Expanding the notion of impact of K-12 standards-based mathematics and reform calculus programs

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 3-34

  Smith III, John P ^a   Star, Jon R ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Achievement; Attitudes; College university; High school, 9 12; Reform in mathematics education; Review of research

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846357517     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (88)

1. Ahmadi, M. H. (2002). The impact of cooperative learning in teaching mathematics. In M. H. Ahmadi (Ed.), Readings in innovative ideas in teaching collegiate mathematics (pp. 3-19). Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
2. Armstrong, G., Garner, L., & Wynn, J. (1994). Our experience with two reformed calculus programs. Primus, 4, 301-311.
3. Armstrong, G. M., & Hendrix, L. J. (1999). Does traditional or reformed calculus prepare students better for subsequent courses? Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 18, 95-103.
4. Askey, R. (1997). What do we do about calculus? First, do no harm. American Mathematical Monthly, 104, 738-743.
5. Baguilat, C. (1998). Understanding students' participation in mathematical discourse. Unpublished manuscript.
6. Ball, D. L. (1992). Magical hopes: Manipulatives and the reform of math education. American Educator, 16(2), 14-18, 46-47.
7. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is - or might be - the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
8. Battistich, V., Allredge, S., & Tsuchida, I. (2003). Number Power. An elementary school program to enhance students' mathematical power and social development. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they ? What do students learnt (pp. 133-159). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Baxter, J. L., Majumdar, D., & Smith, S. D. (1998). Subsequent-grades assessment of traditional and reform calculus. PRIMUS, 8, 317-330.
10. Bay, J. M., Beem, J. K., Reys, R. E., Papick, I., & Barnes, D. E. (1999). Students' reactions to Standards-based mathematics curricula: The interplay between curriculum, teachers, and students. School Science and Mathematics, 99, 182-187.
11. Bay, J. M., Reys, B. J., & Reys, R. E. (1999). The top 10 elements that must be in place to implement Standards-based mathematics curricula. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 503-506.
12. Ben-Chaim, D., Fey, J. T., Fitzgerald, W. M., Benedetto, C., & Miller, J. (1998). Proportional reasoning among seventh grade students with different curricular experiences. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 36, 247-273.
13. Billstein, R., & Williamson, J. (2003). Middle Grades MATH Thematics: The STEM Project. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 251-284). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14. Boaler, J., & Greeno, J. G. (2000). Identity, agency, and knowing in mathematics worlds. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 171-200). Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
15. Bonsangue, M. V. (1994). An efficacy study of the calculus workshop model. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education 1 (pp. 117-137). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
16. Bookman, J., & Friedman, C. P. (1994). A comparison of the problem solving performance of students in lab based and traditional calculus. In E. Dubinsky, A. H. Schoenfeld, & J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education I (pp. 101-116). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
17. Bookman, J., & Friedmanm, C. P. (1998). Student attitudes and calculus reform. School Science and Mathematics, 98, 117-122.
18. Brown, M. (1996). Planning and change: The Michigan Calculus Project. In A. W. Roberts (Ed.), Calculus: The dynamics of change (pp. 52-58). Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
19. Cai, J. (2003). Setting the record straight or setting up a research agenda? [Review of the book Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn?]. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 260-265.
20. Cain, J. S. (2002). An evaluation of the Connected Mathematics Project. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 224-233.
21. Carroll, W. M. (1997). Results of third-grade students in a reform curriculum on the Illinois state mathematics test. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 237-242.
22. Chazan, D. (2000). Beyond formulas in mathematics and teaching: Dynamics of the high school algebra classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
23. Cichon, D., & Ellis, J. G. (2003). The effects of MATH Connections on student achievement, confidence, and perception. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 345-374). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
24. Connally, E., Hughes-Hallett, D., Gleason, A. M., Avenoso, F., Cheifetz, P., Hillyer, J., et al. (1998). Functions modeling change: A preparation for calculus (preliminary ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
25. Corbett, D., & Wilson, B. (1995). Make a difference with, not for, students: A plea to researchers and reformers. Educational Researcher, 24(5), 12-17.
26. Darken, B., Wynegar, R., & Kuhn, S. (2000). Evaluating calculus reform: A review and a longitudinal study. In A. H. Schoenfeld, E. Dubinsky, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV (pp. 16-41). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
27. Douglas, R. (Ed.). (1986). Toward a lean and lively calculus. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
28. Eccles, J. S., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternative theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26-43.
29. Fennema, E., & Sherman, J. A. (1975). Fennema-Sherman Mathematics Attitude Scales. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 75, 324-326.
30. Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M.. & Druek, J. V. (2000). Achievement results for second and third graders using the Standards-based curriculum Everyday Mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 277-295.
31. Ganter, S. L. (1994). The importance of empirical evaluations of mathematics programs: A case from the calculus reform movement. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 16(2), 1-17.
32. Ganter, S. L. (2001). Changing calculus: A report on evaluation efforts and national impact from 1988-1998. Washington, D.C.: The Mathematical Association of America.
33. Ganter, S. L., & Jiroutek, M. R. (2000). The need for evaluation in the calculus reform movement: A comparison of two calculus teaching methods. In A. H. Schoenfeld, E. Dubinsky, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV (pp. 42-62). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
34. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school: Prospects for the future. New York: McGraw-Hill.
35. Haimes, D. H. (1996). The implementation of a "functions" approach to introductory algebra: A case study of teacher cognitions, teacher actions, and the intended curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 27, 582-602.
36. Herzig, A., & Kung, D. T. (2003). Cooperative learning in calculus reform: What have we learned? In A. Selden, E. Dubinsky, G. Harel, & F. Hitt (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education V (pp. 30-55). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
37. Hiebert, J. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM Standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3-19.
38. Hirsch, C., Coxford, A., Fey, J., & Schoen, H. (1995). Core-Plus Mathematics Project. Chicago, IL: Everyday Learning Publishers.
39. Holt, D. V., Gann, E., Gordon-Walinsky, S., Klinger, E., Toliver, R., & Wolff, E. (2001). Caught in the storm of reform: Five student perspectives on the implementation of the Interactive Mathematics Program. In J. Shultz & A. Cook-Sather (Eds.), In Our Own Words (pp. 105-125). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
40. Hoffer, B. K. (1999). Instructional contact in the college mathematics classroom: Epistemological beliefs and student motivation. Journal of Staff, Program, and Organization Development, 16, 73-81.
41. Hughes-Hallett, D., McCalluum, W. G., Gleason, A. M., Quainney, D., Flath, D. E., Osgood, B. G., et al. (1994). Calculus. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
42. Huntley, M. A., Rasmussen, C. L., Villarubi, R. S., Sangtong, J., & Fey, J. (2000). Effects of Standards-based mathematics education: A study of the Core-Plus Mathematics Project algebra and functions strand. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 31, 328-361.
43. Hurley, J. F., Koehn, U., & Ganter, S. L. (1999). Effects of calculus reform: Local and national. American Mathematical Monthly, 106, 800-811.
44. Jackson, A. (1997a). The Math Wars: California battles it out over mathematics education reform (part I). Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 44, 695-701.
45. Jackson, A. (1997b). The Math Wars: California battles it out over mathematics education reform (part II). Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 44, 817-823.
46. Keith, S. Z. (1995). How do students feel about calculus reform, and how can we tell? UME Trends, 6(6), 6, 31.
47. Kilpatrick, J. (2001). Where is the evidence? Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 421-423.
48. Lappan, G., Fey, J., Friel, S., Fitzgerald, W., & Phillips, E. (1995). The Connected Mathematics Project. Palo Alto, CA: Dale Seymour Publications.
49. Lloyd, G. M., & Wilson, M. (1998). Supporting innovation: The impact of a teacher's conception of functions on his implementation of a reform curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 248-274.
50. Lott, J. W., Hirstein, J., Allinger, G., Walen, S., Burke, M., Lundin, M., et al. (2003). Curriculum and assessment in SIMMS Integrated Mathematics. In S. L. Senk & D. R. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learnt (pp. 399-423). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Lubienski, S. T. (2000). A clash of social class cultures? Students' experiences in a discussion-intensive seventh-grade mathematics classroom. Elementary School Journal, 100, 377-403.
52. Mayer, D. P. (1998). Do new teaching standards undermine performance on old tests? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 53-73.
53. McCallum, W. (2000). The goals of the calculus course. In S. L. Ganter (Ed.), Calculus renewal: Issues for undergraduate mathematics education in the next decade (pp. 11-22). New York: Kluwer.
54. McLeod, D. B. (1992). Research on affect in mathematics education: A reconceptualization. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 575-596). New York: Macmillan.
55. Meel, D. E. (1998). Honors students' calculus understandings: Comparing calculus & Mathematica and traditional calculus students. In A. H. Schoenfeld, J. Kaput, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education III (pp. 163-215). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
56. Mittag, K. C., & Collins, L. B. (2000). Relating the Calculus I reform experience to performance in traditional Calculus II. PRIMUS, 10, 82-94.
57. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
58. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
59. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
60. Park, K., & Travers, K. J. (1996). A comparative study of a computer-based and a standard college first-year calculus course. In J. Kaput, A. H. Schoenfeld, & E. Dubinsky (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education II (pp. 155-176). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
61. Ratay, G. M. (1993). Student performance with calculus reform at the United States Merchant Marine Academy, PRIMUS, 3, 107-111.
62. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers' orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 352-388.
63. Reys, B. J., Reys, R. E., & Chavez, O. (2004). Why mathematics textbooks matter. Educational Leadership, 61, 61-66.
64. Reys, B., & Roseman, J. E. (2004). Instructional materials and curriculum. In F. K. Lester & J. Ferrini-Mundy (Eds.), Proceedings of the NCTM Research Catalyst Conference (pp. 133-140). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
65. Reys, R. E. (2001). Curricular controversy in the Math Wars: A battle without winners. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 255-258.
66. Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Barnes, D. E., Beem, J. K., Lapan, R. T., & Papick, I. J. (1998). Standards-based middle school mathematics curricula: What do students think? In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the middle (pp. 153-157). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
67. Reys, R., Reys, B., Lapan, R., Holliday, G., & Wasman, D. (2003). Assessing the impact of Standards-based middle grades mathematics curriculum materials on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 74-95.
68. Riordin, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 368-398.
69. Roddick, C. (2003). Calculus reform and traditional students' use of calculus in an engineering mechanics course. In A. Selden, E. Dubinsky, G. Harel, & F. Hitt (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education V (pp. 56-78). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
70. Ross, J. A., McDougall, D., & Hogaboam-Gray, A. (2002). Research on reform in mathematics education. 1993-2000. Alberta Journal of Educational Research. 48, 122-138.
71. Schoen, H. L., Cebulla, K. J., Finn, K. F., & Fi, C. (2003). Teacher variables that relate to student achievement when using a Standards-based curriculum. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 228-259.
72. Schoen, H. L., & Pritchett, J (1998, April). Students' perceptions and attitudes in a Standards-based high school mathematics curriculum. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
73. Schoen, H. L., Fey, J. T., Hirsch, C. R., & Coxford, A. F. (1999). Issues and options in the Math Wars. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 444-453.
74. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2004). Math wars. Educational policy, 18, 253-286.
75. 4L and traditional students. In A. H. Schoenfeld, E. Dubinsky, & J. J. Kaput (Eds.), Research in Collegiate Mathematics Education IV (pp. 63-76). Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society.
76. Senk, S. L., & Thompson, D. R. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? Hillsdale. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
77. Smith, J. P. (2006). The role of agency in successful adjustments to collegiate mathematics. Manuscript submitted for publication.
78. Spillane, J. P., & Zeuli, J. S. (1999). Reform and teaching: Exploring patterns of practice in the context of national and state mathematics reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 1-27.
79. Star, J., Herbel-Eisenmann, B., & Smith, J. P. (2000). Algebraic concepts: What's really new in new curricula? Mathematics Teaching in the Middle School, 5, 446-451.
80. Star, J. R., Smith, J. P., & Hoffmann, A. J. (2006). What do students notice as different between reform and traditional mathematics programs? Manuscript submitted for publication.
81. Steen, L. A. (Ed.). (1987). Calculus for a new century: A pump, not a filter. Washington, DC: Mathematics Association of America.
82. Tarr, J. E., Chavez, O., Reys, R. E., & Reys, B. J. (2006). From the written to the enacted curricula: The intermediary role of middle school mathematics teachers in shaping students' opportunity to learn. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 191-201.
83. Thomas, G. B., & Finney, R. L. (1996). Calculus and analytic geometry, part I (9th ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
84. Trafton, P. R., Reys, B. J., & Wasman, D. G. (2001). Standards-based mathematics curriculum materials: A phrase in search of a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 83, 259-264.
85. Triesman, U. (1992). Studying students studying calculus: A look at the lives of mathematics students in college. The College Mathematics Journal, 23, 362-372.
86. Tucker, T. W. (Ed.) (1990). Priming the calculus pump: Innovations and resources. Washington, DC: The Mathematical Association of America.
87. Walker, R. (1999). Students' conceptions of mathematics and the transition from a Standards-Based reform curriculum to college mathematics. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Western Michigan.
88. Wilson, S. M. (2003). California dreaming: Reforming mathematics education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.