Curriculum research: Toward a framework for "research-based curricula"

Journal for Research in Mathematics Education

Volumn 38, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 35-70

  Clements, Douglas H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum; Evaluation; Instructional intervention; Large scale studies; Naturalistic ethnographic methods; Program project assessment; Qualitative methods; Quasi experimental design

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846402169     PISSN: 00218251     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (190)

1. Anderson, J. R., Corbett, A. T., Koedinger, K., & Pelletier, R. (1995). Cognitive tutors: Lessons learned. The Journal of the Learning Science, 4, 167-207.
2. Artigue, M. (1994). Didactical engineering as a framework for the conception of teaching products. In R. Biehler, R. W. Scholz, R. Strässer, & B. Winkelmann (Eds.), Didactics of mathematics as a scientific discipline (pp. 27-39). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
3. 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, 16(2), 6-8: 14.
4. Bannan-Ritland, B. (2003). The role of design in research: The integrative learning design framework. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 21-24.
5. Barab, S., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 1-14.
6. Baroody, A. J. (1987). Children's mathematical thinking. New York: Teachers College Press.
7. Baroody, A. J., with Coslick, R. T. (1998). Fostering children's mathematical power: An investigative approach to K-8 mathematics instruction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
8. Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (1996). Students' understanding of three-dimensional rectangular arrays of cubes. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27, 258-292.
9. Battista, M. T., & Clements, D. H. (2000). Mathematics curriculum development as a scientific endeavor. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 737-760). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Battista, M. T., Clements, D. H., Arnoff, J., Battista, K., & Borrow, C. V. A. (1998). Students' spatial structuring of 2d arrays of squares. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 29, 503-532.
11. Beauchamp, G. A. (1981). Curriculum theory, Itasca, IL: F. E. Peacock Publishers.
12. Beauchamp, G. A. (1986). Curriculum theory: Meaning, development, and use. Theory Into Practice, 21 (1), 23-27.
13. Berends, M., Kirby, S. N., Naftel. S., & McKelvey, C. (2001). Implementation and performance in new American schools: Three years into scale-up. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education.
14. Bloom, B. S. (1984). The 2-sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, 13, 4-16.
15. Bodilly, S. J. (1998). Lessons from new American schools' scale-up phase. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education.
16. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125-230.
17. Braswell, J. S., & Romberg, T. A. (1969). Objectives of patterns in arithmetic and evaluation of the telecourse for grades 1 and 3. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning.
18. Brown, A. L. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in evaluating Complex interventions in classroom setting. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141-178.
19. Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Burkhardt, H., Fraser, R., & Ridgway, J. (1990). The dynamics of curriculum change. In I. Wirszup & R. Streit (Eds.), Developments in school mathematics around the world (Vol. 2, pp. 3-30). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
21. Carpenter, T. P., & Moser, J. M. (1984). The acquisition of addition and subtraction concepts in grades one through three. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 179-202.
22. Case, R. (1982). General developmental influences on the acquisition of elementary concepts and algorithms in arithmetic. In T. P. Carpenter, J. M. Moser, & T. A. Romberg (Eds.), Addition and subtraction: A cognitive perspective (pp. 156-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
23. Char, C. A. (1990). Click on the clock: Formative research in the development of mathematics software for young children (No. Report No. 90-1). Newton, MA: Educational Development Center.
24. Childers, R. D. (Cartographer). (1989). Implementation of the writing to read instructional system in 13 rural elementary schools in southern West Virginia. 1988-89 annual report.
25. Clements, D.H. (2002). Linking research and curriculum development. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 599-636). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
26. Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (2000). Designing effective software. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 761-776). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., & Swaminathan, S. (1996a). Development of turn and turn measurement concepts in a computer-based instructional unit. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 30, 313-337.
28. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., & Swaminathan, S. (1997a). Development of students' spatial thinking in a unit on geometric motions and area. The Elementary School Journal, 98, 171-186.
29. Clements, D. H., Battista, M. T., Sarama, J., Swaminathan, S., & McMillen, S. (1997b). Students' development of length measurement concepts in a Logo-based unit on geometric paths. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(1), 70-95.
30. Clements, D. H., Meredith, J. S., & Battista, M. T. (1992). Design of a Logo environment for elementary geometry. In W. Geeslin & K. Graham (Eds.), Proceedings of the sixteenth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (vol. 1, p. 152). Durham, NH: Program Committee.
