used in the classroom (manipulative, technology, nontextbook printed materials, etc.).15 These conclusions are true of Canada and Australia
and to a lesser extent of England as well.
To summarize, these nations (in particular Canada and Australia, the higher achieving of
the three) seem to have shifted from a formal, traditional teaching approach to one
centered on applications to the real world, on student interactions (group work) and on
student-teacher interactions (interactive learning rather than lectures). This also could be
described, partly, as a shift in the locus of responsibility for learning—from the teacher to
the student.
Professional Development: There are virtually no studies (outside of the U.S.) of the
impact of professional development on teaching practices or on student
achievement, but there is widespread recognition of the importance of professional
development and the need for evaluation of its impact.
Country studies indicate that professional development is offered by a variety of
organizations (schools, boards, professional organizations, universities, central
governments or departments of education). There is great variation with respect to all
aspects of professional development opportunities—number of days/hours, funding
sources, decisions regarding form and content of training, and extent to which teachers
take advantage of them. There is, however, a clear emphasis on the importance of
professional development (and, more generally, teacher quality) to raise student
achievement. This is also true of the need to provide professional development
opportunities to elementary school teachers, who often lack the knowledge and
confidence needed to teach science. Professional development thus focuses, depending on
the need of different teacher populations, on content knowledge and/or pedagogy.
Leadership skills are another area of focus of professional development. Unfortunately,
evidence on the types or forms or intensity of professional development opportunities that
are effective (in these countries) is lacking. In detailed country reports on this topic
recently published by OECD, all three nations mentioned the need to obtain evidence of
the link between professional development and teacher practices and, ultimately, student
learning.16
Summary of Conclusions
In this section, we summarize the major conclusions of this review that should be
most useful to those wishing to invest in sustainable school reform in science and
mathematics.
•
Effective mathematics curricula in middle and high school can be either
traditional or integrative (standards-based).
15
England, the lowest achieving of the three in mathematics, relies on mathematics textbooks and lecture
style more than the other two countries.
16
The Canadian report was based on one province, Quebec.
15
•
Effective science curricula in middle and high school should be inquiry-based
rather than traditional.
•
Effective professional development programs are those that focus on content
rather than format and that have the following features:
Content tied to curriculum, knowledge of subject matter, and/or how students
learn a subject;
A minimum of 80 contact hours to effect changes in teachers’ instructional
behaviors; and
A minimum of 160 contact hours to effect changes in the classroom
environment.
How to Use This Review
Choice of a curriculum in mathematics and science involves deciding what
aspects of these subjects are important to address and emphasize in schools—this choice
thus determines what students will learn. Once a decision is made, selection should be
guided by how effective a particular curriculum is for the student population to be taught.
The National Research Council report, On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging
the Quality of K–12 Mathematics Evaluations (2004) describes the value of this
knowledge to the decisionmaking process:
Clearly, knowing how effective a particular curriculum is, and for whom
and under what conditions it is effective, represents a valuable and
irreplaceable source of information to decisionmakers, whether they are
classroom teachers, parents, district curriculum specialists, school boards,
state adoption boards, curriculum writers and evaluators, or national
policymakers. Evaluation studies can provide that information but only if
those evaluations meet standards of quality (p.1).17
This review of math and science curricula has tried to simplify for schools and districts
the complex, time-consuming process of determining curriculum effectiveness by
identifying programs that have what we consider to be credible evaluations. We have also
distilled the findings of achievement-based research on professional development to a
handful of principles that reflect effective practice. Once schools and districts have
decided on a curriculum and an appropriate assessment tool, they might wish to collect
their own impact data to evaluate how well the curriculum they choose is working with
17
Confrey, Jere, and Vicki Stohl, eds. 2004. On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality
of K–12 Mathematics Evaluations. Committee for a Review of the Evaluation Data on the Effectiveness of
NSF-Supported and Commercially Generated Mathematics Curriculum Materials. National Research
Council. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
16
their own students.18 It is the responsibility of the school and district community to
ensure that the content that they want students to learn is embodied in the curriculum, that
the curriculum is effective for this purpose, and that appropriate measures are used to
assess whether students are indeed learning what the community wants them to learn. It is
an enormous task and an enormous responsibility. We hope that our review can provide
some guidance and assistance in the process.
18
For those schools and districts that already have programs that they feel are effective but are not included
in tables 1 and 2, we suggest that they collect their own effectiveness data via evaluation studies that adhere
to the criteria established in this review. They may wish to contract with an evaluator for this purpose.
17
Bibliography
18
General Resources
Cohen, D.K., and Hill, H.C. 1998. State Policy and Classroom Performance:
Mathematics Reform in California (Policy Brief RB-23). University of
Pennsylvania: Consortium for Policy Reform in Education. Retrieved on 9/8/04
from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rb23.pdf.
Glass, G.V., McGaw, B., and Smith, M.L. 1981. Meta-Analysis in Social Research.
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Hamilton, L.S., McCaffrey, D.F., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S.P., Robyn, A., and Bugliari, D.
2003. Studying Large-Scale Reforms of Instructional Practice: An Example From
Mathematics and Science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 1–
29.
Harlen, W. 2004. Evaluating Inquiry-Based Science Developments. Washington, D.C.:
National Research Council. Retrieved on 10/15/04 from
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/WHarlen_Inquiry_Mtg_Paper.pdf.
Hestenes, D. 2000. Findings of the Modeling Workshop Project (1994–00). From Final
Report Submitted to National Science Foundation. Retrieved on 10/28/04 from
http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingWorkshopFindings.pdf.
Kahle, J.B., and Rogg, S.R. 1996. A Pocket Panorama of the Landscape Study, 1995.
Oxford, Ohio: Miami University.
Kennedy, M. 1998. Form and Substance in In-Service Teacher Education (NISE
Research Monograph No. 13). Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin, National
Center for Improving Science Education. Retrieved on 9/15/04 from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/NISE/Publications/Research_Monographs/vol13.pdf.
Lott, G.W. 1983. The Effect of Inquiry Teaching and Advance Organizers Upon Student
Outcomes in Science Education: A Meta-Analysis of Selected Research Studies.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 437–51.
McCaffrey, D.F., Hamilton, L.S., and Stecher, B.M. 2001. Interactions Among
Instructional Practices, Curriculum, and Student Achievement: The Case of
Standards-Based High School Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 32, 493–517.
Rose-Baele, J.S. 2003. Report of Fifth Grade Outcome Study, Science for all Students,
2001–2002 (Project Inquiry Report: No. 03-226). Arlington, Va.: National
Science Foundation. Retrieved on 8/26/04 from
http://www.ccsdschools.com/administration/assessment/PIpage.html.
19
Ruby, A. 2001. Hands-On Science and Student Achievement. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand
Corporation. Retrieved on 8/25/04 from
http://www.rand.org/publications/RGSD/RGSD159/
Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., and Woodworth, G. 1990. A Re-Assessment of the
Effects of Inquiry-Based Science Curricula of the Sixties on Student
Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 127–44.
Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., and Alport, J.M. 1983. The Effects of New Science
Curricula on Student Performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,
387–404.
Supovitz, J.A., and Turner, H.M. 2000. The Effects of Professional Development on
Science Teaching Practices and Classroom Culture. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37, 963–80.
Walker, D.F., and Schaffarzick, J. 1974. Comparing Curricula. Review of Educational
Research, 44, 88–111.
Weinstein, T., Boulanger, F.D., and Walberg, H.J. 1982. Science Curriculum Effects in
High School: A Quantitative Synthesis. Journal for Research in Science
Teaching, 19, 511–22.
Wise, K.C., and Okey, J.R. 1983. A Meta-Analysis of The Effects of Various Science
Teaching Strategies on Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
20, 419–35.
20
Mathematics Curriculum Resources
Meta-analysis of Mathematics Curricula
Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., and Brown, S. 2002. Comprehensive
School Reform and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis. CRESPAR Report
No. 59. Baltimore, Md.: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved 11/2/04 from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/CRESPAR/techReports/report59.pdf.
Advanced Placement (AP) Calculus
Dodd, B.G., Fitzpatrick, S.J., DeAyala, R.J., and Jennings, J.A. 2002. An Investigation of
the Validity of AP Grades of three and a Comparison of AP and Non-AP Student
Groups (College Board Report No. 2002-9). New York, NY: College Board.
Morgan, R. and Ramist, L. 1998. Advanced Placement Students in College: An
Investigation of Course Grades at 21 Colleges (Statistical Report No. 98–13).
Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.
Morgan, R. and Maneckshana, B. 2000. Advanced Placement Students in College: An
Investigation of their Course-Taking Patterns and College Majors (Statistical
Report No. 2000-09). Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service.
Texas Education Agency. 2003. Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate
Examination Results in Texas, 2001–02 (Document No. GE03 601 08). Austin,
Tex.: Author.
Cognitive Tutor
Carnegie Learning, Inc. 2001. Report of Results from Canton, Ohio (Cognitive Tutor
Research Report OH-01-01). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Author. Retrieved on 10/28/04 from
http://www.carnegielearning.com/start.cfm?startpage=research/research_reports/
OH-01-01.pdf.
Carnegie Learning, Inc. 2001. Report of Results from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
(Cognitive Tutor Research Report PA-91-01). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Author. Retrieved
on 10/28/04 from http://www.carnegielearning.com/start. cfm?startpage=research/
research_reports /PA-95-01.pdf.
Carnegie Learning, Inc. 2001. Results from El Paso, Texas (Cognitive Tutor Research
Report TX-00-01). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Author. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
21
http://www.carnegielearning.com/start.cfm?startpage=research/research_reports/T
X-00-03.pdf.
Carnegie Learning, Inc. 2001. Results from Lewisville, Tex.. (Cognitive Tutor Research
Report TX-00-01). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Author. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.carnegielearning.com/start.cfm?startpage=research/research_reports/T
X-00-01.pdf.
Carnegie Learning, Inc. 2001. Results from The Colony, Tex. (Cognitive Tutor Research
Report TX-00-02). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Author. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.carnegielearning.com/start.cfm?startpage=research/research_reports/T
X-00-02.pdf.
Carnegie Learning, Inc. 2002. Results from El Paso, Tex. (Cognitive Tutor Research
Report TX-01-01). Pittsburgh, Pa.: Author. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.carnegielearning.com/start.cfm?startpage=research/research_reports/T
X-01-01.pdf.
Carnegie Learning, Inc. 2002. Results from Moore, Okla. (Cognitive Tutor Research
Report OK-01-01). Moore, Okla.: Author. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.carnegielearning.com/start.cfm?startpage=research/research_reports/
Carnegie Learning, Inc. 2004. Miami-Dade County Public Schools. Pittsburgh, Pa.:
Author. Retrieved 10/28/04 from http://www.carnegielearning.com/
start.cfm?startpage=research/research_reports/miami_dade.pdf.
Koedinger, K.R., Corbett, A.T., Ritter, S., and Shapiro, L.J. 2001. Carnegie Learning’s
Cognitive Tutor™: Summary Research Results. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.carnegielearning.com/research/research_reports/ Summary_9.6.01.pdf
Sarkis, H. 2004. Cognitive Tutor Algebra 1. Program Evaluation Miami-Dade County
Public Schools May 2004. (The Reliability Group Research Report
DADEcognitive_evaluation). Retrieved 10/28/04 from
`http://www.carnegielearning.com/start.cfm?startpage=research/research_reports/
College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM)
CPM Educational Program. 2003. California SAT9 results for CPM High Schools 1998–
2002 Test Results Summary. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.cpm.org/info/sat9_98_02.html.
Haswell, R.W. 1995. Effectiveness of CPM vs. Traditional Math. Retrieved 9/28/04 from
http://www.mathematicallycorrect.com/study1.htm.
22
Connected Mathematics (CMP)
Grant, Y., Ludema, H., Rickard, A., and Rivette, K. 2003. Connected Mathematics
Project Research and Evaluation Summary 2003. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.phschool.com/math/cmp/research_evaluation/.
Ridgway, J.E., Zawojewski, J., Hoover, M.D., and Lambdin, D. 2002. Student
Attainment in the Connected Mathematics Curriculum. In Sharon Senk and
Denisse R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula:
What are They? What do Students Learn? (pp. 193–224). Mahwah, N.J.:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Contemporary Mathematics in Context: A Unified Approach (Core-Plus
Mathematic Project CPMP)
Core-Plus Mathematics Project. 1998. Contemporary Mathematics in Context Student
Achievement Reports, Volume I. Chicago, IL: Everyday Learning Corporation.
Retrieved 11/1/2004 from http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/pdfs/results.pdf.
Evans, C. 2001. Advanced Placement Calculus at Sturgis High School. Retrieved
10/28/04 from
http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/pdfs/Sturgis_HS_AP_Calc_Report.pdf.
Fouch, D., and Moore, D. 2001. Advanced Placement Calculus and Statistics at Traverse
City High Schools. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/pdfs/Traverse_City_AP_Results.pdf.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Core-Plus Mathematics Project (n.d.). Evaluation
Evidence. Retrieved 10/28/04 from: http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/faqpieces/evidence.html.
Mariano, T. 2003. Ithaca High School CPMP Pilot Test. Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/pdfs/ithaca.pdf
Schoen, H.L., and Hirsch, C.R. 2002. The Core-Plus Mathematics Project: Perspectives
and Student Achievement. In Sharon L. Senk and Denisse R. Thompson (Eds.),
Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do
Students Learn? (pp. 311–343.) Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stucki, J. 2004. Wayzata High School, Plymouth, MN, Mathematics Program Evaluation.
Retrieved 10/28/04 from http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/pdfs/wayzata.pdf.
Verkaik, M. 2001. CPMP Student Performance at Holland Christian High School.
Retrieved 10/28/04 from
http://www.umich.edu/cpmp/pdfs/Holland_Chrtn_Stud_Achieve.pdf.
23
Direct Instruction
Grossen, B.J. 2002. The BIG Accommodation Model: The Direct Instruction Model for
Secondary Schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7(2), 241–
263.
