Notes on the educational steeplechase: Hurdles and jumps in the development of research-based mathematics instruction

Translating Theory and Research Into Educational Practice: Developments in Content Domains, Large-Scale Reform, and Intellectual Capacity

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 9-30

  Schoenfeld, Alan H ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84920400352     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203726556     Document Type: Chapter

References (46)

1. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002, March 28). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10, (18). Retrieved March 7, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
2. Anderson, J. R., Reder, L. M., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Situated learning and education. Educational Researcher, 25, (6), 5-11.
3. Bloom, B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook I: Cognitive domain. Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: McKay.
4. Briars, D. (2001, March). Mathematics performance in the Pittsburgh public schools. Paper presented at a Mathematics AssessmentResource Service conference on Tools for Systemic Improvement, San Diego, CA.
5. Briars, D.,&Resnick, L. (2000). Standards, assessments-And what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement. Unpublished manuscript.
6. Brown, A. (1987). Metacognition, executive control, self-regulation, and other more mysterious mechanisms. In F. Reiner&R. Kluwe (Eds.), Metacognition, motivation, and understanding (pp. 65-116). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7. Burkhardt, H.,&Schoenfeld, A. (2003). Improving educational research: Toward a more useful, more influential, and better funded enterprise.Manuscript submitted for publication.
8. Chappell, M. (2003). Keeping mathematics front and center: Reaction to middle grades curriculum projects' research. In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? (pp. 285-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Charles, R., & Silver, E. A. (Eds.). (1989). The teaching and assessing of mathematical problem solving. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. COMAPCenter (The Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications). (2005).Areport of the tri-state student achievement study was retrieved October 7, 2005 from http://www.comap.com/elementary/projects/arc/tri-state%20achievement.htm
11. Confrey, J.,&Stohl, V. (Eds.). Committee for a Review of the Evaluation Data on the Effectiveness of NSF-Supported and Commercially Generated Mathematics Curriculum Materials, National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
12. Dawson, P. (1998). A primer on student grade retention: What the research says. National Association of School Psychologists Communiqué [online].Retrieved October 31, 2005, from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq268retain.html
13. de Corte, E., Verschaffel, L.,&Greer, B. (1996). Mathematics teaching and learning. In D. Berliner & R. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 491-549). New York: Macmillan.
14. Flavell, J. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-236). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
15. Gardner, H. (1985). The mind's new science: A history of the cognitive revolution. New York: Basic Books.
16. Greeno, J. G., Collins, A. M., & Resnick, L. B. (1996). Cognition and learning in D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology (pp.15-46). New York: Simon & Schuster.
17. Greeno, J. G., Pearson, P. D., & Schoenfeld, A. H. (1997). Implications for the National Assessment of Educational Progress of Research on Learning and Cognition. In Assessment in transition: Monitoring the nation's educational progress, background studies (pp. 152-215). Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
18. House Committee on Science. (1998). Unlocking our future: Toward a new national science policy. A report to Congress by the House Committee on Science. Washington, DC: Author.
19. Kilpatrick, J. (1985). A retrospective account of the past twenty-five years of research on teaching mathematical problem solving. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
20. Kilpatrick, J. (1992). A history of research in mathematics education. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook for research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 3-38). New York: Macmillan.
21. Koehler, M. S., & Grouws, D. (1992). Mathematics teaching practices and their effects. In D. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 115-126). New York: Macmillan.
22. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the problem and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 29-64.
23. Lappan, G. (1997). Lessons from the sputnik era in mathematics education. Paper presented at a symposium at the National Academy of Sciences, Reflecting on sputnik: Linking the past, present, and future of educational reform. Retrieved March12, 2003, from http://www.nas.edu/sputnik/papers.htm
24. Lester, F. (1985). Methodological considerations in research on mathematical problem-solving instruction. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 41-69). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25. Lester, F. (1994). Musings about mathematical problem-solving research: 1970-1994. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 25, 660-675.
26. Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher:Asociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
27. Madison, B. L., & Hart, T. A. (1990). A challenge of numbers: People in the mathematical sciences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. Mathematically Sane. (2005). http://www.mathematicallysane.com/home.asp. A list of the curriculum projects funded by the National Science Foundation was retrieved October 7, 2005, from http://www.mathematicallysane.com/links/nsfprojects.asp
29. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
30. National Council ofTeachers of Mathematics. (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
31. National Research Council. (1989). Everybody counts: A report to the nation on the future of mathematics education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
32. National Research Council. (1995). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
33. Neisser, U. (1967). Cognitive psychology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
34. Pólya, G. (1945). How to solve it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35. Putnam, R. (2003). Commentary on four elementary mathematics curricula. In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? (pp. 161-178). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36. Riordan, J., & Noyce, P. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32, 368-398.
37. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic.
38. Schoenfeld, A. H. (1999). Looking toward the 21st century: Challenges of educational theory and practice. Educational Researcher, 28, (7), 4-14.
39. Schoenfeld, A. H. (2002). Making mathematics work for all children: Issues of standards, testing, and equity. Educational Researcher, 31, (1), 3-15.
40. Schoenfeld, A. H. (in press). What doesn't work: The challenge and failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to conduct meaningful reviews of studies of mathematics curricula. Educational Researcher.
41. Senk, S., & Thompson, D. (Eds.). (2003). Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
42. Shaughnessy, M. (1985). Problem-solving derailers: The influence of misconceptions on problem-solving performance. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 399-415). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
43. Silver, E. A. (1985). Research on teaching mathematical problem solving: Some underrepresented themes and needed directions. In E. A. Silver (Ed.), Teaching and learning mathematical problem solving: Multiple research perspectives (pp. 247-266). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
44. Silver, E. A. (1987). Foundations of cognitive theory and research for mathematics problem-solving. In A. Schoenfeld (Ed.), Cognitive science and mathematics education (pp. 33-60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
45. Swafford, J. (2003).Reaction to high school curriculum projects' research. In S. Senk &D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-oriented school mathematics curricula: What does the research say about student outcomes? (pp. 457-468). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
46. What Works Clearinghouse. (2005).Adescription of WhatWorks project and a series of mathematics study and topic reports. Retrieved October 7, 2005, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/