31. Clements, D. H., & Nastasi, B. K. (1988). Social and cognitive interactions in educational computer environments. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 87-106.
32. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (1995). Design of a Logo environment for elementary geometry. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 14, 381-398.
33. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (1998). Building blocks - foundations for mathematical thinking, prekindergarten to grade 2: Research-based materials development [National Science Foundation, grant number ESI-9730804; see www.Gse.Buffalo.Edu/org/buildingblocks/]. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York at Buffalo.
34. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2002). Design of microworlds in mathematics and science education. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(1&2), 1-6.
35. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004a). Building blocks for early childhood mathematics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 181-189.
36. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004b). Hypothetical learning trajectories [special issue]. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6 (2).
37. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2004c). Learning trajectories in mathematics education. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 81-89.
38. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (in press). Effects of a preschool mathematics curriculum: Summary research on the building blocks project. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
39. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Battista, M. T. (1996b). Development of turn and turn measurement concepts in a computer-based instructional unit. In E. Jakubowski, D. Watkins, & H. Biske (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 547-552). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science. Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
40. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., & Battista, M. T. (1998). Development of concepts of geometric figures in a specially-designed Logo computer environment. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 20, 47-64.
41. Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Battista, M. T., & Swaminathan, S. (1996c). Development of students' spatial thinking in a curriculum unit on geometric motions and area. In E. Jakubowski, D. Watkins, & H. Biske (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 217-222). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science, Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
42. Clements. D. H., Sarama, J., & DiBiase, A.-M. (2004). Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Clements, D. H., Wilson, D. C., & Sarama, J. (2004). Young children's composition of geometric figures: A learning trajectory. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 6, 163-184.
44. Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In S. Carver & D. Klahr (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress (pp. 455-478). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Cobb, P., Confrey, J., diSessa, A., Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Design experiments in educational research. Educational Researcher, 32(1), 9-13.
46. Cobb, P., & McClain, K. (2002). Supporting students' learning of significant mathematical ideas. In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21 st century: Sociocultural perspective on the future of education (pp. 154-166). Oxford, England: Blackwell.
47. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Rewarding teachers for student performance. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reforms: Creating educational incentives that work. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
48. Collins, A., Joseph, D., & Bielaczyc, K. (2004). Design research: Theoretical and methodological issues. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 15-42.
49. Confrey, J. (1996). The role of new technologies in designing mathematics education. In C. Fisher, D. C. Dwyer, & K. Yocam (Eds.), Education and technology, reflections on computing in the classroom (pp. 129-149). San Francisco: Apple Press.
50. Confrey, J. (2000). Improving research and systemic reform toward equity and quality. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 87-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51. Confrey, J., Bell, K., & Carrejo, D. (in press). Systemic crossfire: What implementation research reveals about urban reform in mathematics. Austin, TX: Systemic Research Collaborative for Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology (SYRCE), University of Texas at Austin.
52. Confrey, J., Castro-Filho, J., & Wilhelm, J. (2000). Implementation research as a means to link systemic reform and applied psychology in mathematics education. Educational Psychologist, 35, 179-191.
53. Confrey, J., & Lachance, A. (2000). Transformative teaching experiments through conjecture-driven research design. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 231-265). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
54. Cook, T. D. (2002). Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 175-199.
55. Cronbach, L. J., Ambron, S. R., Dornbusch, S. M., Hess, R. D., Hornik, R. C., Phillips, D. C., et al. (Eds.). (1980). Toward reform of program evaluation: Aims, methods, and institutional arrangements. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
56. Cronbach, L. J., & Suppes, P. (Eds.). (1969). Research for tomorrow's schools: Disciplined inquiry for education. New York: Macmillan.
57. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
58. Darling-Hammond, L., & Snyder. J. (1992). Curriculum studies and the traditions of inquiry: The scientific tradition. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 41-78). New York: Macmillan.
59. Davis B., & Simmt, E. (2003). Understanding learning systems: Mathematics education and complexity science. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 34, 137-167.
60. Davis, R. B. (1984), Learning mathematics: The cognitive science approach to mathematics education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
61. The Design-Based Research Collective. (2003). Design-based research: An emerging paradigm for educational inquiry. Educational Researcher, 52(1), 5-8.
