Standards-based reform and teaching for understanding

Understanding Mathematics and Science Matters

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 3-27

  Romberg, Thomas A ^a   Carpenter, Thomas P ^a   Kwako, Joan ^a  

^a University of Madison   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84892343974     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9781410612618     Document Type: Chapter

References (58)

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1993). Benchmarks for science literacy: Project 2061 New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science
3. Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classrooms. Journal of Learning Sciences, 2, 141-178.
4. Brown, A., & Campione, J. (1996). Psychological theory and the design of innovative learning environments: On procedures, principles, and systems. In Schauble L. & Glaser R. (Eds.), Innovations in learning: New environments for education (pp. 289-325). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5. Carey, S., Evans, R., Honda, M., Jay, E. ,& Unger, C. (1989). "An experiment is when you try it and see if it works": A study of Grade 7 students' understanding of the construction of scientific knowledge. InternationalJournal of Science Education, 11, 514-529.
6. Carpenter, T.E, & Levi, L. (2000). Developing conceptions of algebraic reasoning in the primary grades (Res.Rep.No.00-2). Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
7. Cartier, J., Rudolph, J. ,& Stewart, J. (2001). The nature and structure of scientific models. Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
8. Clarke, D. (1993). Influences on the changing role of the mathematics teacher
9. Cobb, P. (2001). Supporting the improvement of learning and teaching in social and institutional context. In Carver S. & Klahr D. (Eds.), Cognition and instruction: Twenty-five years of progress. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Cobb, E, Boufi, A., McClain, K. ,& Whitenack, J. (1997). Reflective discourse and collective reflection. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 23 (3), 258-277.
11. Gross, M., & Moscardini, A.O. (1985). Learning the art of mathematical modeling. Chichester England: Ellis Horwood.
12. de Lange, J., Burrill, G., Romberg, T ,& van Reeuwijk, M. (1993). Learning and testing mathematics in context Pleasantville, NY: Wings for Learning.
13. Devlin, K. (1994). Mathematics: The science of patterns. New York: Freeman.
14. Fennema, E., & Romberg, T. A. (Eds.). (1999). Classrooms that promote mathematical understanding Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Forman, E.A. (2001). Classroom discourse project. Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
16. Forman, E.A., Larreamendy Joerns, J., Stein, M.K. ,& Brown, C.A. (1998). "You're going to want to find out which and prove it": Collective argumentation in a mathematics classroom. Learning and Instruction, 8 (6), 527-548.
17. Freudenthal, H. (1983). Didactical phenomenology of mathematical structures. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Reidel
18. Freudenthal, H. (1987). Mathematics starting and staying in reality. In Wirszup I. & Street R. (Eds.), Proceedings of the USCMP conference on mathematics education on development in school mathematics education around the world. (pp. 279-295). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
19. Gee, J. (1998). Preamble to a literacy program. Madison, WI: Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
20. Goodwin, M. H., & Goodwin, C. (1987). Children's arguing. In Philips S. U., Steele S. & Tanz C. (Eds.), Language, gender, and sex in comparative perspective (pp. 200-249). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
21. Greeno, J. (1991). Number sense as situated knowing in a conceptual domain. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 (3), 170-218.
22. Hestenes, D. (1992). Modeling games in the Newtonian world. American Journal of Physics, 60, 440-454.
23. Keitel, C. (1987). What are the goals of mathematics for all? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 19 (5), 393-407.
24. Kilpatrick, J. (1987) George Polya's influence on mathematics education Emphasis>sinfluenceonmathematicseducation. Mathematics Magazine, 60 (5), 299-300.
25. Kitcher, P. (1993). The advancement of science: Science without legend, objectivity without illusions. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Kuyk, W. (1982). A neuropsychodynamical theory of mathematics learning. In Proceedings of the sixth international conference for the Psychology of Mathematical Education (pp. 48-62). Antwerp, Belgium: Universitaire Instelling.
27. Lehrer, R., & Schauble, L. (2003). Origins and evolution of model-based reasoning in mathematics and science. In Lesh R. (Ed.), Models and modeling in mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving (pp. 59-70). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
28. Lesh, R., & Doerr, H. (in press). Foundations of models and modeling. In Lesh R. (Ed.), Models and modeling in mathematics teaching, learning, and problem solving. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