Ligas, M.R., and Vaughan, D.W. 1999. Alliance of Quality Schools: 1998–99 Evaluation
Report. Broward, Florida: Broward County Schools.
Edison Schools
American Federation of Teachers. 1998. Student Achievement in Edison Schools: Mixed
Results in an Ongoing Enterprise. Washington, D.C.: Author. Retrieved 10/28/04
from: http://www.aft.org/research/downloads/charter/Edison1998.pdf.
Edison Schools. 2001. Fourth Annual Report. Retrieved 11/2/04 from
http://www.edisonschools.com/annualreport2001.pdf.
Miron, G., and Applegate, B. 2000. An Evaluation of Student Achievement in Edison
Schools Opened in 1995 and 1996. Western Michigan University: The Evaluation
Center. Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/edison/edison.html.
Nelson, F.H., and Van Meter, N. 2003. Update for Student Achievement in Edison
Schools Inc. Washington, D.C.: American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved
10/28/04 from http://www.aft.org/research/downloads/charter/Edison2003.pdf.
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IMaST)
Center for Mathematics, Science and Technology (n.d.). Success of the IMaST Program.
Normal, IL: Center for Math, Science and Technology, Illinois State University.
Retrieved 11/1/04 from http://www.ilstu.edu/depts/cemast/imast/success.htm.
Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP)
IMP Students Score Higher Than Traditional Peers (n.d.). Interactive Mathematics
Program Resource Center. Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.mathimp.org/research/evaluation/article7.html.
24
Philadelphia IMP Research Summary. (n.d.). Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.gphillymath.org/StudentAchievement/Reports/SupportData/PhilIMPR
esearch.htm.
Research Supporting the Interactive Mathematics Program. 2004. Emeryville, Calif.:
Key Curriculum Press. Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.mathimp.org/downloads/IMPWhitePaper.pdf.
Standardized Tests: Highlights from Current Studies of IMP Student Performance. (n.d.).
Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.mathimp.org/research/evaluation/article2.html.
Summary of IMP vs. Non-IMP Students. (n.d.). Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.gphillymath.org/StudentAchievement/Reports/SupportData/PassRate
Compare.pdf.
Turner, S. 1999. IMP Students Score Higher Than Their Peers on SAT9. Can This be
Mathematically Correct? IMP. Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.mathimp.org/downloads/research/SylviaTurnerArticle.pdf.
Webb, N.L. 2002. The Impact of the Interactive Mathematics Program on Student
Learning. In Sharon L. Senk and Denisse R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-Based
School Mathematics Curricula: What are They? What do Students Learn?
(pp.375–408). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wolff, N. 1994. Test Date: October 1994 Sophomore PSAT Scores. Retrieved 11/1/04
from http://www.gphillymath.org/StudentAchievement/Reports/SupportData/
PSATScoreCompare.pdf.
MATH Connections
Cichon, D. and Ellis, J.G. 2002. The Effects of MATH Connections on Student
Achievement, Confidence and Perception. In Sharon L. Senk and Denisse R.
Thompson (Eds.), Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What are
They? What do Students Learn? (pp. 345–374). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
What Does Research Say About the MATH Connections Program and Student
Achievement? (n.d.). Retrieved 11/1/04:
http://www.mathconnections.com/evaluation/evalsum.html.
Mathematics in Context (MiC)
25
Romberg, T.A. and Shafer, M.C. 2002. Mathematics in Context (MiC)—Preliminary
Evidence About Student Outcomes. In Sharon L. Senk and Denisse R. Thompson
(Eds.), Standards-Based School Mathematics Curricula: What are They? What do
Students Learn? (pp. 225–250). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Webb, D. and Meyer, M. (n.d.). Summary Report of Student Achievement Data for
Mathematics in Context: A Connected Curriculum for Grades 5–8. Madison,
Wisc.: Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved 11/5/04 from
http://mic.britannica.com/mic/common/MicAndStudentAchievement
/mic_report.pdf.
Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW/ARISE)
Abeille, A., and Hurley, N. 2001. Final Evaluation Report: Mathematics Modeling Our
World (MMOW). Stoneham, Mass.: Learning Innovations. Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.comap.com/highschool/projects/mmow/FinalReport.pdf.
Mathematics with Meaning
Garet, M., and Le Floch, K.C. 2003. Evaluation of Mathematics with Meaning and
Textual Power 2002–2003 School Year Final Report. Washington, D.C.:
American Institutes for Research.
LeFloch, K.C. 2004, October. Evaluation of Mathematics with Meaning and Textual
Power 2003–2004 School Year Final Report. Washington, D.C.: American
Institutes for Research.
MATH Thematics
Billstein, R., and Williamson, J. 2002. Middle Grades MATH Thematics: the STEM
Project. In Sharon L. Senk and Denisse R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-Based
School Mathematics Curricula: What are They? What do Students Learn? (pp.
251–281). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., and 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.
Prentice Hall: Tools for Success
26
Gatti, G.G. (n.d.). Prentice Hall Mathematics Algebra 1 National Effect Size Study
Executive Summary. Lebanon, Ind.: Prentice Hall. Retrieved 11/1/04 from:
http://www.phschool.com/Research/math/pdfs/national_effectsize_study_alg1.pdf
Gatti, G.G. (n.d.). Prentice Hall Mathematics Middle Grades Math National Effect Size
Study Executive Summary. Lebanon, Ind.: Prentice Hall. Retrieved 11/1/04 from
http://www.phschool.com/Research/math/pdfs/national_effectsize_study_
mgm.pdf.
Prentice Hall Mathematics. 2004. Program Efficacy Studies 1998–2003: Clinical
Research Reports Supporting the Efficacy of the Prentice Hall Mathematics
Program. Lebanon, Ind.: Prentice Hall. Retrieved 11/1/04 from:
http://www.phschool.com/Research/math/pdfs/pes_1998_2003.pdf
Saxon Math: An Incremental Development
Saxon Publishers. 2004. Scientific Research Base for Saxon Math K–12: Foundational
Research and Program Efficacy Studies. Norman, Okla.: Author. Retrieved
11/1/04 from:
http://www.saxonpublishers.com/pdf/research/saxon_math_research.pdf.
Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science (SIMMS)
Lott, J., Hirstein, J., Burke, M., Lundin, M., Allinger, G., Souhrada, T.A., Walen, S., and
Preble, D. 2002. Curriculum and Assessment in SIMMS Integrated Mathematics.
In Sharon L. Senk and Denisse R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-Based School
Mathematics Curricula: What are They? What do Students Learn? (pp. 399–423).
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP)
Senk, S. 2002. Effects of UCSMP Secondary School Curriculum on Students’
Achievement. In Sharon L. Senk and Denisse R. Thompson (Eds.), StandardsBased School Mathematics Curricula: What are They? What do Students Learn?
(pp. 425–456). Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27
Science Curriculum Resources
Meta-analyses of Science Curricula
Lott, G.W. 1983. The effect of inquiry teaching and advance organizers upon student
outcomes in science education: A meta-analysis of selected research studies.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 437–51.
Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., and Woodworth, G. 1990. A Re-Assessment of the
Effects of Inquiry-Based Science Curricula of the Sixties on student
Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 127–44.
Shymansky, J.A., Kyle, W.C., and Alport, J.M. 1983. The Effects of New Science
Curricula on Student Performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20,
387–404.
Wise, K.C., and Okey, J.R. 1983. A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Various Science
Teaching Strategies on Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
20, 419–35.
Weinstein, T., Boulanger, F.D., and Walberg, H.J. 1982. Science Curriculum Effects in
High School: A Quantitative Synthesis. Journal for Research in Science
Teaching, 19, 511–22.
BSCS Science: An Inquiry Approach
BSCS 2004. Evidence of Student Achievement. Colorado Springs, CO: BSCS. Retrieved
11/19/2004 from http://www.bscs.org/library/Results.pdf.
Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS)
Geier, R., Blumenfeld, P., Marx, R., Krajcik, J., Fishman, B., and Soloway, E. 2004.
Standardized Test Outcomes of Urban Students Participating in Standards and
Project-Based Science Curricula. In Y.B. Kafai, W.A. Sandoval, N. Enyedy, A.S.
Nixon, and F. Herrera (Eds.), Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference
of the Learning Sciences (pp. 206–213). Santa Monica, Calif.: Erlbaum.
Marx, R.W., Blumenfeld, P.C., Krajcik, J.S., Fishman, B., Soloway, E., Geier, R., and
Tal, R.T. (in press). Inquiry-Based Science in the Middle Grades: Assessment of
Learning in Urban Systemic Reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching.
Rivet, A.E., and Krajcik, J.S. (in press). Achieving Standards in Urban Systemic Reform:
An Example of a Sixth Grade Project-Based Science Curriculum. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching.
28
Constructing Ideas in Physical Science (CIPS)
Smith, P.S., and Banilower, E. 2002. Constructing Ideas in Physical Science (CIPS)
Evaluation Report. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Horizon Research, Inc.
DESIGNS/DESIGNS II
Sadler, P.M. 2003. Evaluation Supplement to the Final DESIGNS Report. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
Event-Based Science (EBS)
Rosenbaum, H. 1996. Evaluation of Event-Based Earth Science Project for the National
Science Foundation. Rockville, Md.: Montgomery County Public Schools.
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB)
Borman, G.D., Hewes, G.M., Overman, L.T., and Brown, S.A. 2002. Comprehensive
School Reform and Student Achievement: A Meta-Analysis (CRESPAR Report
No. 59.) Baltimore, Md.: Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed
At Risk, Johns Hopkins University. Retrieved 8/2/04 from
http://www.csos.jhu.edu/crespar/techReports/Report59.pdf.
Foundational Approaches in Science Teaching (FAST)
Curriculum Research and Development Group. 1999. Foundational Approaches in
Science Teaching (FAST) Summary of Evaluations. Honolulu, HI: Author.
Foundational Approaches in Science Teaching. (n.d.). Submission to the Expert Panel on
Mathematics and Science Education.
Full Option Science System (FOSS)
Amaral, O.M., and Garrison, L. 2002. Helping English Learners Increase Achievement
Through Inquiry-Based Science Instruction. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2),
213–39.
Rose-Baele, J.S. 2003. Report of Fifth Grade Outcome Study, Science for All Students,
2001–2002. (NSF Report No. 03-226). Arlington, Va.: National Science
Foundation. Retrieved 8/26/04 from
http://www.ccsdschools.com/administration/assessment/PIpage.html.
29
Global Lab Curriculum (GLC)
Young, V.M., Haertel, G., Ringstaff, C., and Means, B. 1998. Evaluating Global Lab
Curriculum: Impacts And Issues Of Implementing A Project-Based Science
Curriculum. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI, International.
Great Explorations in Mathematics and Science (GEMS)
Sneider, C., Kurlich, K., Pulos, S., and Friedman, A. 1984. Learning to Control Variables
With Model Rockets: A Neo-Piagetian Study of Learning in Field Settings.
Science Education, (68)4, 463–84.
Sneider, C.I., and Ohadi, M.M. 1998. Unraveling Students’ Misconceptions About the
Earth’s Shape and Gravity. Science Education, 82, 265–84.
High Schools that Work (HSTW)
Frome, P. 2001. High Schools that Work: Findings from the 1996 and 1998 Assessments.
Research Triangle Park, N.C.: Research Triangle Institute. Retrieved on 10/1/04
from http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/ResearchReports/ RTI_study.pdf.
Kaufman, P., Bradby, D., and Teitelbaum, P. 2000. High Schools that Work and Whole
School Reform: Raising Academic Achievement of Vocational Completers
Through the Reform of School Practice. Berkeley, Calif.: National Center for
Research in Vocational Education, University of California, Berkeley.
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology Curriculum (IMaST)
Satchwell, R.E., and Loepp, F.L. 2002. Designing and Implementing an Integrated
Mathematics, Science, and Technology Curriculum for the Middle School.
Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, (39)3. Retrieved on 10/20/04 from
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JITE/v39n3/satchwell.html.
Issues, Evidence, and You (IEY)/SEPUP
Wilson, M., Sloane, K., Roberts, L., and Henke, R. 1995. SEPUP Course I, Issues,
Evidence and You: Achievement Evidence from the Pilot Implementation.
Berkeley, Calif.: University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved on 10/15/2004
from http://www-gse.berkeley.edu/research/BEAR/Publications/Sepup95.pdf.
30
Learning by Design (LBD)
Holbrook, J.K., Gray, J., Fasse, B., Camp, P., and Kolodner, J. 2001. Assessment and
Evaluation of the Learning by Design™ Physical Science Unit, 1999–2000: A
Document in Progress. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology. Retrieved
on 10/15/04 from http://www.cc.gatech.edu/projects/lbd/Conference_Papers/html/
eval_results/evaluation_results_99-00.html.
Kolodner, J.L., Gray, J., and Fasse, B.B. 2003. Promoting Transfer through Case-Based
Reasoning: Rituals and Practices in Learning by Design Classrooms. Cognitive
Science Quarterly, (3)2, 183–232.
Modeling Instruction in High School Physics
Hestenes, D. 2000. Findings of the Modeling Workshop Project (1994–00). Arlington,
Va.: National Science Foundation. Retrieved on 10/28/2004 from
http://modeling.la.asu.edu/R&E/ModelingWorkshopFindings.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education Expert Panel. 2001. Expert Panel Review: Modeling
Instruction in High School Physics. Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/pffices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/math-science.html
National Science Curriculum for High Ability Learners
U.S. Department of Education Expert Panel. 2001. Expert Panel Review: National
Science Curriculum for High Ability Learners. Washington, D.C.: Office of
Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved on 11/1/04 from
http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/highabilityproj.html.
VanTassel-Baska, J., Bass, G., Ries, R., Poland, D., and Avery, L.D. 1998. A National
Study of Science Curriculum Effectiveness with High Ability Students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, (42)4, 200–11
Physics Resources and Instructional Strategies for Motivating Students (PRISMS)
Hartman, D. (n.d.) Documentation of Structured Analysis for Selecting ScientificallyBased Research: Instructional Strategies and Programs. [Review of unpublished raw
data: Unruh, R. Physics resources and instructional strategies for motivating
students.]