62. Dewey, J. (1902/1976). The child and the curriculum. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), John Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924. Volume 2:1902-1903 (pp. 273-291). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
63. Dewey, J. (1929). The sources of a science of education. New York: Liveright Publishing Corp.
64. diSessa, A. A., & Cobb, P. (2004). Ontological innovation and the role of theory in design experiments. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 77-103.
65. Dow, P. B. (1991). School house politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
66. Eisner, E. W. (1998). The primacy of experience and the politics of method. Educational Researcher, 17(5), 15-20.
67. Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practices. Harvard Educational Review, 66, 1-25.
68. Erickson, F., & Gutierrez, K. (2002). Culture, rigor, and science in educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 21-24.
69. Escobedo, T. H., & Evans, S. (1997, March). A comparison of child-tested early childhood education software with professional ratings, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
70. Feuer, M. J., Towne, L., & Shavelson, R. J. (2002). Scientific culture and educational research. Educational Researcher, 31(8), 4-14.
71. Fishman, B., Marx, R. W., Blumenfeld, P. C., Krajcik, J. S., & Soloway, E. (2004). Creating a framework for research on systemic technology innovations. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13, 43-76.
72. Flagg, B. (1990). Formative evaluation for educational technology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
73. Forman, G. E. (1993). The constructivist perspective to early education. In J. L. Roopnarine & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to early childhood education (2nd ed., pp. 137-155). New York: Merrill.
74. Fraivillig, J. L., Murphy, L. A., & Fuson, K. C. (1999). Advancing children's mathematical thinking in everyday mathematics classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 148-170.
75. Fullan, M. G. (1992). Successful school improvement. Philadelphia: Open University Press.
76. Fuson, K. C. (1997). Research-based mathematics curricula: New educational goals require programs of four interacting levels of research. Issues in Education, 3(1), 67-79.
77. Fuson, K. C., Carroll, W. M., & Drueck, 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.
78. Fuson, K. C., Smith, S. T., & Lo Cicero, A. (1997). Supporting Latino first graders' ten-structured thinking in urban classrooms. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 738-760.
79. Gerber, M. M., Semmel, D. S., & Semmel, M. I. (1994). Computer-based dynamic assessment of multi-digit multiplication. Exceptional Children, 61, 114-125.
80. Ginsburg, H. P. (1977). Children's arithmetic: How they learn it and how you teach it. Austin, TX: Proed.
81. Ginsburg, H. P. (1997). Entering the child's mind: The clinical interview in psychological research and practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
82. Ginsburg, H. P., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The development of children's mathematical thinking: Connecting research with practice. In W. Damon, I. E. Sigel, & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. Volume 4: Child psychology in practice (pp. 401-476), New York: John Wiley & Sons.
83. Giorgianni, S. J., & Granna, J. (1999). The importance of innovation in pharmaceutical research. The Pfizer Journal, 7(2).
84. Goodlad, J. I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw-Hill.
85. Goodlad, J. I., & Associates. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw-Hill.
86. Grant, S. G., Peterson, P. L., & Shojgreen-Downer, A. (1996). Learning to teach mathematics in the context of system reform. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 509-541.
87. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1994a). Developing realistic mathematics instruction. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute.
88. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1994h). Educational development and developmental research in mathematics education. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 443-471.
89. Gravemeijer, K. P. E. (1999). How emergent models may foster the constitution of formal mathematics. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 1, 155-177.
90. Gravemeijer, K. P. E., Cobb, P., Bowers, J., & Whitenack, J. (2000). Symbolizing, modeling, and instructional design. In P. Cobb, E. Yackel, & K. McClain (Eds.), Symbolizing and communicating in mathematics classrooms: Perspectives on discourse, tools, and instructional design (pp. 225-274). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
91. Greenwald, A. G., Pratkanis, A. R., Leippe, M. R., & Baumgardner, M. H. (1986). Under what conditions does theory obstruct research progress? Psychological Review, 93, 216-229.
92. Griffin, S., & Case, R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary school math curriculum: An approach based on cognitive science. Issues in Education, 3(1), 1-49.
93. Grouws, D. A., & Cebulla, K. J. (2000). Elementary and middle school mathematics at the crossroads. In T. L. Good (Ed.), American education: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow (volume ii) (pp. 209-255). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
94. Halat, E., & Aspinwall, L. (2004. April). Van Hiele theory based curriculum in geometry; performance and gender. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
95. Han, T.-S. (1986). The effects on achievement and attitude of a standard geometry textbook and a textbook consistent with the van Hiele theory. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3690A.
