The influence of curriculum material design on opportunities for student learning

ZDM - Mathematics Education

Volumn 46, Issue 5, 2014, Pages 735-749

  Remillard, Janine T ^a   Harris, Barbara ^b   Agodini, Roberto ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^b MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum effects; Curriculum material analysis; Opportunity to learn; Textbooks

Indexed keywords

EID: 84907511893     PISSN: 18639690     EISSN: 18639704     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11858-014-0585-z     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Agodini, R., Harris, B., Seftor, N., Remillard, J., & Thomas, M. (2013). After Two Years, Three Elementary Math Curricula Outperform a Fourth. NCEE 2013-4019. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
2. Agodini, R., Barbara H., Thomas, M., Murphy, R., & Gallagher, L. (2009). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: findings for first graders in 39 schools. NCEE 2009-4052. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
3. Agodini, R., Barbara H., Thomas, M., Murphy, R., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Achievement effects of four early elementary school math curricula: Findings for first and second graders. NCEE 2011-4001. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
4. 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), 6–14.
5. Charalambous, C. Y., & Hill, H. C. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Unpacking a complex relationship. Journal of Curriculum Studies,44(4), 443–466.
6. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher,34(3), 3–14.
7. Floden, R. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A.C. Porter & A. Gamoran, (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross national surveys of educational achievement. Board on International Comparative Studies in Education (pp. 231–236). Board on Test on Testing and Assessment, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
8. Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., & Battey, D. (2007). Mathematics teaching and classroom practice. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 225–256). Greenwich: Information Age.
9. Heck, D., Chval, K., Weiss, I., & Ziebarth, S. W. (2012). Approaches to studying the enacted mathematics curriculum. Greenwich: Information Age.
10. Hiebert, J. (2003). What research says about the NCTM Standards. In J. Kilpatrick, W. G. Martin, & D. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion to the principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 5–24). Reston: NCTM.
11. Hiebert, J., & Grouws, D. A. (2007). The effects of classroom mathematics teaching on students’ learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 371–404). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
12. Munter, C., Stein, M. K., & Smith, M. S. (2013, April) A theory-based approach to comparing direct and dialogic mathematics instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Denver, CO.
13. National Research Council. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14. NCTM. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
15. NCTM. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston: NCTM.
16. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research,75(2), 211–246.
17. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education,35(5), 352–388.
18. Remillard, J. T., Kim, O. K., Atanga, N., Ciganik, S., Hoe, N. D., Reinke, L. T., Taton, J. (2011). Comparative Analysis of Mathematical and Pedagogical Components of Five Elementary Mathematics Curricula. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
19. Remillard, J. T., & Reinke, L. T. (2012). Complicating scripted curriculum: Can scripts be educative for teachers? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Vancouver, BC, CA.
20. Rock, D. A., & Pollack, J. M. (2002). Early childhood longitudinal study—kindergarten class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K), Psychometric Report for Kindergarten Though First Grade. Publication No. NCES 2002-05. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
21. Stein, M. K., Grover, B. W., & Henningsen, M. (1996). Building student capacity for mathematical thinking and reasoning: An analysis of mathematical tasks used in reform classrooms. American Educational Research Journal,33(2), 455–488.
22. Stein, M. K., & Kaufman, J. H. (2010). Selecting and Supporting the Use of Mathematics Curricula at Scale. American Educational Research Journal,47(3), 663–693.
23. Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform: An analysis of demands and opportunities for teacher learning. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel-Eisenmann, & G. M. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 37–55). New York: Routledge.
24. Stein, M. K., & Lane, S. (1996). Instructional tasks and the development of student capacity to think and reason: An analysis of the relationship between teaching and learning in a reform mathematics project. Educational Research and Evaluation,2, 50–80.
25. Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.
26. Stein, M. K., Smith, M. S., Henningsen, M. A., & Silver, E. A. (2000). Implementing standards-based mathematics instruction: A casebook for professional development. New York: Teachers College Press.
27. Tarr, J. E., Reys, R. E., Reys, B. J., Chávez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. J. (2008). The impact of middle-grades mathematics curricula and the classroom learning environment on student achievement. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,39(3), 247–280.
28. 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.