Opportunity to Learn

Handbook of Education Policy Research

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 541-559

  Schmidt, William H ^a   Maier, Adam ^a  

^a MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85145843438     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203880968-50     Document Type: Chapter

References (105)

1. Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Speiglman, A. (2004). Are we creating separate and unequal tracks of teachers? The effects of state policy, local conditions, and teacher characteristics on new teacher socialization. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 557-603.
2. Alexander, K. L., Cook, M., & McDill, E. L. (1978). Curriculum tracking and educational stratification: Some further evidence. American Sociological Review, 43, 47-66.
3. Alexander, K. L., & Eckland, B. K. (1975). School experience and status attainment. In S. D. Dragastin & G. H. Elder, Jr. (Eds.), Adolescence in the life cycle: Psychological change and social context (pp.171-210). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
4. Alexander, K. L., & McDill, E. L. (1976). Selection and allocation within schools: Some causes and consequences of curriculum placement. American Sociological Review, 41, 963-980.
5. Anderson, L. W. (1985). Introduction to Part I, School learning. In L. W. Anderson (Ed.), Perspectives on school learning: Selected writings of John B. Carroll (pp.3-9). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Bacolod, M. (2007). Who teaches and where they choose to teach: College graduates of the 1990s. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 155-168.
7. Baker, D. P., Fabrega, R., Galindo, C., & Mishook, J. (2004). Instructional time and national achievement: Cross-national evidence. Prospects, 34, 311-334.
8. Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. (1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9. Berliner, D. C. (1979). Tempus Educare. In P. L. Peterson & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Research on teaching: Concepts, findings, and implications (pp.120-135). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.
10. Berliner, D. C. (1990). What’s all the fuss about instructional time? In M. Ben-Peretz & R. Bromme (Eds.), The nature of time in schools:Theoretical concepts, practitioner perceptions (pp.3-35). New York:Teachers College Press.
11. Bidwell, C. E., & Kasarda, J. D. (1980). Conceptualizing and measuring the effects of school and schooling. American Journal of Education, 88, 401-430.
12. Blank, R. K., Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. (2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics and science:Results from Survey of Enacted Curriculum Project, final report. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
13. Block, J. H., & Burns, R. B. (1976). Mastery learning. Review of Research in Education, 4, 3-49.
14. Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery (UCLA-CSEIP). Evaluation Comment, 1(2), 1-12.
15. Bloom, B. S. (1974). Time and learning. American Psychologist, 29, 682-688.
16. Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328-375). New York: Macmillan.
17. Bryk, A. S., Lee, V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18. Burstein, L., McDonnell, L. M., Van Winkle, J., Ormseth, T., Mirocha, J., & Guiton, G. (1995). Validating national curriculum indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
19. Camburn, E., & Barnes, C. A. (2004). Assessing the validity of a language arts instruction log through triangulation. Elementary School Journal, 105, 49-73.
20. Carroll, J. B. (1962). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language learning. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Training research and education (pp.87-136). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
21. Carroll, J. B. (1963). A model of school learning. Teachers College Record, 64, 722-733.
22. Carroll, J. B. (1984). The model of school learning: Progress of an idea. In C. Fisher & D. C. Berliner (Eds.), Perspective on instructional time (pp.29-58). New York: Longman.
23. Cogan, L. S., Schmidt, W. H., & Wiley, D. E. (2001). Who takes what math and in which track? Using TIMSS to characterize U.S. students’ eighth-grade mathematics learning opportunities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 323-341.
24. Coleman, J. S., Campbell, E. Q., Hobson, C. J., McPartland, J., Mood, A. M., Weinfeld, F., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
25. Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. B. (1982). High school achievement:Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York:Basic Books.
26. Comber, L. C., & Keeves, J. P. (1973). Science education in nineteen countries: An empirical study. New York: Wiley.
27. Fisher, C. W., Berliner, D. C., Filby, N. N., Marliave, R., Cahen, L. S., & Dishaw, M. M. (1980). Teaching behaviors, academic learning time, and student achievement: An overview. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp.7-32). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
28. Floden, R. E. (2002). The measurement of opportunity to learn. In A. C. Porter & A. Gamoran (Eds.), Methodological advances in cross-national surveys of educational achievement (pp.231-266). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
29. Gamoran, A. (1986). Instructional and institutional effects of ability grouping. Sociology of Education, 59, 185-198.
30. Gamoran, A. (1987). The stratification of high school learning opportunities. Sociology of Education, 60, 135-155.
31. Gamoran, A. (1989). Measuring curriculum differentiation. American Journal of Education, 97, 129-143.
32. Gamoran, A. (1992). The variable effects of high school tracking. American Sociological Review, 57, 812-828.
33. Gamoran, A. (1994). Schooling and achievement: Additive versus interactive models. In I. Westbury, C. A. Ethington, L. A. Sosniak, & D. P. Baker (Eds.), In search of more effective mathematics education (pp.273-292). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
34. Gamoran, A., & Berends, M. (1987). The effects of stratification in secondary schools: Synthesis of survey and ethnographic research. Review of Educational Research, 57, 415-435.
35. Gamoran, A., Porter, A. C., Smithson, J., & White, P. A. (1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 325-338.