96. Herbst, P. (2003). Using novel tasks in teaching mathematics: Three tensions affecting the work of the teacher. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 197-238.
97. Hiebert, J. C. (1999). Relationships between research and the NCTM standards. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30, 3-19.
98. Hiebert, J. C., Carpenter, T., Fennema, E. H., Fuson, K. C., Wearne, D., Murray, H. G., et al. (1997). Making sense: Teaching and learning mathematics with understanding. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
99. Hoyles, C., & Noss, R. (1992). A pedagogy for mathematical microworlds. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 23, 31-57.
100. Hoyles, C., Noss, R., & Sutherland, R. (1989). Designing a Logo-based microworld for ratio and proportion. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 5, 208-222.
101. Jackson, P. W. (1992). Conceptions of curriculum and curriculum specialists. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 3-40). New York: Macmillan.
102. Jaeger, R. M. (1988). Survey research methods in education. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methods for research in education (pp. 303-340). Washington: American Educational Research Association.
103. James, W. (1958). Talks to teachers on psychology: And to students on some of life's ideas. New York: Norton.
104. Johnson, R. B., & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.
105. Kamii, C. K. (1985). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget's theory. New York: Teachers College Press.
106. Kamii, C. K., & Dominick, A. (1998). The harmful effects of algorithms in grades 1-4. In L. J. Morrow & M. J. Kenney (Eds.), The teaching and learning of algorithms in school mathematics (pp. 130-140). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
107. Kamii, C. K., & Housman, L. B. (1999). Young children reinvent arithmetic: Implications of Piaget's theory (2nd ed.). New York: Teaching College Press.
108. Kelly, A. E. (2004). Design research in education: Yes, but is it methodological? Journal of the learning Sciences, 13(1), 115-128.
109. Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J.. & Findell, B. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
110. Lagemann, E. (1997). Contested terrain: A history of education research in the united states. Educational Researcher, 26(9), 5-18.
111. Lahm, E. A. (1996). Software that engaged young children with disabilities: A study of design features. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 11(2), 115-124.
112. Lampert, M. (1988). Teaching that connects students' inquiry with curricular agendas in schools. Technical report. Cambridge, MA: Educational Technology Center, Harvard Graduate School of Education.
113. Latour, B. (1987). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
114. Lavin, R. J., & Sanders, J. E. (1983). Longitudinal evaluation of the c/a/i computer assisted instruction title 1 project: 1979-82. Chelmsford, MA: Merrimack Education Center.
115. Lawton, J. T. (1993). The Ausubelian preschool classroom. In J. L. Roopnarine & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to early childhood education (2nd ed., pp. 157-177). New York: Merrill.
116. Lehrer, R., & Chazan, D. (Eds.). (1998). Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
117. Lehrer, R., Jacobson, C., Thoyre, G., Kemeny, V., Strom, D., Horvarth, J., et al. (1998a). Developing understanding of geometry and space in the primary grades. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 169-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
118. Lehrer, R., Jenkins, M., & Osana, H. (1998b). Longitudinal study of children's reasoning about space and geometry. In R. Lehrer & D. Chazan (Eds.), Designing learning environments for developing understanding of geometry and space (pp. 137-167). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
119. Lesh, R. A. (1990). Computer-based assessment of higher order understandings and processes in elementary mathematics. In G. Kulm (Ed.), Assessing higher order thinking in mathematics (pp. 81-110). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.
120. Lesh, R. A., & Kelly, A. E. (2000). Multitiered teaching experiments. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 197-230). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
121. Lester, F. K., Jr., & Wiliam, D. (2002). On the purpose of mathematics education research: Making productive contributions to policy and practice. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 489-506). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
122. Lewis, C. C., & Tsuchida, I. (1998). A lesson is like a swiftly flowing river: How research lessons improve Japanese education. American Educator, 12, 14-17; 50-52.
123. Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summing up: The science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
124. Lincoln, Y. S. (1992). Curriculum studies and the traditions of inquiry: The humanistic tradition. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 79-97). New York: Macmillan.
125. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
126. McClain, K., Cobb, P., Gravemeijer, K. P. E., & Estes, B. (1999). Developing mathematical reasoning within the context of measurement. In L. V. Stiff & F. R. Curcio (Eds.), Developing mathematical reasoning in grades K-12 (pp. 93-106). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
127. Mohrman, S. A., & Lawler III, E. E. (1996). Motivation for school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & J. A. O'Day (Eds.), Rewards and reform: Creating educational incentives that work (pp. 115-143). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
128. Mokros, J. R. (2003). Learning to reason numerically: The impact of investigations. In S. Senk (Ed.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula. What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 109-132). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
129. Murphy, R. T., & Appel, L. R. (1984). Evaluation of writing to read. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
130. Nastasi, B. K., Clements, D. H., & Battista, M. T. (1990). Social-cognitive interactions, motivation, and cognitive growth in Logo programming and CAI problem-solving environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 150-158.
131. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics, Reston, VA: Author.
132. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2006). Curriculum focal points. Reston, VA: Author.
133. National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. In R. J. Shavelson & L. Towne (Eds.). Washington, DC: National Research Council, National Academy Press.
134. NRC Committee. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Washington. D.C.: Mathematical Sciences Education Board, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, The National Academies Press.
135. Papert, S. (1987). Computer criticism vs. technocentric thinking. Educational Researcher, 16(1), 22-30.
136. Pinar, W. F., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (1995). Understanding curriculum: An introduction to the study of historical and contemporary curriculum discourses. New York: Peter Lang.
137. President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology - Panel on Educational Technology. (1997). Report to the president on the use of technology ta strengthen K-12 education in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
138. Ramey, C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist, 53, 109-120.
139. Reeves, D. B. (2002, May 8). Galileo's dilemma. Education Week, p. 44.
140. Remillard, J. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers' learning? Two fourth-grade teachers' use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100, 331-350.
141. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed.). New York: The Free Press.
142. Russek, B. E., & Weinberg, S. L. (1993). Mixed methods in a study of implementation of technology-based materials in the elementary classroom. Evaluation and Program Planning, 16, 131-142.
143. Sarama, J. (2000). Toward more powerful computer environments: Developing mathematics software on research-based principles. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 22(3&4), 125-147.
144. Sarama, J. (2004). Technology in early childhood mathematics: Building blocks™ as an innovative technology-based curriculum. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama. & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education (pp. 361-375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
145. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2002). Building blocks for young children's mathematical development Journal of Educational Computing Research, 27(1&2), 93-110.
146. Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (in press). Linking research and software development. In K. Heid & G. Blume (Eds.), Technology in the learning and teaching of mathematics: Syntheses and perspectives. New York: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
147. Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., & Henry, J. J. (1998). Network of influences in an implementation of a mathematics curriculum innovation. International Journal of Computers for Mathematical Learning, 3, 113-148.
148. Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., Swaminathan, S., McMillen, S., & González Gómez, R. M. (2003). Development of mathematical concepts of two-dimensional space in grid environments: An exploratory study. Cognition and Instruction, 21, 285-324.
149. Sarama, J., Clements, D. H., & Vukelic, E. B. (1996). The role of a computer manipulative in fostering specific psychological/mathematical processes. In E. Jakubowski, D. Watkins & H. Biske (Eds.), Proceedings of the eighteenth annual meeting of the North American Chapter of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 2, pp. 567-572). Columbus, OH: ERIC Clearinghouse for Science. Mathematics, and Environmental Education.
150. Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1994). Computer support for knowledge-building communities. The Journal of the learning Sciences, 3, 265-283.
151. Schaff, W. L. (1960). Selected annotated bibliography. In Instruction in arithmetic. Twenty-fifth yearbook (pp. 320-354). Washington, D.C.: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
152. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H. C., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
153. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999), Looking toward the 21st century: Challenge of educational theory and practice. Educational Research 28.
154. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Research methods in (mathematics) education. In L. D. English (Ed.), Handbook of international research in mathematics education (pp. 435-487). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
155. Schoenfeld, A. H., Smith HI, J. P., & Arcavi, A. (1993). Learning: The microgenetic analysis of one students' evolving understanding of a complex subject matter domain. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (vol. 4, pp. 55-175). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
156. Schwandt, T. A. (2002). Evaluation practice reconsidered. New York: Peter Lang.
157. Shade, D. D. (1994). Computers and young children: Software types, social contexts, gender, age, and emotional responses. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education, 5(2), 177-209.