Unruh, R., Countryman, L., and Cooney, T. 1992. The PRISMS Approach: A Spectrum
of Enlightening Physics Activities. The Science Teacher, (59)5.
31
Science 2000/Science 2000+
California State University, Fresno. 1996. Instructional Technology Project: Research
Report. Fresno, Calif.: Author.
U.S. Department of Education Expert Panel. 2001. Expert Panel Review: Science 2000.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Retrieved
on 11/1/04 from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OERI/ORAD/KAD/expert_panel/
science2000.html.
Science and Technology Concepts for Middle Schools (STC/MS)
Yeh, S.S., and Pedulla, J.J. 2001. Evaluation of the Science and Technology Concepts for
Middle Schools (STC/MS) Program, Phase II. Boston, Mass.: Center for the
Study of Testing, Evaluation and Educational Policy, Boston College.
The Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS)
Bredderman, T. 1983. Effects of Activity-Based Elementary Science on Student
Outcomes: A Quantitative Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 53(4),
499–518.
Shymansky, J.A., Hedges, L.V., and Woodworth, G. 1990. A Re-Assessment of the
Effects of Inquiry-Based Science Curricula of the Sixties on Student
Achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 27(2), 127–44.
World Watcher/Learning about the Environment Curriculum (LATE)
Crawford, V., and Toyamsa, Y. 2002. World Watcher/Learning About the Environment
Curriculum Final External Evaluation Report. Menlo Park, Calif.: SRI
International. Retrieved on 10/20/04 from http://www.ctl.sri.com/publications/
downloads/Evaluation_of_LATE_Report1.pdf.
32
Professional Development Resources
Carpenter, T.P., Fennema, E., Peterson, P.L., Chiang, C.P., and Loef, M. 1989. Using
Knowledge of Children's Mathematics Thinking in Classroom Teaching: An
Experimental Study. American Education Research Journal, 26, 499–531.
Carpenter, T.P., Empson, S.B., Fennema, E., Franke, M.L., and Levi, L. 2000.
Cognitively Guided Instruction: A Research-Based Teacher Professional
Development Program for Elementary School Mathematics. Madison, Wisc.:
National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in
Mathematics and Science, University of Wisconsin.
Cobb, P., Wood, T., Yackel, E., Nicholls, J., Wheatley, G., Trigatti, B., and Perlwitz, M.
1991. Assessment of a Problem-Centered Second-Grade Mathematics Project.
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(1), 13–29.
Cohen, D.K., and Hill, H.C. 1998. State Policy and classroom Performance:
Mathematics Reform in California (Policy Brief RB-23). University of
Pennsylvania: Consortium for Policy Reform in Education. Retrieved 9/8/04 from
http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rb23.pdf.
Good, T.L., and Grouws, D.A. 1979. The Missouri Mathematics Effectiveness Project: an
Experimental Study in Fourth-Grade Classrooms. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 71, 355–62.
Good, T.L., Grouws, D.A., and Ebmeier, H. 1983. Active Mathematics Teaching. New
York, NY: Longman.
Hamilton, L.S., McCaffrey, D.F., and Stecher, B.M., Klein, S.P., Robyn, A., and
Bugliari, D. 2003. Studying Large-Scale Reforms Of Instructional Practice: An
Example from Mathematics and Science. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 25(1), 1–29.
Harlen, W. 2004. Evaluating Inquiry-Based Science Developments. Washington, D.C.:
National Research Council. Retrieved 10/15/04 from
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bose/WHarlen_Inquiry_Mtg_Paper.pdf.
Kahle, J.B., and Rogg, S.R. 1996. A Pocket Panorama of the Landscape Study, 1995.
Oxford, Ohio: Miami University
Kennedy, M. 1998. Form and Substance in In-Service Teacher Education (NISE
Research Monograph No. 13). Madison, Wisc.: National Center for Improving
Science Education, University of Wisconsin. Retrieved 9/15/04 from
http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/NISE/Publications/Research_Monographs/vol13.pdf.
33
Lawrenz, F., and McCreath, H. 1988. Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Evaluation
Methods to Compare Two Teacher Inservice Training Programs. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 25, 397–407.
Marek, E.A., and Methven, S.B. 1991. Effects of the Learning Cycle Upon Student and
Classroom Teacher Performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28,
41–53.
Mason, D.A., and Good, T.L. 1993. Effects of Two-Group and Whole-Class Teaching on
Regrouped Elementary Students' Mathematics Achievement. American Education
Research Journal, 30, 328–60.
McCaffrey, D.F., Hamilton, L.S., and Stecher, B.M. 2001. Interactions Among
Instructional Practices, Curriculum, and Student Achievement: The Case of
Standards-Based High School Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 32, 493–517.
Otto, P.B., and Schuck, R.F. 1983. The Effect of a Teacher Questioning Strategy
Training Program on Teaching Behavior, Student Achievement, and Retention.
Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 521–28.
Radford, D.L. 1998. Transferring Theory Into Practice: A Model for Professional
Development for Science Education Reform. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 35, 73–88.
Rose-Baele, J.S. 2003. Report of Fifth Grade Outcome Study, Science for All Students,
2001–2002 (Project Inquiry Report: No. 03-226). Arlington, Va.: National
Science Foundation. Retrieved 8/26/04 from
http://www.ccsdschools.com/administration/assessment/PIpage.html.
Rubin, R.L., and Norman, J.T. 1992. Systematic Modeling Versus the Learning Cycle:
Comparative Effects of Integrated Science Process Skill Achievement. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 29, 715–27.
Smith, E.L., Blakeslee, T.D., and Anderson, C.W. 1993. Teaching Strategies Associated
with Conceptual Change Learning in Science. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 30, 111–26.
Stallings, J., and Krasavage, E.M. 1986. Program Implementation and Student
Achievement in a Four-Year Madeline Hunter Follow Through Project. The
Elementary School Journal, 87(2), 117–38.
Stevens, R.J., and Slavin, R.E. 1995. The Cooperative Elementary School: Effects on
Students' Achievement, Attitudes, and Social Relations. American Educational
Research Journal, 32, 321–51.
34
Supovitz, J.A., and Turner, H.M. 2000. The Effects of Professional Development on
Science Teaching Practices and Classroom Culture. Journal of Research in
Science Teaching, 37, 963–80.
Villasenor, A., and Kepner, H.S. 1993. Arithmetic from a Problem-Solving Perspective:
An Urban Implementation. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 24,
62–70.
Wood, T., and Sellers, P. 1996. Assessment of a Problem-Centered Mathematics
Program: Third Grade. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 337–
53.
35
Selected International References
Ainley, J.G. 1997. Australia. In David Robitaille (Ed.), National Contexts for
Mathematics and Science Education (pp. 39–49). Vancouver, Canada: Pacific
Educational Press.
Council of Ministers of Education, Canada. 2003. Attracting, Developing and Retaining
Effective Teachers. (OECD Country Background Report) Paris, France: OECD.
Davis, C.J. 1997. England. In David Robitaille (Ed.), National Contexts for Mathematics
and Science Education (pp. 119–129). Vancouver, Canada: Pacific Educational
Press.
Dekkers, J., Highway, B., and de Laeter, J. 2001. Enrollment Trends in School Science
Education in Australia. International Journal of Science Education, (23)5, 487–
500.
Ingvarson, L. 2003. Building a Learning Profession. Australian Council for Educational
Research, Policy Brief (Issue 3, November). Retrieved 11/2/04 from
http://www.acer.edu.au/publications/documents/PolicyBriefIssue3
BuildLearningprofession_000.pdf.
Jenkins, E.W. 2000. The Impact of the National Curriculum on Secondary School
Science Teaching in England and Wales. International Journal of Science
Education, (22)3, 325–36.
Lokan, J., and Greenwood, L. 2000 Mathematics Achievement at Lower Secondary Level
in Australia. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 26, 9–26.
Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) data source:
http://www.pisa.oecd.org/.
Ross, A. and Hutchings, M. 2003. Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective
Teachers in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. (OECD
Country Background Report). Paris, France: OECD.
Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C., Valverde, G.A., Houang, R.T., and Wiley, D.E. 1997.
Many Visions, Many Aims. Volume 1: A Cross-National Investigation of
Curricular Intentions in School Mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands:
Kluwer Academic.
Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C., Valverde, G.A., Houang, R.T., and Wiley, D.E. 1997b.
Many Visions, Many Aims Volume 2: A Cross-National Investigation of
Curricular Intentions in School Science. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer
Academic.
36
Shilbeck, M., and Connell, H. 2003. Attracting, Developing and Retaining Effective
Teachers. Australia Country Background Report. Paris, France: OECD.
Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) data source:
http://timss.bc.edu/.
Taylor, A.R. 1997. Canada. In David F. Robitaille (Ed.), National Contexts for
Mathematics and Science Education. (pp. 70–81). Vancouver, Canada: Pacific
Educational Press.
Valverde, G.A., and Schmidt, W.H. 2000. “Greater Expectations: Learning From Other
Nations in the Quest for ‘World-Class Standards’ in U.S. School Mathematics and
Science.” Journal of Curriculum Studies, (32)5, 651–87.
37
Appendix A: Detailed Findings of the Review of Math Curricula
This appendix provides a list of the mathematics curricula included in our review,
together with a description of each curriculum and its related evaluation studies. Table 1
lists the mathematics curricula identified as having evaluation studies that met our
criteria.
Table 1: Math Curricula with Studies
Grades
Covered
K
Curriculum Name
Subject Matter
12
K
Edison Schools
Mathematics
Direct Instruction
Mathematics
Cognitive Tutor
*[sex, race/ethnicity]
Mathematics
Connected Mathematics (CMP)
*[sex, race/ethnicity]
Mathematics
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IMaST)
Mathematics
Mathematics in Context (MiC)
*[race/ethnicity]
Mathematics
MATHThematics
Mathematics
Prentice Hall: Tools for Success
Mathematics
Saxon Math: An Incremental Development
Mathematics
Mathematics with Meaning
*[sex, race/ethnicity]
Mathematics
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP)
Mathematics
College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM)
Mathematics
Contemporary Mathematics in Context: A Unified Approach (Core-Plus
Mathematics Project CPMP)
Mathematics
Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP)
*[sex]
Mathematics
MATH Connections
*[sex, race/ethnicity]
Mathematics
Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW/ARISE)
Mathematics
Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science (SIMMS)
Mathematics
8
middle school
middle school
middle school
middle school
6
8
middle school
middle school
7
7
12
12
9 12
9 12
9 12
9 12
9 12
9 12
11-12
Advanced Placement (AP) Calculus
Calculus
Note: Shaded curricula are those for which we have found the strongest evidence of effectiveness, that is, quantitative evidence
that their use in instruction elicits higher achievement/performance in sudents than other curricula to which they are compared on
both standardized and/or state tests AND on curriculum developed tests. There are several curricula for which this evidence of
effectiveness has not been collected but which might also qualify as effective should appropriate studies be conducted. An
omission from this list of many curricula signifies merely that these curricula have not yet provided quantitative evidence of
effectiveness that meets our criteria.
* An asterisk marks curricula for which effectiveness data are provided for subgroups of students, indicated in brackets.
A- 1
A Description of the Mathematics Curricula and Evaluation Studies Found
In addition to a description of each curriculum, these overviews include the type of
student achievement measure used, the number and direction of the results, and, if
available, the size of any differences between groups. If the results were broken out by
sex and/or race and ethnicity, this too is indicated.
The types of measures used in the impact studies are broken into five categories:
• standardized achievement tests (i.e., PSAT, SAT, SAT-9, and Iowa Test of Basic
Skills)
• state-mandated achievement tests (i.e., FCAS, MEAP, and MCAS)
• standards-based curriculum-driven measures (i.e., Balanced Assessment, Problem
Situation Test)
• teacher-based measures (i.e., GPA, school tests, and mathematics courses taken)
• percent passing different mathematics courses
In the charts that follow within this appendix, results were tracked rather than the number
of studies. Multiple grades and multiple measures were counted as multiple results and
broken out as such. For example, a study that looked at the impact of different subsets of
a curriculum for sixth, seventh, and eighth grades was counted as three results. Cohort
studies that tracked students across multiple grades were counted as one result. Also
counted as one result were findings from different sites within the same study using the
same measure. If a majority of sites had changes favoring the tested curriculum, the result
was indicated as positive. If the majority of sites did not differ from the comparison, the
result was indicated as no change. If a majority of sites had changes favoring the
comparison curriculum, the result was indicated as negative.
Note: Most impact studies for math curricula reported the statistical significance of their results. Only
differences that have reached the conservative minimum acceptable statistical significance level of .05 were
included in the results reported for each study. If differences are statistically significant, then there is
another measure, called an effect size, which shows how big the difference is. In our description of the
study results, we provide effect sizes where available, although very few studies reported these results.
Effect sizes greater than .4 are considered large; between .2 and .4 are considered moderate; and less than
.2 are considered small.
A- 2
Advanced Placement (AP) Calculus
The AP Calculus curriculum includes two courses: AP Calculus AB, which is
comparable to one semester of college-level calculus, and AP Calculus BC, which is
comparable to two semesters of college-level calculus. Both courses include elementary
functions, limits and continuity, and differential and integral calculus, with Calculus BC
covering these topics more extensively than Calculus AB. Prerequisites include
knowledge of analytic geometry and elementary functions in addition to college
preparatory algebra, geometry, and trigonometry. Enrolled students are expected to take
the Advanced Placement examination in Calculus AB or BC.
Contact:
College Board Headquarters
45 Columbus Avenue
New York, NY 10023-6992
Tel: 212-713-8066
Web site: http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/article/0,3045,151-165-0-2178,00.html
Results:
Five results were found from studies on the effect of AP Calculus courses. These studies
compared college mathematics performance of students who took AP Calculus with other
students who did not.