29. Little, J. (1993). Teachers' professional development in a climate of educational reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (2), 129-151.
30. McKnight, C. ,& Schmidt, W. (1998). Facing facts in U.S. science and mathematics education: Where we stand and where we want to go. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 7 (1), 57-76.
31. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Center for Libraries and Education Improvement.
32. National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century. (2000). Before it's too late: A report to the nation. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education.
33. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
34. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1991). Professional standards for teaching mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
35. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (1995). Assessment standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
36. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
37. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
38. National Science Board Commission on Precollege Education in Mathematics, Science, and Technology. (1983). EducatingAmericans for the 21st century: A plan of action for improving the mathematics, science, and technology education for all American elementary and secondary students so that their achievement is the best in the world by 1995. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation.
39. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
40. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (1999). Measuring student knowledge and skills: A new framework for assessment. Paris: Author.
41. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2001). Knowledge and skills for life. Paris: Author.
42. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2002). Framework for the PISA mathematics domain. Paris: Author.
43. Peak, L. (1996). Pursuing excellence: A study of U.S. eighth-grade mathematics and science teaching, learning, curriculum, and achievement in an international context. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics.
44. Penner, D.E., Giles, N.D., Lehrer, R. ,& Schauble, L. (1997). Building functional models: Designing an elbow. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 34, 1-20.
45. Romberg, T. A. (1983). A common curriculum for mathematics. In Fenstermacher G. D. & Goodlad J. I. (Eds.), Individual differences and the common curriculum (pp. 121-159). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
46. Romberg, T A. (1992). Problematic features of the school mathematics curriculum. In Jackson P. (Ed.), Handbook on research on curriculum (pp. 749-788). New York: Macmillan.
47. Romberg, T A., & Carpenter, T P. (1985). Research on teaching and learning mathematics: Two disciplines of scientific inquiry. In Wittrock M. (Ed.), The third handbook of research on teaching (pp. 850-873). New York: Macmillan.
48. Rowan, B., Raudenbush, S.W ,& Cheong, Y.E. (1993). Teaching as a nonroutine task: Implications for the management of schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 29 (4), 479-500.
49. Shafer, M., & Romberg, T. (1999). In Fennema E. & Romberg T. A. (Eds.), Classrooms that promote mathematical understanding (pp. 159-184)
50. Silver, E. A., & Smith, M. S. (1996). Building discourse communities in mathematics classrooms: A worthwhile but challenging journey. In Elliott P. & Kenney M. (Eds.), Communication in mathematics, K-12 and beyond (pp. 20-28). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
51. Simon, M. (1995). Reconstructing mathematics pedagogy from a constructivist perspective. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 26, 114-145.
52. Songer, N. ,& Linn, M. (1991). How do students' views of science influence knowledge integration. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 761-784.
53. Steen, L.A. (1990). On the shoulders of giants: New approaches to numeracy. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
54. Stewart, J., Cartier, J. ,& Passmore, C. (2001). Scientific practice as a context for inquiry and argumentation in science classrooms. Madison, WI: National Center for Improving Student Learning and Achievement in Mathematics and Science, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
55. van Reeuwijk, M., & Wijers, M. (2003). Explanations why?: The role of explanations in answers to (assessment) problems. In Lesh, R. A. & Doerr, H. (Eds.), Beyond constructivism: Models and modeling perspectives on mathematics problem solving, learning, and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
56. Webb, N., & Romberg, T. (1992). Implications of the NCTM standards for mathematics assessment. In Romberg, T. A. (Ed.), Mathematics assessment and evaluation (pp. 37-60). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
57. Yackel, E. ,& Cobb, P. (1996). Sociomathematical norms, argumentation, and auton-omy in mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 27 (4), 458-477.
58. Yackel, E., Cobb, P. ,& Wood, T. (1991). Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22 (5), 390-408.