158. Siegler, R. S., & Crowley, K. (1991). The microgenetic method: A direct means for studying cognitive: development. American Psychologist, 46, 606-620.
159. Simon, H. A. (1969). The sciences of the artificial Cambridge, MA: The M.I.T. Press.
160. Simon, M. A. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26(2), 114-145.
161. Smith, J. (1983). Quantitative versus qualitative research: An attempt to clarify the issue. Educational Researcher, 72(3), 6-13.
162. Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. (1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Macmillan.
163. Spradley, J. P. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
164. Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
165. Steffe, L. P. (1983). Children's algorithms as schemes. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 14, 109-125.
166. Steffe, L. P. (1994). Children's multiplying schemes. In G. Harel & J. Confrey (Eds.), The development of multiplicative reasoning in the learning of mathematics (pp. 3-39). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
167. Steffe, L. P., & Cobb, P. (1988). Construction of arithmetical meanings and strategies. New York: Springer-Verlag.
168. Steffe, L. P., Thompson, P. W., & Glasersfeld, E. v. (2000). Teaching experiment methodology: Underlying principles and essential elements. In A. E. Kelly & R. A. Lesh (Eds.), Handbook of research design in mathematics and science education (pp. 267-306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
169. Steffe, L. P., & Wiegel, H. G. (1994). Cognitive play and mathematical learning in computer microworlds. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 8(2), 117-131.
170. Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. C. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world's teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York: The Free Press.
171. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
172. Streefland, L. (1991). Fractions in realistic mathematics education: A paradigm of developmental research. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
173. Taba, H. (1962). Curriculum development: Theory and practice. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
174. Tamir, P. (1988). The role of pre-planning curriculum evaluation in science education. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 20, 257-262.
175. Tushnet, N. C., Millsap, M. A., Abdullah-Welsh, N., Brigham, N., Cooley, E., Elliot, J., et al. (2000). Final report on the evaluation of the national science foundation's instructional materials development program. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
176. Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering towards utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
177. Tyack, D., & Tobin, W. (1992). The "Grammar" of schooling: Why has it been so hard to change? American Educational Research Journal, 31, 453-479.
178. Tyler, R. W. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
179. Valverde, G. A., Bianchi, L. J., Wolfe, R. G., Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2002). According to the book: Using TIMSS to investigate the translation of policy into practice through the world of textbooks. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
180. van den Brink, F. J. (1991). Realistic arithmetic education for young children. In L. Streefland (Ed.), Realistic mathematics education in primary school (pp. 77-92). Utrecht. The Netherlands: Freudenthal Institute. Utrecht University.
181. van Hiele, P. M. (1986). Structure and insight: A theory of mathematics education. Orlando. FL: Academic Press.
182. van Oers, B. (2003). Learning resources in the context of play. Promoting effective learning in early childhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 11, 7-25.
183. Walker, D. F. (1992). Methodological issues in curriculum research. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 98-118). New York: Macmillan.
184. Walker, D. F. (2003). Fundamentals of curriculum: Passion and professionalism (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
185. Weiss, I. R. (2002, April). Systemic reform in mathematics education: What have we learned? Paper presented at the research presession of the 80th annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Las Vegas, NV.
186. Whipple, G. M. (1930). The twenty-ninth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education: Report of the society's committee on arithmetic. Bloomington. IL: Public School Publishing Co.
187. Wittmann, E. C. (1995). Mathematics education as a "design science." Educational Studies in Mathematics, 29, 355-374.
188. Woodward, A., & Elliot, D. L. (1990). Textbook use and teacher professionalism. In K. J. Rehage, D. L. Elliot, & A. Woodward (Eds.), Textbooks and schooling in the United States (eighty-ninth year-hook of the National Society for the Study of Education, part I) (pp. 178-193). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
189. Yerushalmy, M. (1997). Emergence of new schemes for solving algebra word problems. In E. Pehkonen (Ed.), Proceedings of the 21st conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 165-178). Lahti, Finland: University of Helsinki.
190. Zaritsky, R., Kelly, A. E., Flowers, W., Rogers, E., & O'Neil, P. (2003). Clinical design sciences: A view from sister design efforts. Educational Researcher, 32(2), 32-34.