Type of measure
Teacher-based
measures/GPA
Pass rates/courses
taken
Number of
results
3
2
Results
Effect size
AP students scored higher
in two results; there were
no differences in one
result.
AP students scored higher
in one result, and there
were no differences in
one result.
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A- 3
No effect size
reported
Cognitive Tutor
The Cognitive Tutor (CT), from Carnegie Learning, includes full curricula in Algebra I,
Geometry, Algebra II, an Integrated Math Series, and Quantitative Literacy Through
Algebra. Each curriculum combines software-based, individualized computer lessons
with collaborative, real-world problem-solving activities. Students spend about 40
percent of their class time using the software and the remainder of their time engaged in
classroom problem-solving activities.
Contact:
Carnegie Learning, Inc.
1200 Penn Avenue
Suite 150
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Tel: 888-851-7094
E-mail: info@carnegielearning.com
Results:
Twenty-one results from studies on the effect of CT were found, all of which focused on
Algebra I at the middle and high school level.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Statewide tests
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
Passing rates
Number of
results
8
5
7
1
Results
Effect size
CT students scored higher
in all eight results.
CT students scored higher
in three results; there
were no differences in
two results.
CT students scored higher
in seven results.
CT students had higher
passing rates.
Moderate effect
sizes in one result
No effect size
reported
Large effect sizes in
two results
No effect size
reported
Two results looked at sex differences; in one result, CT boys’ scores were higher than
those of comparison boys. There were no differences between boys in one result, and
there were no differences for the girls’ scores in either result. Two results reported
differences by race and ethnicity. In one result, African-American CT students had higher
scores than comparison African-American students, and there were no differences for
Hispanic students. In the second result, Hispanic CT students scored higher than
comparison Hispanic students.
A- 4
College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM)
The CPM series offers a four-year integrated curriculum in which mathematics topics are
revisited and built upon through the years. Problem-solving strategies are emphasized as
a vehicle for learning mathematics, and student study teams are an integral part of the
learning process. Based on the belief that concept mastery requires time, the curriculum
spirals through practice of the main course concepts throughout each year and
emphasizes students' supportive group work. The program sees the teacher's role as a
guide.
Contact:
CPM Business Office
1233 Noonan Drive
Sacramento, CA 95822
Tel: 916-681-3611
Web site: http://www.cpm.org/
Results:
Six results from studies on the effect of CPM were found, one of which focused on
algebra and five focused on grades 9 through 11 math.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Teacher-developed
measure
Number of
results
5
1
Results
Effect size
There were no differences
in all five results.
There were no
differences.
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A- 5
Connected Mathematics (CMP)
The Connected Mathematics (CMP) curriculum is composed of eight models, each
focusing on one important area of mathematics and emphasizing previously learned
content. Connected Mathematics is designed to develop students’ knowledge and
understanding of mathematics through attention to connections: between mathematical
ideas and their applications in the world outside school; among the core ideas in
mathematics; among the strands in a modern mathematics curriculum; and between the
planned teaching-learning activities and the special aptitudes and interests of middle
school students.
Contact:
Pearson Education
P.O. Box 2500
Lebanon, IN 46052-3009
Tel: 800-848-9500
Web site: http://www.phschool.com/math/cmp/
Results:
Thirty-four results from comparison studies looking at the effect of CMP were found
focusing on middle grade mathematics.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Number of
results
11
Statewide tests
16
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
6
Teacher-based
measure
1
Results
Effect size
CMP students scored
higher for six results; they
scored lower for one
result; and there were no
differences for four
results.
CMP students scored
higher for 14 results;
there were no differences
for two results.
CMP students scored
higher for all six results.
No effect size
reported
CMP students scored
higher in one result.
No effect size
reported
Large effect sizes
were found for one
result.
No effect size
reported
Seven results were broken out by race/ethnicity and two by sex. No significant sex differences
were found. African-American CMP students were found to score higher than African-American
comparison students in six results; while Hispanic CMP students scored higher than Hispanic
comparison students in four results; in a fifth result, there were no differences. African-American
and Hispanic CMP students showed greater gains than others in two results, while African
Americans alone showed greater gains in one result. In one result, Native-American CMP student
performance decreased.
A- 6
Contemporary Mathematics in Context: A Unified Approach
(Core-Plus Mathematics Project CPMP)
Core-Plus Mathematics consists of a single core sequence for both college-bound and
employment-bound students during the first three years of high school. A flexible fourthyear course can be used to prepare students for college mathematics.
Contact:
Core-Plus Mathematics Project
Department of Mathematics
Western Michigan University
Kalamazoo, MI 49008-5248
Tel: 866-407-CPMP (2767)
E-mail: cpmp@wmich.edu
Web site: http://www.wmich.edu/cpmp/
Results:
Fifty-six results from comparison studies on the effect of CPMP were found focusing on
high school math.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Number of
results
43
Statewide tests
5
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
Teacher-based
measure/GPA
2
6
Results
Effect size
In 19 of the results,
CPMP students scored
higher; in 24 results, there
were no differences.
Students scored higher in
all five results.
Students scored higher in
both results.
CPMP students scored
higher in one result, no
differently in another, and
lower in four results.
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A- 7
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
Direct Instruction
In Direct Instruction (DI), each program is fully scripted, from what the teacher says and
anticipated student responses, to correctional procedures. Each skill is broken down into
its component parts, and then each component of the skill is taught to mastery.
Afterward, the skills are combined within a larger context where they may be utilized
across settings, resulting in generalized fluency. The DI mathematics curriculum covers
kindergarten through eighth grade, but focuses primarily on kindergarten through sixth
grade. The mathematics curriculum covers 19 different topics ranging from addition and
subtraction to money, mathematics study skills (graphs, charts, maps, and statistics), and
geometry.
Contact:
The McGraw-Hill Companies
P.O. Box 182604
Columbus, OH 43272
Tel: 888-772-4543
Web site:
http://www.sraonline.com/index.php/home/curriculumsolutions/di/connectingmath/114
Results:
Nine results from comparison studies on the effect of DI, focusing on seventh and eighth
grade math, were found.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
State test
Number of
results
6
3
Results
Effect size
DI students scored higher
for four results; they
scored lower for two
results.
In all three results, DI
students scored higher.
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A- 8
No effect size
reported
Edison Schools
Founded in 1992, Edison Schools is focused on raising student achievement through
research-based school design, aligned assessment systems, interactive professional
development, integrated use of technology, and other program features, including a
longer school day and school year. The math curriculum for grades 6 through 8 includes
applied arithmetic, prealgebra, and pregeometry, using a spiral curriculum approach to
teach concepts and ideas. The mathematics in grades 9 through 10 provides three years of
high school math in two years’ time, using an integrated application-based approach to
algebra, geometry, and trigonometry with additional emphasis on probability, statistics,
and discrete mathematics. Grades 11 and 12 incorporate advanced mathematical
modeling, Calculus and Statistics, Algebra 2, and Precalculus, as well as AP Statistics
and Calculus.
Contact:
521 Fifth Avenue, 11th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Tel: 212-419-1600
Web site: http://www.edisonschools.com/
Results:
Seventeen results from comparison studies on the effect of Edison Schools were found;
fifteen focus on middle school math and two focus on high school math.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
State test
Number of
results
8
9
Results
Effect size
For four results, Edison
students scored higher; in
the remaining four, there
were no differences.
For two results, Edison
students scored higher;
for four results, Edison
students scored lower;
and for three results, there
were no differences.
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A- 9
No effect size
reported
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IMaST)
The Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology program provides integrated sixth,
seventh, and eighth grade curricula that promote hands-on learning for students and
teamwork among teachers from different disciplines. IMaST emphasizes learning based
on constructivist theory and active student participation involving a hands-on approach
comprising a wide variety of activities.
Contact:
Ronjon Publishing, Inc.
1001 S. Mayhill Rd.
Denton, TX 76208
Tel: 800-262-3060
Web site: http://www.ilstu.edu/depts/cemast/programs/imast.shtml
Results:
One study that looked at the effect of IMaST on seventh and eighth grade students was
found.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Number of
results
1
Results
Effect size
IMaST students scored
higher for the one result.
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A - 10
Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP)
This four year, problem-based curriculum incorporates traditional branches of
mathematics (algebra, geometry, and trigonometry) with additional topics recommended
by the NCTM Standards, such as statistics, probability, curve fitting, and matrix algebra.
Students are encouraged to experiment, investigate, ask questions, make and test
conjectures, reflect, and accurately communicate their ideas and conclusions. Although
each unit has a specific mathematical focus, other topics are brought in as needed to solve
the central problem. Ideas that are developed in one unit are usually revisited and
deepened in one or more later units. Algebra and geometry are distributed throughout the
four years.
Contact:
Key Curriculum Press
1150 65th Street
Emeryville, CA 94608
Tel: 800-995-MATH (6824)
Web site: http://www.keypress.com/catalog/products/textbooks/Prod_IMP.html
Results:
Twenty-two results from comparison studies were found on the effect of IMP, all
focusing on high school.
Type of measure
Number of
Results
Effect size
results
No effect size
Standardized
12
IMP students scored
reported
achievement tests
higher for eight results;
there were no differences
for four results.
No effect size
Pass rates or courses 5
In all five results, IMP
reported
taken
students had higher
passing rates and/or were
more likely to take more
mathematics courses.
Large effect sizes
Curriculum-driven, 3
IMP students scored
were found in the
skill-specific tests
higher for all three
three results.
results.
Teacher-based
2
In both results, IMP
No effect size
measure
students scored higher.
reported
Results were not reported by race or ethnicity. The one result reported by sex found IMP
girls were slightly more apt to continue three or more years in math than IMP boys, while
the reverse was the case for comparison students.
A - 11
MATH Connections
MATH Connections (MC) is an integrated curriculum that blends ideas from traditionally
separate mathematical fields (e.g., algebra, geometry, statistics, and discrete
mathematics) in ways that blur the lines between them. This three-year curriculum
replaces the traditional Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II sequence and is designed for all
students in grades 9, 10, and 11, with honors students beginning the curriculum in grade
8.
Contact:
750 Old Main Street
Suite 303
Rocky Hill, CT 06067-1567
Tel: 860-721-7010
Web site: http://www.mathconnections.com
Results:
Fifteen results from comparison studies, all of which focused on high school students,
were found on the effect of MC.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Number of
results
6
State test
8
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific test
1
Results
Effect size
MC students scored
higher for three results;
for three results, there
were no differences.
MC students scored
higher for all eight
results.
No difference was found.
No effect size
reported
There was a large
effect size for three
results.
N/A
One result looked at sex, race, and ethnic differences and found no differences within MC
students.
A - 12
Mathematics in Context (MiC)
Mathematics in Context is a four-year middle school curriculum (grades 5 through 8) that
encourages students to discover mathematical concepts and skills through engaging
problems and meaningful contexts. Each year includes lessons in the four strands
(numbers, algebra, geometry and statistics, and probability) that are interwoven through
10 units. For example, sample algebra units include Patterns and Symbols (grade 5),
Expressions and Formulas (grade 6), Ups and Downs (grade 7), and Graphing Equations
(grade 8).
Contact:
Holt, Rinehart, and Winston
Attn: Ms. Web1
10801 N. MoPac Expressway
Building 3
Austin, TX 78759
Tel: 800-HRW-9799 (800-479-9799)
Web sites: http://www.hrw.com/math/mathincontext/
http://mic.britannica.com/mic/common/home.asp
Results:
Twenty results from comparison studies, which focused on middle school students, were
found on the effect of MiC.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
State test
Number of
results
17
3
Results
Effect size
In 15 results, MiC
students scored higher; in
two results, there were no
differences.
In two results, a
majority of classes
showed at least
moderate effect
sizes.
No effect size
reported
MiC students scored
higher for all three
results.
One result was broken out by race. No statistically significant difference was found
between African-American students using MiC and comparison students.
A - 13
Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW/ARISE)
In Mathematics: Modeling Our World (MMOW), students are taught to use a variety of
resources to solve problems and to choose resources that meet the needs of a particular
situation. As in real life, MMOW’s problems do not necessarily have perfect solutions.
MMOW works to strengthen the students’ ability to solve problems by setting goals and
thinking strategically about how to achieve these goals, solving problems through trial
and error and/or process of elimination, using technology like calculators and computers,
and working together to solve semi-structured problems and communicating the
solutions.
Contact:
W.H. Freeman and Company
41 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Tel: 800-446-8923
Web sites: http://www.whfreeman.com/highschool/contact_hs_rep.asp
http://www.comap.com/highschool/projects/mmow/introduction.htm
Results
Four results related to MMOW were found, one focusing on middle school students and
three focusing on high school students.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Number of
results
4
Results
Effect size
For three results, MMOW
students scored higher;
for one result, there were
no differences.
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A - 14
Mathematics with Meaning
Mathematics with Meaning (MwM) is not a complete curricular program; rather, it is a
combination of professional development, instructional strategies, and carefully planned
materials designed to alter the pedagogy and content of middle school and high school
mathematics courses in order to improve student achievement. The program consists of
instructional units that teachers may use on a supplementary basis or as their entire
instructional program. MwM takes a student-centered approach based on exploratory
learning and problem solving, focusing on developing conceptual understanding,
connections, and communication with mathematical concepts through frequent group
work and hands-on activities.
Contact:
College Board
Dept CBO
P.O. Box 869010
Plano, TX 75074
Tel: 212-713-8260
Tel: 800-323-7155
E-mail: Collegeboardcustomerservice@pfsweb.com
Web site: http://www.collegeboard.com
Results:
Eleven results from comparison studies on the effect of MwM were found; three focused
on middle school math achievement and eight on high school math achievement.
Type of measure
Number of
results
Results
Effect size
Statewide tests
11
In six results, there were
no differences; in five
results, MwM students
scored higher.
No effect reported
Six results were broken out by sex, four by race. In the six results where sex differences
were given, boys slightly outperformed girls. In four results where race/ethnic differences
were given, achievement scores were significantly lower for African-American students
than other students in both MwM and comparison groups.