36. Hallinan, M. T. (1976). Salient features of the Harnischfeger-Wiley model. Curriculum Inquiry, 6(1), 45-59.
37. Harnischfeger, A., & Wiley, D. E. (1976). The teaching-learning process in elementary schools: A synoptic view. Curriculum Inquiry, 6, 5-43.
38. Heyns, B. (1974). Social selection and stratification within schools. The American Journal of Sociology, 79, 1434-1451.
39. Hill, H. C. (2005). Content across communities: Validating measures of elementary mathematics instruction. Educational Policy, 19, 447-475.
40. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371-406.
41. Hoffer, T. B., Rasinski, K. A., & Moore, W. (1995). Statistics in brief:Social background differences in high school mathematics and science coursetaking and achievement (NCES Report 95-206). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
42. Husen, T. (1967a). International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley.
43. Husen, T. (1967b). International study of achievement in mathematics: A comparison of twelve countries, Vol. 2. New York: Wiley.
44. Jakwerth, P., Bianchi, L., McKnight, C. C., & Schmidt, W. H. (1997). Focus in school science: An international comparison. Geotimes, 42(7), 19-22.
45. Jencks, C., Smith, M., Acland, H., Bane, M. J., Cohen, D., Gintis, H., et al. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
46. Karweit, N. (1985). Should we lengthen the school term? Educational Researcher, 14(6), 9-15.
47. Kifer, E. (1992). Opportunities, talents, and participation. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA Study of Mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp.279-308). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon Press.
48. Kifer, E., & Burstein, L. (1992). Concluding thoughts: What we know, what it means. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III:Student growth and classroom procesesses (pp.329-341). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon Press.
49. Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 37-62.
50. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1988). Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 61, 78-94.
51. Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1989). A multilevel model of the social distribution of high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 62, 172-192.
52. Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1997). Course-taking, equity, and mathematics learning: Testing the Constrained Curriculum hypothesis in U.S. secondary schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 99-121.
53. Lee, V. E., Smith, J. B., & Croninger, R. G. (1997). How high school organization influences the equitable distribution of learning in mathematics and science. Sociology of Education, 70, 128-150.
54. Loeb, S., & Reininger, M. (2004). Public policy and teacher labor markets:What we know and why it matters. East Lansing: Michigan State University, The Education Policy Center.
55. Lucas, S. R. (1999). Tracking inequality: Stratification and mobility in American high schools. New York: Teachers College Press.
56. Ma, X. (2000). A longitudinal assessment of antecedent course work in mathematics and subsequent mathematical attainment. Journal of Educational Research, 94, 16-28.
57. Mayer, D. P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice; can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21, 29-45.
58. McDonnell, L. M. (1995). Opportunity to learn as a research concept and a policy instrument. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 305-322.
59. McPartland, J. M., & Schneider, B. (1996). Opportunities to learn and student diversity: Prospects and pitfalls of a common core curriculum. Sociology of Education, 69(Special Issue), 66-81.
60. Meyer, J. W. (1977). The effects of education as an institution. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 55-77.
61. Meyer, J. W. (1980). Levels of the educational system and schooling effects. In C. E. Bidwell & D. M. Windham (Eds.), The analysis of educational productivity, Vol. 2: Issues in macroanalysis (pp.15-63). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
62. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
63. Oakes, J. (1990). Multiplying inequalities: The effects of race, social class and tracking on opportunities to learn math and science. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
64. Porter, A. C. (1989). A curriculum out of balance: The case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9-15.
65. Porter, A. C. (1991). Creating a system of school process indicators. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13, 13-29.
66. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31, 3-14.
67. Porter, A. C., Floden, R. E., Freeman, D. J., Schmidt, W. H., & Schwille, J. R. (1986). Content determinants. East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
68. Porter, A. C., Floden, R. E., Freeman, D. J., Schmidt, W. H., & Schwille, J. R. (1988). Content determinants in elementary school mathematics. In D. A. Grouws & T. J. Cooney (Eds.), Perspectives on research on effective mathematics teaching (pp.96-113). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
69. Porter, A. C., Kirst, M. W., Osthoff, E. J., Smithson, J. L., & Schneider, S. A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms. Final report. Madison: Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
70. Porter, A. C., & Smithson, J. L. (2001). Defining, developing, and using curriculum indicators (CPRE Research Report Series RR-048). Philadelphia:Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
71. Promoting Rigorous Outcomes in Mathematics and Science Education (PROM/SE). (2008). Dividing opportunities: Tracking in high school mathematics, Research report, Vol. 3. East Lansing: Michigan State University.
72. Rock, D. A., & Pollack, J. M. (1995). Mathematics course-taking and gains in mathematics achievement (NCES Report 95-714). Washington, DC:National Center for Education Statistics.
73. Rosenbaum, J. S. (1975). The stratification of socialization processes. American Sociological Review, 40, 48-54.
74. Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Correnti, R. (2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum: A study of literacy teaching in thirdgrade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 105, 75-101.