A - 15
MATH Thematics
Middle Grades MATH Thematics (STEM) is a three-year curriculum designed for use in
grades 6 through 8. Four unifying concepts—Proportional Reasoning, Multiple
Representations, Patterns and Generalizations, and Modeling—are used across the three
years with seven content strands: Number, Measurement, Geometry, Statistics,
Probability, Algebra, and Discrete Mathematics.
Contact:
McDougal Littell Customer Service Center
A Houghton Mifflin Company
1900 S. Batavia
Geneva IL 60134
Tel: 617-351-5326
Tel: 800-462-6595
Web sites: http://www.mcdougallittell.com/
http://www.classzone.com/math_middle.cfm
Results
Six results from comparison studies were found on the effect of STEM.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Number of
results
2
Statewide tests
2
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
2
Results
Effect size
In one result, STEM
students scored higher; in
the second, there were no
differences.
In one result, STEM
students scored higher; in
the second, there were no
differences.
In both results STEM
students scored higher.
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A - 16
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
Prentice Hall: Tools for Success
In Prentice Hall Math (PHM) various mathematical strands (such as number sense,
algebra, geometry, measurement, data analysis, and problem solving) are integrated
throughout the series to ensure that students are prepared for subsequent mathematics
courses at the high school level. Each lesson includes a Think and Discuss section that
presents the new material along with questions to get students actively thinking about and
discussing important concepts. Textbooks in this curriculum include Work Together
activities that allow students to work in groups, often doing hands-on activities to
reinforce math topics.
Contact:
Pearson Education
P.O. Box 2500
Lebanon, IN 46052-3009
Tel: 800-848-9500
Web site: http://www.phschool.com/math/
Results:
Eleven results from comparison studies on the effect of PHM were found.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Number of
results
8
Statewide tests
2
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
1
Results
Effect size
PHM students scored
higher in five results; in 3
results, there were no
differences.
PHM students scored
higher in both results.
PHM students scored
higher in this result.
Moderate effect
sizes in one result
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A - 17
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
Saxon Math: An Incremental Development
Saxon Math (SM) is a kindergarten through grade 12 curriculum that systematically
distributes instruction, practice, and assessment throughout the academic year rather than
concentrating concepts in a single unit or chapter. Each increment builds upon the
foundation of earlier increments, to lead students toward a deeper understanding of
mathematical concepts. Instruction of related concepts is spread throughout the grade
level, ensuring that students have an opportunity to master each concept before they are
introduced to the next one.
Contact:
Saxon Publishers
2600 John Saxon Blvd.
Norman, OK 73071
Tel: 800-284-7019
E-mail: info@saxonpublishers.com
Results:
A total of eight results from comparison studies on the impact of SM were found,
focusing on both middle and high school.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Statewide tests
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
Teacher-based
measure/GPA
Number of
results
3
3
1
1
Results
Effect size
SM students scored
higher in all three results.
SM students scored
higher in all three results.
SM students scored
higher in this result.
SM students scored
higher in this result.
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A - 18
Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics and Science (SIMMS)
The SIMMS curriculum is divided into six levels, each consisting of one year of work.
Level one is typically offered to ninth graders, followed by level two in grade 10. After
completing level two, students may choose between levels three and four and then
proceed to either level five or six in the subsequent year. The sequence for potential math
and science majors is (1) level one, (2) level two, (3) level four, (5) level six. Levels one
and two offer basic mathematical literacy.
Contact:
Kendall/Hunt Publishing
4050 Westmark Drive
P.O. Box 1840
Dubuque, IA 52004-1840
Tel: 800-542-6657
Web sites: http://www.simms-im.com
http://www.montana.edu/~wwwsimms/
Results:
Twelve results from comparison studies were found on the effect of SIMMS. Four results
each focused on levels one and two, and two each focused on levels four and six.
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
Number of
results
6
6
Results
Effect size
No differences were found in the six
results.
In one result, SIMMS students
scored higher; no differences were
found in the other five.
No effect
size reported
No effect
size reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A - 19
University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP)
The UCSMP secondary curriculum consists of six courses: Transitional Mathematics;
Algebra; Geometry; Advanced Algebra; Functions, Statistics, and Trigonometry; and
Pre-Calculus and Discrete Mathematics. Transitional Mathematics, which was originally
designed for average to above average seventh graders (but can be started earlier or later),
weaves together three more or less equal strands of major content: applied arithmetic,
prealgebra, and elementary geometry. Algebra, geometry, and some discrete mathematics
are integrated into all courses, as are statistics and probability.
Contact:
UCSMP
5835 South Kimbark Avenue
Chicago, IL 60637
Tel: 773-702-1130
Web site: http://socialsciences.uchicago.edu/ucsmp/
Results:
Fourteen results were found from comparison studies on the effect of UCSMP. The
following UCSMP courses were covered: Transitional Mathematics (2), Algebra (2),
Geometry (5), Advanced Algebra (4), and Pre-Calculus and Discrete Mathematics (1).
Type of measure
Standardized
achievement tests
Number of
results
5
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
8
Teacher-based
measure/GPA
1
Results
Effect size
In all five results,
UCSMP students scored
higher.
In all eight results,
UCSMP students scored
higher.
No differences were
found.
No effect size
reported
Results were not reported by sex, race, or ethnicity.
A - 20
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
Appendix B: Detailed Findings of the Review of Science Curricula
This appendix provides a list of the science curricula included in our review, together
with a description of each curriculum and its related evaluation studies. Table 2 below
lists the science curricula that we identified as having evaluation studies that met our
criteria.
Table 2: Science Curricula with Studies
Grades
Curriculum Name
Covered
K
12 Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB)
*[LEP]
K
8
PK
K
8
Subject Matter
Whole School Reform
Full Option Science System (FOSS)
*[LEP]
Multi-Science
Great Explorations in Math and Science (GEMS)
Math & Multi-Science
6
2
The Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS)
Multi-Science
National Science Curriculum for High Ability Learners
Multi-Science
8
6 8
DESIGNS/DESIGNS II
*[sex]
Physical Science
6 8
Integrated Math, Science, and Technology (IMaST)
6 8
Math, Science & Technology
Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS)
*[sex]
Multi-Science
Learning by Design (LBD)
Multi-Science
Science 2000/Science 2000+
Multi-Science
Science and Technology Concepts for Middle Schools (STC/MS)
Multi-Science
Event-Based Science (EBS)
Earth Science
6 8
6 8
6 8
6 9
78
Constructing Ideas in Physical Science (CIPS)
*[sex]
Physical Science
7 9
Foundational Approaches in Science Teaching (FAST)
7 9
Multi-Science
Multi-Science,
Environmental Focus
Global Lab Curriculum (GLC)
7 9
Issues, Evidence and You (IEY)/SEPUP
Multi-Science
BSCS: An Inquiry Approach
Multi-Science
9 11
9 12
Whole School Reform
High Schools that Work (HSTW)
9 12
Modeling Instruction in High School Physics
*[sex]
9 12
World Watcher/Learning about the Environment (LATE)
*[urban]
10-12
Physics Resources and Instructional Strategies for Motivating Students
(PRISMS)
Physics
Environmental Science
Physics
Note: Shaded curricula are those for which we have found the strongest evidence of effectiveness, that is, quantitative evidence that 1) their use in
instruction elicits higher achievement/performance in students than other curricula to which they are compared on both standardized and/or state tests
AND on curriculum developed tests, or 2) they showed large effect sizes in terms of increasing student achievement. All science curricula listed in
Table 2, however, have credible evaluations that show evidence of effectiveness. There are several curricula for which this evidence of effectiveness
has not been collected but which might also qualify as effective should appropriate studies be conducted. An omission from this list of many curricula
signifies merely that these curricula have not yet provided quantitative evidence of effectiveness that meets our criteria.
* An asterisk marks curricula for which effectiveness data are provided for subgroups of students, indicated in brackets.
B- 1
A Description of the Science Curricula and Evaluation Studies Found
The attached descriptions of science curricula, which appear in alphabetical order,
include the type of student achievement measure used, the number and direction of the
results, and, if available, the size of any differences between groups. When known, effect
sizes have been listed. Where results have been provided by race/ethnicity, sex, or other
demographic characteristics, we have reported these. The absence of such notation means
that no data were reported by subgroup. In the case of three curricula, descriptions of
studies do not follow the normal format because results reported are not best described in
that particular format.
Note: Almost all impact studies for science curricula reported the statistical significance of their results.
Only differences that have reached the conservative minimum acceptable statistical significance level of
.05 were included in the results reported for each study. If differences are statistically significant, then there
is another measure, called an effect size, which shows how big the difference is. In our description of the
study results, we provide effect sizes where available, although few studies reported these results. Effect
sizes greater than .4 are considered large, between .2 and .4 are considered moderate, and less than .2 are
considered small.
B- 2
Biological Sciences Curriculum Study (BSCS): An Inquiry Approach
This program introduces ninth-, tenth-, and eleventh- grade students to the core concepts
in inquiry, the physical sciences, the life sciences, and the earth-space sciences as
articulated in the National Science Education Standards. In addition, the curriculum
engages students in integration across the disciplines in relevant contexts that explore the
standards related to science in a personal and social perspective. This program provides
high school students with an alternative to the traditional sequence of biology, chemistry,
and physics. Included with this program is a professional development component
designed to help teachers and school districts implement the materials.
Contact:
Pamela Van Scotter
Director
The BSCS Center for Curriculum Development
BSCS 5415, Mark Dabling Blvd.
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80918
Web site: http://www.bscs.org/page.asp?id=curriculum_development|high_school_912|An_Inquiry_Approach
Results:
Most of the evaluative work on BSCS was of the materials, not student achievement;
however, the results of a nationwide field test are summarized below.
Type of measure
Content test,
unknown if selfdesigned or stateissued
Number of
studies
1
Results
Effect size
Average student gains at
both ninth- and tenthgrade levels were
between 20 and 25
percent.
No effect sizes
reported
Note: Statistical significance levels were not reported.
The field test was conducted across 10 states and included students in urban, suburban,
and rural schools. However, data regarding specific demographic groups was not
provided.
B- 3
Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS)
Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools (LeTUS), developed by researchers
at the University of Michigan and Detroit public school teachers, includes project-based
curriculum materials that build from district, state, and national standards to support the
development of integrated science understanding for middle school students. The
materials support students' science learning through engaging them in inquiry about realworld problems, providing them with multiple opportunities to work with concepts, and
integrating the use of learning technologies in instruction. LeTUS is focused on learning
about and developing a new machine to construct large buildings and bridges, an area
that has been identified as of interest to young urban students.
Contact:
Joseph Krajcik
School of Education
University of Michigan
610 East University Avenue, Rm. 4109
Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1259
E-mail: krajcik@umich.edu
Results:
Two evaluations of the LeTUS program were found, one that utilized skill-specific
instruments and one that used statewide achievement test scores to measure effectiveness.
Type of measure
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
Number of
studies
1
Statewide tests
1
Program-designed
measures
1
Results
Effect size
Large effect size for
content achievement
and more moderate
effects for process
skills.
Moderate effect size
Students who completed
at least one LeTUS unit in for all three content
areas and both
seventh or eighth grade
outperformed peers in all process areas.
Moderate effects in
content and process
increasing test
categories measured by
passing rates
the test.
Large effect size for
Sixth graders showed
achievement gains
significant overall
improvement on pre- and pre- and post-test
post-test measures over a
four-year period.
Significant content and
process gains that
increased with program
revision and scale-up
The study looking at differences by sex indicated that participation in at least one LeTUS unit is associated
with an apparent reduction in boy-girl achievement differences on statewide examinations.
B- 4
Constructing Ideas in Physical Science (CIPS)
Constructing Ideas in Physical Science (CIPS) is an inquiry-based, yearlong physical
science course that attempts to engage seventh- or eighth - middle school students in
constructing meaningful understanding of physical science concepts. The CIPS course is
based on the themes of interactions and energy transfers between objects. CIPS has five
units. Each unit consists of two or three cycles of activities designed to help students
develop physics and chemistry concepts.
Contact:
CIPS Project
6475 Alvarado Road, Suite 206
San Diego, CA 92120
Fax: 619-594-1581
E-mail: cips@public.sdsu.edu
Publisher:
It's About Time, Inc.
Tel: 888-698-TIME (8463)
Results:
Type of measure
Multiple-choice
content items
Multiple-choice
process items
Open-ended content
items
Number of
studies
1
Results
Effect size
CIPS students scored
Small
higher than non-CIPS
comparisons after
Small
controlling for prior
knowledge, student
Moderate
demographics, and
weeks of instruction in
Physical Science.
CIPS participation did not appear to have closed either sex (male/female) or racial
(white/Asian versus non-Asian minority) achievement gaps on either multiple-choice
content or process questions or open-ended content items.
B- 5
DESIGNS/DESIGNS II
Project DESIGNS (Doable Engineering Science Investigations Geared for Non-science
Students), developed by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, includes
design-based activity modules for use in physical science and technology education
courses in grades five through nine. The project's six topics cover chemistry, static forces,
electricity and magnetism, potential and kinetic energy, energy transfer, and force, work,
power, and torque. Designs II resulted from a follow-up effort to develop a full-year
middle school (grades seven through nine) physical science course based on the modules.
Project pedagogy was derived from the constructivist model of learning and takes into
account students' personal theories. The project's goal was to open science concepts to
students through activities involving the design, construction, and optimization of simple
devices.
Contact:
Program overview:
Web site: http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/sed/resources/designsinfo.html
Publisher:
Kendall/Hunt
Web site: http://www.kendallhunt.com/index.cfm?PID=219&PGI=152
Results:
Type of measure
Self-designed test to
measure process skills
Self-designed tests to
measure conceptual
knowledge
Number of
studies
1
1 (same as
above)
Results
Designs II students gained over
control students.
Students with initially lower scores
gain more.
Effect
size
Large
Large
Analysis by sex for conceptual knowledge shows no significant difference in gains.
B- 6
Event-Based Science (EBS)
The Event-Based Science (EBS) series is a module-based program designed for students
in grades six through nine, with a focus on current events. The series has 18 modules
designed to last four to six weeks, each focusing on different themes and concepts across
the domains of earth, life, and physical sciences. The modules may be sequenced over all
middle school grade levels and combined with other instructional materials in order to
build a comprehensive middle school science program. One or two modules typically are
used in a year, with teachers selecting particular units based on the district's science
standards, the local curriculum program, the interests of the student population, and their
own background knowledge in specific topics. EBS is not a “stand alone” curriculum. By
design, teachers and students supplement each module with additional data about a
specific event from various resources included as part of the materials or suggested by the
program.
Contact:
Russell G. Wright
Montgomery County Public Schools
850 Hungerford Drive
Rockville, MD 20850
Tel: 800-327-7252
Fax: 301-279-3153
E-mail: russ_wright@fc.mcps.k12.md.us
Web site: http://www.mcps.k12.md.us/departments/eventscience/
Results:
One interim study of the impact of EBS was found. This study measures the first three
years of the EBS project. The report of the final findings from the six-year project is not
yet available.
Type of measure
Number of
studies
Curriculum-driven,
skills-specific,
multiple-choice test
Science attitudes
survey
Task-based
performance
assessment rubric
1
Results
Effect size
Small
In two of the three tested
years, EBS students
outperformed the control
group, after controlling for
prior science performance.
Small
EBS students displayed
more positive attitudes
about science than the
control group.
EBS students outperformed Moderate
the control group,
controlling for prior science
performance.
B- 7
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB)
As a whole-school reform effort, Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB) for
kindergarten through twelfth grade organizes curriculum, instruction, assessment, school
culture, and school structures around producing high quality student work in learning
expeditions. These expeditions are long-term, in-depth investigations of themes or topics
designed to engage students both in and beyond the classroom through projects,
fieldwork, and service. Learning expeditions are designed with clear learning goals
aligned with district and state standards. Ongoing assessment is woven throughout each
learning expedition.
Contact:
Linda Collins
Outward Bound USA
100 Mystery Point Road
Garrison, NY 10524
E-mail: info@elob.org
Web site: http://www.elob.org/
Results:
Only one study of many found for ELOB looked at science achievement. Two schools
are included in this study, but only one includes data for science.
Type of measure
Standardized tests
Number of
studies
1
Results
Effect size
ELOB students showed steady
gains in science.
No effect size
reported
One of the schools in the study experienced an increase of about 22 percent in immigrant
students (who were limited English proficient over the five years accounted for in the
evaluation. The school showed consistent gains in all subject areas. This same school also
has a high number of students qualifying for free and reduced-price lunch. The evaluation
concludes that ELOB, in this instance, is “particularly successful with a challenging,
normally low-achieving population.”
B- 8
Foundational Approaches in Science Teaching (FAST)
Foundational Approaches in Science Teaching (FAST) is a three-volume, comprehensive
curriculum program based on a constructivist philosophy of learning in which students
construct their own knowledge through experiential, hands-on learning. Investigations
help students build on existing knowledge and reinforce conceptual understanding
throughout their work. The continual reinforcement and return to concepts allows
students to achieve a deep understanding of the material and to arrive at that
understanding at different points in the curriculum. FAST puts the teacher in the role of
“director of research.” The program emphasizes an instructional strategy that is based on
the teacher's question development practices and other techniques that encourage students
to think critically. It is heavily laboratory-based, with most concepts taught through
laboratory experiences in which students develop skills in measurement and lab
procedures.
Contact:
The University of Hawaii
The Curriculum Research and Development Group, Science Section
1776 University Avenue
UHS Building 2, Room 202
Honolulu, HI 96822-2463
Tel: 808-956-6918
Fax: 808-956-4933
E-mail: valerieh@hawaii.edu
Web site: http://www.hawaii.edu/crdg/FAST.pdf
Results:
Type of Measure
Laboratory skills
Process skills
Knowledge skills
Statewide test
scores
Standardized test
scores
Number
of studies
2
1
1
1
2
Results
FAST students outperformed
non-FAST comparison group.
In one of two years tested,
FAST students scored
significantly higher than the
state average, after controlling
for student background.
FAST students outperformed
non-FAST students in one
study. In the second, both
FAST and non-FAST groups
scored above national norms.
B- 9
Effect size
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
No effect size
reported
Full Option Science System (FOSS)
The Full Option Science System (FOSS) was developed by the Lawrence Hall of
Science, University of California, Berkeley. Funded by the National Science Foundation
(NSF), FOSS combines science content and process with a goal of increasing scientific
literacy for students and instructional efficiency for teachers. The curriculum is organized
into topical units, called courses, under each of three strands: Earth and Space Science,
Life Science, and Physical Science and Technology. Each course is an in-depth unit
requiring 9 to 12 weeks of instruction. The units have approximately 10 investigations,
each with three to seven parts. The system advocates that students should learn important
scientific concepts and develop the ability to think well if they are engaged in situations
in which they actively construct ideas through their own explorations, applications, and
analyses.
Contact:
FOSS Project
Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California
Berkeley, CA 94720
Phone: 510-642-8941
Fax: 510 642-7387
Email: foss@berkeley.edu
Web sites: http://www.lhsfoss.org/
http://www.delta-education.com/science/foss/index.shtml
Results:
Two studies of FOSS materials met our criteria, though in each of these, use of FOSS
was included as only one part of a larger curriculum or professional development
intervention.
A 2003 evaluation of the NSF-sponsored Project Inquiry, a broad professional
development intervention including the adoption and use of FOSS materials, revealed
that fifth-grade students of teachers trained in kit use performed significantly higher on
both multiple-choice and constructed/open-ended response assessments than did the
control group. Self-reported hours of teacher professional development were also
positively associated with science achievement. The authors conclude that professional
development is associated with better implementation of inquiry-based instruction and
greater science topic coverage, which is in turn associated with science achievement.
A 2002 study of the use of multiple kit- and inquiry-based science materials (including
FOSS) in fourth and sixth-grade classes for English language learners revealed a positive
relationship between years in the science program and standardized science test scores.
This relationship remained after controlling for the students’ increasing English language
proficiency.
B - 10
Global Lab Curriculum (GLC)
The Global Lab Curriculum (GLC) was a four-year project to create a science course
emphasizing student collaborative inquiry. Organized around six units, GLC culminates
in the design and conduct of original student investigations. The structure purposefully
provides substantial guidance to students in initial investigations and gradually peels
away the support to allow students to exercise acquired skills in designing and
conducting their own collaborative experiments. GLC is also designed to capitalize on
the Internet as both a communication and motivational tool that helps establish a crosscultural science community.
Contact:
Harold McWilliams
TERC Center for Earth and Space Science Education
2067 Massachusetts Ave.
Cambridge, MA 02140
Tel: 617-547-0430
E-mail: harold_mcwilliams@terc.edu
Web site: http://CESSE.terc.edu
Results:
Type of measure
Self-designed tests
Number of
studies
1
Results
Effect size
Students with low levels of prior
knowledge benefit more from GLC
than those with medium or high
levels of prior knowledge.
No effect
size reported
B - 11
Great Explorations in Mathematics and Science (GEMS)
Great Explorations in Math and Science (GEMS) is a supplemental enrichment program
for students from preschool through eighth-grade. GEMS provides teachers with more
than 70 teacher's guides, support documents, and pedagogical handbooks; professional
development opportunities; an active web site; and a national support network of GEMS
leaders and associates and over 45 regional sites. GEMS uses generally accessible
materials that integrate science and mathematics. The program's units, presented as
flexible enhancements or in curriculum sequence, are designed to help all teachers reach
all students and feature clear, step-by-step teacher instructions. In addition to the specific
standards-based learning goals and content, the program emphasizes cooperative learning
and problem solving, literature and language arts connections, and real-world relevance.
GEMS units feature an inquiry-based, guided-discovery, student-centered approach to
learning. An assessment component is in place for the entire series.
Contact:
Jacqueline Barber
Lawrence Hall of Science
University of California
1 Centennial Drive
Berkeley, CA 94720-5200
Tel: 510-642-7771
Fax: 510-643-0309
Contact e-mail: jbarber@ berkeley.edu
Program e-mail: gems@ berkeley.edu
Web site: http://www.lhs.berkeley.edu/GEMS/
Results:
Several studies of the GEMS units, which serve kindergarten through eighth grade, have
been produced. Only one of these met our criteria and focused on the fourth through
eighth-grade astronomy unit Earth, Moon, and Stars.
Type of measure
Content-specific,
skills-driven test
Number of
studies
3
Results
Effect size
Students receiving
GEMS instruction
had significantly
higher pre–post gains
than control groups
without GEMS
instruction.
No effect sizes
reported
B - 12
High Schools that Work (HSTW)
High Schools that Work (HSTW) is a whole-school, research- and assessment-based
reform that offers a framework of goals and key practices for improving the academic,
technical, and intellectual achievement of high school students. HSTW blends traditional
college-preparatory content with quality technical and vocational studies. HSTW
provides technical assistance and staff development focused on techniques and strategies
such as teamwork, applied learning, and project-based instruction. The HSTW
assessment is based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The
developer does not offer specific subject area programs, but consultants provide
workshops customized to fit an individual school's needs.
Contact:
Gene Bottoms, Senior Vice President
Southern Regional Education Board
Tel: 404-875-9211, extension 249
E-mail: gene.bottoms@sreb.org
Web site: http://www.sreb.org/programs/hstw/hstwindex.asp
Results:
Two studies were conducted using the same measure.
Type of measure
HSTW assessment
Number of
studies
1
HSTW assessment
1
Results
Effect size
Gains in achievement increase with
the number of students in a school
completing the HSTW curriculum.
Over time, more students met
achievement goals and completed
program.
No effect size
reported
B - 13
No effect size
reported
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology (IMaST)
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology Curriculum (IMaST) was developed
by the Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology at Illinois State University.
IMaST is a standards-based, integrated curriculum for grades six through eight. IMaST
integrates technology, science, and mathematics and includes connections to the language
arts and social sciences, as well as readings that profile typical careers related to the
curriculum content. The curriculum is based on the constructivist learning theory that
allows concept development to take place in a structured venue.
Contact:
Center for Mathematics, Science, and Technology
Illinois State University
Campus Box 5960
Normal, IL 61790-5960
Tel: 309-438-3089
Fax: 309-438-3592
E-mail: cemast@ilstu.edu
Web site: http://www.ilstu.edu/depts/cemast/programs/imast.shtml
Results:
Type of measure
Trends in
International
Mathematics and
Science Study
(TIMMS) sub-test
Number of
studies
1
Results
Effect size
IMaST students
outperform traditional
peers, especially
regarding science
processes.
No effect size
reported
B - 14
Issues, Evidence and You (IEY)/
The Science Education for Public Understanding Program (SEPUP)
The University of California, Berkeley Lawrence Hall of Science developed the
SEPUP/IEY curriculum for middle school and junior high use with support from the
National Science Foundation. Issues, Evidence and You (IEY) focuses on environmental
issues in a social context. The program builds upon earlier SEPUP modules, is designed
to address students’ increasing ability to think abstractly, and builds upon students’ need
for peer interaction and support. The developer intended the curriculum to serve as the
physical science component of an integrated science program (physical, life, and earth
science) or as a year-long physical science program. The course consists of 65 activities
or investigations presented in a conceptual sequence. The instructional times of the
activities vary from one to three class periods. The curriculum can accompany Science
and Life Issues (SALI), another SEPUP program now in the piloting phase. The program
also integrates student assessment into the curriculum, providing teachers with a basis for
understanding gaps in student knowledge of core scientific concepts and a plan for
addressing such gaps as they are identified.
Contact:
Web site: http://www.sepup.com/index.htm
Publisher
LAB-AIDS
Tel: 800-381-8003
Results:
An assessment of the pilot implementation of IEY was conducted as an experimental
study using pre- and post-tests of student knowledge for two groups: one taught using
IEY and another using the traditional science curriculum. The study spanned 15 multischool sites in 12 states, covering 26 classrooms and a total of 830 students. Student
achievement was measured by the assessments from the IEY program, which consisted of
multiple choice and short answer items.
Type of measure
Curriculum-driven,
skill-specific tests
Number of
studies
1
Results
Effect size
IEY students
experienced an increase
in ability to present an
evidence-based line of
reasoning, while
comparison classes did
not experience
significant improvement
in this skill.
Moderate
B - 15
Learning by Design (LBD)
Developed by Georgia Tech's EduTech Institute, Learning by Design (LBD) is an
approach to science learning in which middle school students learn as a result of
collaboratively engaging in design activities and reflecting appropriately on their
experiences. Design problem-solving is the scaffolding of LBD; interventions combine
teacher facilitation, paper-and-pencil design diaries and other paper prompts, and
software tools and prompts. LBD has units in both physical and earth science.
Contact:
The EduTech Institute
Georgia Institute of Technology
801 Atlantic Drive
Atlanta, Georgia, 30332-0280
Tel: 404-894-3807
Web site: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/edutech/projects/lbdview.html
Results:
Type of measure
Self-designed test
incorporating some
standardized test
items (NAEP,
TIMSS)
Performance
assessments
Number of
studies
1
2
Results
Effect size
LBD gains in content learning
higher than comparison students.
Typical LBD students do as well or
better than honors-level non-LBD
students.
Typical LBD students score higher
than typical companion group
students in applying collaborative
science skills and practices. Typical
LBD students’ performance was on
par with non-LBD honors students,
and LBD honors students
outperformed non-LBD honors
students.