75. Rowan, B., Correnti, R., & Miller, R. (2002). What large-scale survey research tells us about teacher effects on student achievement: Insights from the Prospects study of elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 104, 1525-1567.
76. Rowan, B., Harrison, D. M., & Hayes, A. (2004). Using instructional logs to study mathematics curriculum and teaching in the early grades. Elementary School Journal, 105, 103-127.
77. Rowan, B., & Miracle, A., Jr. (1983). Systems of ability grouping and the stratification of achievement in elementary school. Sociology of Education, 56, 133-144.
78. Schmidt, W. H. (1992). The distribution of instructional time to mathematical content: One aspect of opportunity to learn. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA Study of Mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp.129-145). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon Press.
79. Schmidt, W. H., & Burstein, L. (1992). Concomitants of growth in mathematics achievement during the population A school year. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA study of mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp.309-327). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon Press.
80. Schmidt, W. H., & Houang, R. T. (2007). Lack of focus in the mathematics curriculum: Symptom or cause? In T. Loveless (Ed.), Lessons learned:What international assessments tell us about math achievement (pp.65-84). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
81. Schmidt, W. H., Jorde, D., Cogan, L. S., Barrier, E., Gonzalo, I., Moser, U., et al. (1996). Characterizing pedagogical flow: An investigation of mathematics and science teaching in six countries. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
82. Schmidt, W. H., & Kifer, E. (1989). Exploring relationships across Population A systems: A search for patterns. In F. D. Robitaille & R. A. Garden (Eds.), The IEA study of Mathematics II: Contexts and outcomes of school mathematics (pp.209-231). Tarrytown, NY:Pergamon Press.
83. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Cogan, L. S., Jakwerth, P. M., & Houang, R. T. (1999). Facing the consequences: Using TIMSS for a closer look at U.S. mathematics and science education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
84. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D., Cogan, L. S., et al. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
85. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., & Raizen, S. A. (1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
86. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Valverde, G. A., Houang, R. T., & Wiley, D. E. (Eds.). (1997). Many visions, many aims (TIMSS Volume 1): A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school mathematics. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
87. Schmidt, W. H., Raizen, S., Britton, E. D., Bianchi, L. J., & Wolfe, R. G. (Eds.). (1997). Many visions, many aims (TIMSS Volume 2): A cross-national investigation of curricular intentions in school science Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
88. Schmidt, W. H., Wang, H. A., & McKnight, C. C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: an examination of us mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525-529.
89. Schmidt, W. H., Wolfe, R. G., & Kifer, E. (1992). The identification and description of student growth in mathematics achievement. In L. Burstein (Ed.), The IEA Study of Mathematics III: Student growth and classroom processes (pp.59-100). Tarrytown, NY: Pergamon Press.
90. Schneider, B., Swanson, C. B., & Riegle-Crumb, C. (1998). Opportunities for learning: Course sequences and positional advantages. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 25-53.
91. Smithson, J. L., & Collares, A. C. (2007, April). Alignment as a predictor of student achievement gains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
92. Smithson, J. L., & Porter, A. C. (1994). Measuring classroom practice:Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum-the Reform Up Close Study. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
93. Sørensen, A. B., & Hallinan, M. T. (1977). A reconceptualization of school effects. Sociology of Education, 50, 273-289.
94. Sørensen, A. B., & Hallinan, M. T. (1986). Effects of ability grouping on growth in academic achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 519-542.
95. Steiner-Khamsi, G., Torney-Purta, J., & Schwille, J. (Eds.). (2002). New paradigms and recurring paradoxes in education for citizenship: An international comparison. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.
96. Stevenson, D. L., Schiller, K. S., & Schneider, B. (1994). Sequences of opportunities for learning. Sociology of Education, 67, 184-198.
97. Suter, L. E. (2000). Is student achievement immutable? Evidence from international studies on schooling and student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 70, 529-545.
98. Talbert, J. E. (1990, April). Teacher tracking: Exacerbating inequalities in the high school. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
99. Travers, K. J., & Westbury, I. (1989). The IEA Study of Mathematics I:Analysis of mathematics curricula. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon Press.
100. 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.
101. Valverde, G. A., & Schmidt, W. H. (2000). Greater expectations: Learning from other nations in the quest for “world-class standards” in U.S. school mathematics and science. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 32, 651-687.
102. Vanfossen, B. E., Jones, J. D., & Spade, J. Z. (1987). Curriculum tracking and status maintenance. Sociology of Education, 60, 104-122.
103. Walberg, H., & Frederick, W. C. (1983). Instructional time and learning. In H. E. Mitzel, J. H. Best, & W. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Encyclopedia of educational research, Vol. 2(5th ed., pp. 917-924) New York: The Free Press.
104. Weinstein, R. S. (1976). Reading group membership in first grade: Teacher behaviors and pupil experience over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 103-116.
105. Wiley, D. E., & Harnischfeger, A. (1974). Explosion of a myth: Quantity of schooling and exposure to instruction, major educational vehicles. Educational Researcher, 3(4), 7-12.