No effect
size reported
B - 16
No effect
size reported
Modeling Instruction in High School Physics
Modeling Instruction in High School Physics is grounded in the thesis that scientific
activity centers on modeling: the construction, validation, and application of conceptual
models to understand and organize the physical world. The program uses computer
models and modeling to develop the content and pedagogical knowledge of high school
physics teachers and train them to be leaders in science teaching reform and technology
infusion. The program relies heavily on professional development workshops to equip
teachers with a teaching methodology. Teachers are trained to develop student abilities to
make sense of physical experience, understand scientific claims, articulate coherent
opinions of their own, and evaluate evidence in support of justified belief. For example,
students analyze systems using graphical models, mathematical models, and pictorial
diagrams called system schema.
Contact:
David Hestenes
Director, Modeling Instruction Program
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Arizona State University
P.O. Box 871504
Tempe, AZ 85287-1504
Tel: (480) 965-6277
E-mail: Hestenes@asu.edu
Web Site: http://modeling.la.asu.edu/modeling-HS.html
Results:
Four evaluations of the impact of Modeling Instruction on student achievement were
found.
Type of measure
Tests of alternate methods
of physics instruction
(Comparison of average
classroom scores between
teachers using Modeling
Instruction, traditional
methods, and reform
methods)
Number of Results
studies
2
Average pre–post test gains in
Modeling Instruction
classrooms were double those
in traditional classrooms, and
10 percentage points higher
than those in reform-method
classrooms.
Effect size
No effect size
reported.
Post-test scores after a teacher No effect size
reported.
is trained in Modeling
(Comparison of average
Instruction were between 6
classroom scores between
and 10 percentage points
teachers pre-Modeling
higher than their classroom
Instruction training and the
averages before training.
same teachers post-training)
Data from three studies show that male students consistently outperform female students.
Tests of alternate methods
of physics instruction
2
B - 17
National Science Curriculum for High Ability Learners
The National Science Curriculum for High Ability Learners Project is a supplemental
program that has been implemented across grades two through eight with a broad group
of students within the average-to-gifted range of ability. The curriculum units employ
problem-based learning for engaging students in the study of the concept of systems,
specific science content, and the scientific research process. Students engage in a
scientific research process that leads them to create their own experiments and design
their own solutions to each unit's central problem. The units encourage in-depth study,
and content areas cover a breadth of scientific subject matter drawn from the physical,
life, and earth sciences. Each unit constitutes approximately 30 hours of instruction, with
students typically receiving two units within an academic year. Major components of the
program include a curriculum framework that contains goals and learning outcomes
linked to individual lesson plans; embedded and post assessments that focus on science
content, concept, and process learning; 25 lesson plans that address these goals and
outcomes with relatively equal emphasis on each of the goals; and a real-world problem
that serves as the catalyst for subsequent learning in the unit.
Contact:
Joyce VanTassel-Baska
Center for Gifted Education
College of William and Mary
427 Scotland St.
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Tel: 757-221-2362
Fax: 757-221-2184
E-mail: jlvant@wm.edu
Web Site: http://cfge.wm.edu
Results:
Type of measure
Open-ended
assessment to test
gifted science
students
Open-ended
assessment to test
gifted science
students
Number of
studies
1
4
Results
Effect size
Students in National Science
Curriculum (NSC) classrooms scored
better on one unit tested when
compared to students in non-NSC
classrooms.
Same as above
High
B - 18
High
Physics Resources and Instructional Strategies for Motivating Students (PRISMS)
The goal of Physics Resources and Instructional Strategies for Motivating Students
(PRISMS) is to provide learning activities to promote understanding of physics principles
in the context of experiences relating to the daily lives of secondary school students.
PRISMS includes a guide with over 130 activities in the form of student instructions and
teacher notes with background information on the activities. The program’s resources
include several videotapes from which students make observations and take data, and
recommended software and interfacing for schools that have access to microcomputers. A
complete student evaluation and testing program is included in a three- to four-diskette
set. The instructional strategies blend exploratory activities, concept development, and
application activities to stimulate problem-solving skills and the understanding of major
physics concepts. The guide can be integrated with the use of any physics textbook and is
designed to be individualized to meet the needs of each teacher. The guide also contains
activities dealing with scientific, technological, and social issues as well as career
information. The new version is called PRISMS PLUS.
Contact:
Roy D. Unruh, Director
Physics Department, Room 303
University of Northern Iowa
Cedar Falls, IA 50614-0150
Tel: 319-273-2380
Fax: 319-273-7136
E-mail: Roy.Unruh@uni.edu
Web Site: http://www.prisms.uni.edu/
Results:
Type of measure
State assessment
Program-designed
measures
Number of
studies
2
1
Results
Effect size
PRISMS students have higher
achievement gains than
comparison students.
PRISMS students’ gains in
reasoning and problem-solving
skills were greater than those of
comparison students.
No effect
size reported
B - 19
No effect
size reported
Science 2000/Science 2000+
Science 2000+ (previously known as Science 2000) is a multimedia, multiyear science
curriculum for high schools that takes an integrated, thematic approach to the earth, life,
and physical sciences. At each grade level, the yearlong course includes four nine-week
units, connected by central themes and a storyline—a narrative that sets a real-world
context for the science content. Each unit poses problems related to real-life scientific and
social issues. Students address these problems by drawing information from CD-ROMbased resources (text, images, video, simulations) supplemented by laser disc, web
references, and manipulative kits. Multimedia resources (text, images, and video) are
cross-referenced and linked within the CD.
Contact:
Ellen M. Nelson
Decision Development Corporation
2303 Camino Ramon, Suite 220
San Ramon, CA 94583-1389
Tel: 800-835-4332 or 925-830-8896
Fax: 925-830-0830
E-mail: ellen@ddc2000.com
Web site: http://www.ddc2000.com
Results:
Type of measure
Number of
studies
1
Results
Effect size
No effect size
All Science 2000+
reported
students showed gains in
content knowledge from
pre- to post-test.
Study showed the curriculum to be effective in increasing the content knowledge of all
students, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or language classification.
Self-designed test
instruments
B - 20
Science and Technology Concepts for Middle Schools (STC/MS)
Science and Technology Concepts for Middle Schools (STC/MS) is a modular program
composed of 24 units. There are four units for each grade level, one each in the following
strands: life science, earth science, physical science, and technology. Each STC unit
generally has 16 lessons with hands-on investigations. Teachers can use the four modules
to comprise the science curriculum for the entire school year or use one or two individual
units as supplements to other curriculum pieces. Eight modules for grades seven and
eight are currently under development. When completed, STC/MS will include eight
units for science in grades seven and eight. The instructional units will be balanced
among life, earth, physical sciences, and technological design. The components are
designed to be offered as two one-year courses (one unit from each of the scientific
strands) or as four single semester courses.
Contact:
National Science Resources Center
901 D Street SW, Suite 704B
Washington, DC 20560-0952
Web site: http://www.nsrconline.org/curriculum_resources/middle_school.html
Publisher:
Carolina Biological
Tel: 800-227-1150
Web site: http://www.carolina.com
Results:
In a 2001 study of four of the eight STC/MS modules, a post-test-only design was used to
compare the performance between groups receiving STC/MS instruction and those who
received traditional instruction. The impact of the curriculum on student achievement in
each particular content area was measured by multiple-choice and short-answer tests
developed to measure concepts specific to each unit, including TIMSS and NAEP. When
possible, test items were taken from previously existing assessments so that national and
international comparisons were possible. In all four STC/MS curriculum units, students
demonstrated significantly higher performance than control groups and
national/international comparison groups. The quasi-experimental evaluation design,
however, makes it difficult to control for prior knowledge or instruction of students in
comparison groups.
B - 21
The Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS)
The Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) was developed at the Lawrence Hall
of Science at the University of California between 1962 and 1974 for use in grades
kindergarten through six. The goal of the program is the development of scientific
literacy, defined as a combination of basic knowledge concerning the natural
environment, investigating ability, and curiosity. The program consists of 12 units, one
life and one physical science unit at each elementary grade level. About 10 major
concepts are developed each year. The concepts are interrelated and are intended to
provide a conceptual framework for the child's thinking. Opportunities are provided for
developing science processes as well. The general instructional pattern is free exploration
of new materials, the introduction of a new concept, and the application of the new
concept in a range of new situations.
Contact:
Note: Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS) is now called SCIS 3+
Publisher:
Delta Education
Tel: 800-258-1302
Web Site: http://www.delta-education.com/scisgallery.aspx?collection=N&menuID=11
Results:
A 1983 meta-analysis of 57 controlled studies of SCIS and two other activity-based
science programs (Elementary Science Study and Science—A Process Approach) draws
conclusions about the programs across process, content, and affective outcomes. Seventy
percent of the studies were dissertations, and a conservative estimate of the combined
students tested is 13,000 in more than 900 classrooms. Seventy-nine percent of the
studies had a quasi-experimental design. Forty-eight percent of the studies tested effects
after more than one year of program use.
The overall effect of these three programs on all outcome areas was positive, though not
dramatically so; thirty-two percent of comparison studies had statistically significant
results favoring the treatment group, while six percent favored the nontreatment group.
These results support an overall conclusion of a positive program effect. The mean effect
size for all studies, with all outcomes weighted equally, was .35, or a 14 percentile point
improvement over non-activity-based instruction. The effects on measures of science
process, intelligence, and creativity were positive. Small positive effects were observed in
attitudes towards science. Contrary to a common worry about activity-based programs,
content achievement was not negatively affected.
A second meta-analysis conducted in 1986 largely confirmed these results, emphasizing
in particular the differences in attitude toward science and process skills (17 and 19
percentile point gains, respectively) among students who were taught with activity-based
modules.
B - 22
World Watcher/Learning about the Environment Curriculum (LATE)
The World Watcher/Learning about the Environment Curriculum (LATE) is a yearlong,
inquiry-based, technology-supported environmental science curriculum for high school
developed at Northwestern University. It is based on the Learning-for-Use model of
learning that conceptualizes content and process learning as complementary and mutually
facilitating, rather than at odds. LATE incorporates the use of scientific visualizations and
is centered on three key issues: population growth and resource availability, electricity
generation and energy demand, and managing water resources for agriculture and human
consumption.
Contact:
Daniel C. Edelson
Northwestern University
Learning Sciences Program
Annenberg Hall 332
Evanston, Ill 60208-2610
E-mail: geode@letus.northwestern.edu
Web site: http://www.worldwatcher.northwestern.edu/curriculum.htm
Results:
Type of measure
Self-designed test
Number of
studies
1
Results
Effect size
Gains at all grade levels and all
populations (urban, suburban).
Biggest differences in tenth grade.
Large (urban),
moderate
(suburban)
Urban students showed higher gains (5 points) than suburban students (3.5 points).
Researchers caution not to interpret this result as greater effectiveness of the curriculum
for the urban group. It is possible that a subgroup of a sample that scores below average
on a test tends to do better on retests.
B - 23
Appendix C: Matrix Summarizing the Key Elements of
Professional Development Studies Found
The matrix that appears on the following page provides the key characteristics of the
professional development (PD) studies that met our criteria. These characteristics include
subject matter, grade span, source of participants, form/distribution of in-service time,
total in-service contact hours, study duration, and effect sizes/results. The studies have
also been organized according to categories developed by Kennedy (1998) to classify
types of professional development models according to the content that they provide to
teachers:
Group 1: PD models that specify a set of teaching behaviors that apply generically to all
school subjects.
Group 2: PD models that prescribe a set of teaching behaviors that, while seemingly
generic, are presented as applying to one particular school subject, such as mathematics
or science.
Group 3: PD models that provide general guidance on both the curriculum and the
pedagogy for teaching a particular subject, justifying the recommended practices with
references to knowledge about how students learn a particular subject.
Group 4: PD models that provide knowledge about how students learn a particular
subject matter but that do not specify the practices that should be used to teach that
particular subject.
In the Kennedy study, as the models moved from focusing on changing teacher behavior
to changing teacher knowledge and from more prescriptive to less, their effectiveness in
terms of improving student achievement increased as well.
Key Elements of Professional Development Studies
Citation
Subject matter
context
Grade span of
participating
students
Source of participants Form and distribution of
in-service time
Total in-service
contact hours
Study duration
1
in months
Effect size/results
1
Group 1: Focus on Teaching Behaviors Applying Generically to All School Subjects
Stallings & Krasavage*
(1986)
Math
2-4
Schoolwide projects
Distributed workshops
16
Basic skills: small-moderate
Stevens & Slavin* (1995)
Math
K-6
Schoolwide projects
Distributed workshops
8
Basic skills and problem solving:
small
Good, Grouws, &
Ebmeier* (1983)
Math
4-12
Individual volunteers
2 @ 1.5
3
4
Basic skills and problem solving:
small
Good & Grouws* (1979)
Math
4
Individual volunteers
2 @ 1.5
3
4
Mason & Good* (1993)
Math
4-6
Individual volunteers
3 @ 1.5
4.5
5
Villasenor & Kepner
(1993)
Lawrenz & McCreath*
(1998)
Marek & Methven*
(1991)
Otto & Schuck* (1983)
Math
1
Individual volunteers
25
6
Science
1-8
Individual volunteers
45
8
Problem solving: moderate-large
Science
K-5
Individual volunteers
Summer workshop + 3 @
2 duirng year
University course (15 @
3)
4-week Summer Institute
Basic skills and problem solving:
small-moderate
Basic skills and problem solving: large
100
8
Problem solving: moderate-large
Science
8
Individual volunteers
5 @ variable
16
2.5
Problem solving: large
Radford (1998)
Science
4-10
Individual volunteers
8
Problem solving: small-moderate.
Science attitude: moderate.
Rubin & Norman* (1992)
Science
6-9
Individual volunteers
7-weeks of summer
training, 5 day-long
workshops during year
University course (10 @
3)
3
Problem solving: large
8
Basic skills: small. Problem solving:
moderate-large
16
Significant gains in teacher
knowledge, significant gains in student
post-test performance. No effect size
reported.
Group 2: Focus on Teaching Behaviors Applying to a Particular Subject
30
Group 3: Focus on Curriculum or Pedagogy Justified by How Students Learn
Cobb et al.* (1991)
Math
2
Individual volunteers
1-week Summer Institute
+ Distributed
Hestenes (2000)
Science (physics)
High school
Individual volunteers
2 years of 4-week
Summer Institute
Rivet & Krajcik (2004)
Science
6
Individual volunteers
1-week Summer Institute
+ Distributed
varied by year of
implementation
16-64
Basic skills & problem solving:
moderate-large
6-8
Schoolwide pilot testing
1-week Summer
inservice + 4 on-site
consults
50+
16
Significant gains over control group in
both math & science basic skills &
problem solving. No effect sizes
reported.
Satchwell & Loepp (2002) Integrated math,
science, and
technology
150
Smith et al. (1993)
Science
7
Individual volunteers
2 @ 4 hours
8
4 1/2
Significant difference for students of
teachers with both PD & Curriculum
treatments and Curriculum-only
treatments. PD-only treatments not as
effective. No effect sizes reported.
Wood & Sellers* (1996)
Math
2-3
Individual volunteers
1-week Summer Institute
+ Distributed
150
16
Basic skills: small-moderate. Problem
solving: moderate-large
Group 4: Focus on How Students Learn and How to Assess Student Learning
Carpenter et al.* (1989)
Math
1
Individual volunteers
4-week Summer Institute
80
Basic skills & problem solving:
moderate to large
Note: Format and categories of this table and summaries of articles marked with an asterisk were taken from Kennedy (1998).
1. Some of these estimates of contact time were estimated from general descriptions of programs. For estimates of program durations, a school year was assumed to be roughly 8 months, a semester
4 1/2 months, and two school years 16 months.
C-1
Appendix D: Matrix of All Curricula Identified by Grade Level,
Student Achievement Studies, and Inclusion in Whole School Reform
Mathematics Curricula
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
#
Mathematics Curricula
Targeted Grade
Levels
1
A+ny where Learning System
Middle School
no
n/a
2
Academic Systems Interactive Math Curriculum
Middle School
no
n/a
3
Accelerated Schools
K–12
n/a
no
4
Advanced Placement (AP) Calculus
11–12
yes
n/a
5
America's Choice
K–12
n/a
yes/no (schools can
opt for another
curriculum)
6
Applications and Connection
6–8
no
n/a
7
ATLAS Communities
Pre-K–12
n/a
no
8
Bob Jones University Math Series
Middle School
no
n/a
9
Center for Effective Schools
K–12
n/a
no
10
Coalition of Essential Schools
K–12
n/a
no
11
Cognitive Tutor
Middle School
yes
n/a
12
College Board Pacesetter
9–12
no
n/a
13
College Preparatory Mathematics (CPM)
9–12
yes
n/a
14
Community for Learning
K–12
n/a
no
15
Compass Learning
Middle School
no
n/a
16
Co-nect
K–12
n/a
no
17
Connected Mathematics (CMP)
Middle School
yes
n/a
18
Core Knowledge
K–8
no
yes
19
Contemporary Mathematics in Context: A
Unified Approach (Core-Plus Mathematics
Project CPMP)
9–12
yes
n/a
20
Destination Math
Middle School
no
n/a
21
Different Ways of Knowing
Pre-K–8
no
yes
D- 1
Targeted Grade
Levels
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
K–8
yes
yes
Middle School
no
n/a
#
Mathematics Curricula
22
Direct Instruction
23
Dolciani (textbook)
24
Edison Schools
K–12
yes
yes
25
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB)
K–12
no
no
26
First Things First
K–12
n/a
no
27
Glencoe Main Middleschool Textbook–Math
Applications and Connections
Middle School
no
n/a
28
Hands-on Equations
Middle School
no
n/a
29
Harcourt Math
Middle School
no
n/a
30
Heath Mathematics Connections
Middle School
no
n/a
31
Heath Passport
Middle School
no
n/a
32
High Schools that Work (HSTW)
9–12
no
yes
33
Holt Middle School Math
Middle School
no
n/a
34
I Can Learn (ICL) Education Systems
Middle School
no (only
unpublished
manuscript)
n/a
35
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and
Technology (IMaST)
Middle School
yes
n/a
36
Integrated Thematic Instruction
K–12
n/a
no
37
Interactive Mathematics Program (IMP)
9–12
yes
n/a
38
International Baccalaureate Program
K–12
no
yes
39
Key Math Teach and Practice
Middle School
no
n/a
40
Lamar CISO Algebra Program
Middle School
no
n/a
41
Larson Series
9–12
no
n/a
42
Larson Series
Middle School
no
n/a
43
Learning by Design: Integrating and Enhancing
the Middle School Math, Science and
Technology Curricula
Middle School
no
n/a
D- 2
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
#
Mathematics Curricula
Targeted Grade
Levels
44
Learning Network (The)
K–8
n/a
no
45
Lightspan Math Program
Middle School
no
n/a
46
Math Advantage
Middle School
no
n/a
47
MATH Connections
9–12
yes
n/a
48
Math Passport Series
Middle School
no
n/a
49
Mathematics: Applications and Connections
Middle School
no
n/a
50
Mathematics in Context (MiC)
Middle School
yes
n/a
51
Mathematics: Modeling Our World
(MMOW/ARISE)
9–12
yes
n/a
52
Mathematics Plus
Middle School
no
n/a
53
Mathematics with Meaning
7–12
yes
n/a
54
Mathscape
Middle School
no
n/a
55
MathScape: Seeing and Thinking Mathematics
Middle School
no
n/a
56
MicroSociety
K–8
no
no
57
MATHThematics
6–8
yes
n/a
58
Middle School Math
Middle School
no
n/a
59
Middle Start
5–9
no
yes
60
Middle-school Mathematics through
Applications Project (MMAP)
Middle School
no
n/a
61
Modern Red Schoolhouse
K–12
n/a
no
62
More Effective Schools
K–12
n/a
no
63
Onward to Excellence
K–12
n/a
no
64
Partnership for Access to Higher Mathematics
Middle School
no
n/a
65
Prentice Hall: Tools for Success
Middle School
yes
n/a
D- 3
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
#
Mathematics Curricula
Targeted Grade
Levels
66
Project lead the way
Middle School
no
n/a
67
Project lead the way
9–12
no
n/a
68
Purdue Problem Centered Mathematics
Curriculum
Middle School
no
n/a
69
Quantum Learning
K–12
n/a
no
70
QuESt
K–12
n/a
no
71
Real Math basal mathematics program
Middle School
no
n/a
72
Saxon Math: An Incremental Development
Middle School
yes
n/a
73
School Development Program
K–12
n/a
no
74
School Renaissance
K–12
no
no
Middle School
no
n/a
Middle School
no
n/a
75
76
Scott Foresman's Math Diagnostic &
Interventions System
SimCalc: Cognitive Foundations for a
Multiplicative Structures Curriculum
77
Singapore Mathematics
Middle School
no
n/a
78
Strength in Numbers Math Program
Middle School
no
n/a
79
Successmaker
Middle School
no
n/a
Middle School
no
n/a
9–12
yes
n/a
9–12
no
no
4–9
no
no
80
81
82
Summer Success: Math Afterschool Achievers.
Math Club Everyday Counts Series
Systemic Initiative for Montana Mathematics
and Science (SIMMS)
Talent Development High School with Career
Academies
83
Talent Development Middle School
84
The Expert Mathematician
Middle School
no (only
unpublished
manuscript)
n/a
85
Transition Mathematics
Middle School
no
n/a
86
Turning Points
6–8
n/a
no
87
University of Chicago School Mathematics
Project (UCSMP)
7–12
yes
n/a
D- 4
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
#
Mathematics Curricula
Targeted Grade
Levels
88
Urban Learning Centers
Pre-K–12
n/a
no
89
Ventures Initiative and Focus System
K–12
no
no
D- 5
Science Curricula
Targeted Grade
Levels
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons1
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
High School
NE/NR
no
#
Science Curricula
1
Active Physics
2
America's Choice
K–12
NC
yes (America's
Choice)
3
An Integrated Biology/Biotechnology High School
Curriculum
9–12
NE/NR
no
4
ARIES: Astronomy-Based Physical Science
3–8
NE/NR
no
5
TERC Astrobiology
High School
NC
no
6
Astronomy Village
Middle School
NE/NR
no
7
Biology
Middle School
NE/NR
no
8
Biology: A Community Context
9–12
NE/NR
no
9
Biology: Principles and Explorations
High School
NE/NR
no
10
Biology: The Dynamics of Life
High School
NE/NR
no
11
Biology: Visualizing Life
High School
NE/NR
no
12
BSCS Biology: A Human Approach
High School
NE/NR
no
13
BSCS Biology: A Molecular Approach
9–11
NE/NR
no
14
BSCS Biology: An Ecological Approach
High School
NE/NR
no
15
BSCS: An Inquiry Approach
9–11
yes
no
16
BSCS: Middle School Science and Technology
Middle School
NE/NR
no
17
CHEM 2: Chemicals, Health, Environment, and Me
Elementary School
NE/NR
no
18
ChemCom: Chemistry in the Community
9–12
NE/NR
no
19
ChemDiscovery/ChemQuest
High School
NC
no
20
Constructing Ideas in Physical Science (CIPS)
7–8
yes
no
1
Under Student Achievement Studies with Comparisons, yes signifies the curriculum had a study that met our
criteria, NC signifies that the study did not meet our criteria for inclusion, and NE/NR signifies that no evaluation
was found, no evaluation exists, or we were not able to obtain a copy of an evaluation.
D- 6
Targeted Grade
Levels
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons
K–12
NC
Elementary School
NE/NR
no
6–8
yes
no
Elementary and
Middle School
NC
no
K–12
NC
Elementary and
Middle School
NC
High School
NE/NR
no
Elementary School
NC
no
6–9
yes
no
K–12
yes
yes (Expeditionary
Learning Outward
Bound)
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
yes (Core
Knowledge)
#
Science Curricula
21
Core Knowledge
22
Design It! Engineering in Afterschool Programs
23
DESIGNS/DESIGNS II
24
Developmental Approaches in Science, Health and
Technology (DASH)
25
Different Ways of Knowing
26
Direct Instruction
27
Earth Sciences and Community
28
Elementary Science Study
29
Event-Based Science (EBS)
30
Expeditionary Learning Outward Bound (ELOB)
31
Exploring Earth
High School
NC
no
32
Exploring Life
High School
NE/NR
no
33
Foundation Science
Middle School
NE/NR
no
34
Foundational Approaches in Science Teaching (FAST)
7–9
yes
no
35
Foundations and Challenges to Encourage TechnologyBased Science (FACETS)
Middle School
NE/NR
no
36
Full Option Science System for Middle School (FOSS)
K–8
yes
no
37
GeoKits
5–9
NE/NR
no
38
Glencoe Life Science
Middle School
NE/NR
no
39
Glencoe Physical Science
High School
NE/NR
no
40
Global Lab Curriculum (GLC)
7–9
yes
no
41
Great Explorations in Mathematics and Science (GEMS)
Pre-K–8
yes
no
D- 7
yes (Different
Ways of Knowing)
yes (Direct
Instruction)
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
#
Science Curricula
Targeted Grade
Levels
42
Hands-on Physics
High School
NE/NR
no
43
Health Biology
High School
NE/NR
no
44
High Schools that Work (HSTW)
9–12
yes
yes (High Schools
that Work)
9–12
NE/NR
no
6–8
yes
no
45
46
Insights in Biology: An Introductory High School Science
Program
Integrated Mathematics, Science, and Technology
Curriculum (IMaST)
47
Integrated Science
6–8
NE/NR
no
48
Investigating Earth Systems (IES)
5–8
NE/NR
no
49
Issues, Evidence, and You (IEY)/The Science Education for
Public Understanding Program (SEPUP)
7–9
yes
no
50
Learning by Design (LBD)
6–8
yes
no
51
Center for Learning Technologies in Urban Schools
(LeTUS)
6–8
yes
no
52
Living by Chemistry
High School
NE/NR
no
53
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Science
Elementary School
NE/NR
no
54
Matter and Molecules
Middle School
NE/NR
no
55
Minds-On Physics
High School
NC
no
56
Modeling Instruction in High School Physics
9–12
yes
no
57
Models in Technology and Science (MITS)
5–8
NE/NR
no
58
Modern Biology
High School
NE/NR
no
59
National Science Curriculum for High Ability Learners
2–8
yes
no
60
Physics Resources and Instructional Strategies for
Motivating Students (PRISMS)
10–12
yes
no
61
Prentice Hall Exploring Life Science
Elementary School
NE/NR
no
62
Prentice Hall Exploring Physical Science
Middle School
NE/NR
no
63
Prime Science
Middle and High
School
NE/NR
no
D- 8
Targeted Grade
Levels
Student
Achievement
Studies with
Comparisons
Whole School
Reform with
Curriculum
High School
NC
no
6–8
yes
no
#
Science Curricula
64
Project Physics
65
Science 2000/Science 2000+
66
Science and Life Issues/SEPUP
Middle School
NE/NR
no
67
Science and Sustainability/SEPUP
Middle School
NE/NR
no
68
Science and Technology Concepts for Middle Schools
(STC/MS)
6–8
yes
no
69
Science Curriculum Improvement Study (SCIS)
K–6
yes
no
70
Science in a Technical World
High School
NC
no
71
Science Insights (Exploring Living Things, Exploring Matter
and Energy)
Middle School
NE/NR
no
72
Science Interactions
Middle School
NE/NR
no
73
Science that Counts in the Workplace
High School
NE/NR
no
74
Science: A Process Approach
Elementary School
NC
no
75
SciencePlus: Science and Technology
Middle School
NE/NR
no
76
Talent Development Middle School
Middle School
NE/NR
yes (Talent
Development
Middle School)
77
The Changing Global Environment
High School
NE/NR
no
78
Ventures Initiative and Focus System
K–12
NE/NR
no
79
Voyages through Time
High School
NE/NR
no
80
World Watcher/Learning about the Environment Curriculum
(LATE)
9–12
yes
no
D- 9