Assessing the Impact of "Standards"-Based Middle Grades Mathematics Curriculum Materials on Student Achievement Author(s): Robert Reys, Barbara Reys, Richard Lapan, Gregory Holliday, Deanna Wasman Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 74-95 Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034700 Accessed: 08/04/2010 11:10 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=nctm . Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. http://www.jstor.org
24
Embed
the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
Assessing the Impact of "Standards"-Based Middle Grades Mathematics Curriculum Materialson Student AchievementAuthor(s): Robert Reys, Barbara Reys, Richard Lapan, Gregory Holliday, Deanna WasmanSource: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Jan., 2003), pp. 74-95Published by: National Council of Teachers of MathematicsStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30034700
Accessed: 08/04/2010 11:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
Concernsaboutthe mathematicsachievementof U. S. youtharecommonplaceandbased on evidence from a varietyof nationalandinternationalstudies(Beatonet al., 1997; Kilpatrick,1992, 1997; National Research Council, 1989, 1998;Schmidt,McKnight,&Raizen, 1997; Wu, 1997).Generalagreementis found thatthe qualityof school mathematicsprogramsmust improveto affordall students
TheresearchreportedherewassupportedbytheNationalScienceFoundation(NSF)underGrantESI94-53932.Twoof theauthors(BarbaraReysandRobertReys)arecodirectorsof theShow-MeCenter,anationalcenterfordisseminatingandsupportingNSF-fundedmiddleschoolmathematicscurricula.Thenarrativedoes not necessarilyreflect the positionor opinionof the NationalScienceFoundation.The authorsgratefullyacknowledgethecooperationandsupportofschooldistrictpersonnelinprovidinginformationforthisstudy.
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
In thisarticle,we use the termmathematicscurriculumstandardsto referto the
set of learninggoalsarticulatedacrossgradesthatoutlinetheintendedmathematicscontentandprocess goals atparticularpointsin time (e.g., gradesorgradebands)
throughoutthe K-12 school mathematicsprogram.School leaders, textbook
enact the intended school mathematicscurriculum.Researchhas docu-
menteda stronginfluence of textbooks on the mathematicscontentthat is taughtand learned(Driscoll, 1980; Porter, 1989; Robitalle & Travers,1992; Schmidt,
McKnight,& Raizen, 1997; Schmidtet al., 2001). If mathematicalcontent is not
ematicscurriculumdevelopmentprojectstorespondto the needfor curriculummate-rialsto be moreclosely alignedwith the NCTM's Standards.Curriculumdevelop-ment teamsconsistedof mathematicseducators,mathematicians,and classroom
content strands, assessment problem types, and student subpopulations.
Additionally,in schools thathad used the materialsforlongerperiodsof time(i.e.,at least4 years), performancegainswere more dramatic.Theirresearchis consis-tent with other studies
showingthe benefits of Standards-based curricula to
studentsof varyingabilities,includingthose at thehigherandlowerachievinglevels
(Briars,2001; Griffin,Evans,Timms,& Trowell,2000).The Third InternationalMathematics and Science Study-Repeat(TIMSS-R)
study conductedin 1999 offers additionalevidence of the impactof Standards-based middle gradesmathematicscurriculummaterials.Two groupsof studentsfrom Michigan participatedin TIMSS-R. The first group, the Michigan state
sample, included studentsfrom a set of schools randomlyselected by TIMSSresearchers.The secondgroupincluded studentsfroman "invitational"groupof
schools thatmetthefollowingcriteria:useof Standards-basedinstructionalmate-rials, a well-articulateddistrictcurriculum,the use of assessment data to informinstructionaldecisions, professional developmentto supportteachers,and goodcommunicationwiththecommunity.Theinvitationalgroupconsistedof 21 schools
samplewas the highestperformingstategroupamongthe 12 statesparticipatingin TIMSS-R(averagescore of 517), the Michiganinvitationalgroup performedsignificantlyhigherthan the Michiganstatesample(averagescore of 532) indi-
cating the positive effect of Standards-basedreformefforts withinthese schools
(Mulliset al., 2001).Studies investigatingthe impactof elementaryor secondaryStandards-basedcurriculummaterialsreportsimilarfindings. For example, Fuson, Carroll,andDrueck(2000) foundthatstudentslearningfromEverydayMathematics(EM),an
elementaryStandards-basedcurriculum,scoredas well as orbetterthan students
studyingfromtraditionalmaterialson standardtopics including place value and
given much attentionin traditionalmaterials,and evidence was found thatthis
opportunityled to increasedlearning.For example, the EM group significantlyoutperformedstudentsin theNationalAssessment of EducationalProgresssampleon geometryitems.
Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, and Fey (2000) investigated the
impactof the Core-PlusMathematicsProject(CPMP)curriculummaterialson the
ings underscorethe need to clearlyarticulatedesiredlearningoutcomesbecause
differenttypesof curriculummaterialstend to focus on differentpriorities.On the
one hand,researchersfound thatStandards-basedcurriculummaterialssupportedthedevelopmentof theabilityto solve algebraicproblemswithinappliedcontextswhen studentsusedgraphingcalculators.On the otherhand,studentsusingconven-
tionalalgebracurriculawere more successfulinmanipulatingsymbolicexpressionswhen those expressions were presentedfree of context and without the aid of
graphingcalculators.
Thestudyreportedhere examinedthemathematicsachievementof eighth-gradestudentsin the first three school districtsin Missouri to adopta Standards-based
middlegradestextbook series.Eighthgraderswere the focus of this investigationbecause
theywere the
only groupof middle
gradesstudentswho
participatedin
the state-mandatedMissouri Assessment Program(MAP) mathematicsexam.
For thepurposesof this study,three districtswere selected to serve as compar-ison districts. Because prior student achievementand socioeconomic level are
recognized as strong predictorsof student achievement in mathematics(e.g.,Riodan & Noyce, 2001), these two variableswere taken into accountin selecting
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
geographicregion,in partas anothermeansof drawingfromcommonpopulationclusters. Therefore,the comparisondistricts were selected on the basis of the
following variables:Grade6-8 middleschoolorganizationalstructure;geograph-ical location (i.e., close proximityto theirStandards-basedcomparisondistrict);
percentof students
eligiblefor free/reducedlunch;and a
historyof
comparablemathematicsachievementin Grade8.
The MAP mathematicsassessmentwas used as thebaselinemeasureof studentachievement for identifying comparison districts. We examined eighth-gradeachievementdatainspring1997,thelastyearbeforestudentsused Standards-based
curriculummaterials.Althoughthe Standards-basedschool districtsbeganusingthe curriculumin 1996, none of the eighthgradersin spring1997 hadused thesenew materials.
The Missouridistrictprofiledatabasewas used to locatedistrictscomparableon
the identified variablesto the Standards-baseddistricts.In all cases, only one ortwo districtsmatchedcloselyeach of theStandards-baseddistricts.Whenmorethanone close matchexisted,we chosethedistrictthatwas biasedin favorof thecompar-ison district (lower free/reduced lunch percentageand/orhigher district MAP
scores)to ensurethatno advantagewould be givento the Standards-baseddistrict.The comparisondistrictsused a varietyof mathematicstextbooksin Grades6
through8, but throughspring 1999 none used a Standards-basedmiddlegradesmathematics textbook series. Appendix A provides a summaryof the demo-
graphics of each district, including the mathematicscourse organizationand
curriculummaterialsused in Grades6, 7, and8.Comparison1. One of the MT (MATHThematics)districts(denotedas SB1)
includestwo middleschoolsenrollinga total of approximately2,000 studentswithabout30%of thesestudentseligible forfree/reducedlunch. The districtis locatedin a city with a populationof about36,000. All sixth and seventhgraderswereenrolledina courseusingMT.In thisdistrict,75%of eighth-gradestudentsaretypi-cally enrolled in a prealgebracourse. The remainingstudentsareenrolled in an
algebraI course. Thecomparisondistrict(denotedas Cl) enrolledapproximately800 studentsin one middleschool with 24%eligible for free/reducedlunch. The
district is located in a city with a populationof about 20,000. In sixth grade,studentswereenrolledin one of two courses withapproximately20%inthe accel-eratedcourse.Inbothseventh andeighthgrade,studentsaretypicallyenrolledin
one of three courses designed for varying ability levels. These courses useddifferenttexts.
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
Comparison2. The seconddistrictusingMT(SB2) includedtwo middle schools
enrolling approximately1,000 studentswith about 25%eligible for free/reduced
lunch. The districtis locatedin a suburbof a metropolitanareawith a populationof about2 millionpeople. All sixthandseventhgraderswere enrolledin a course
usingMT.Ineighth grade,50%of the studentswere ina courseusingMT,whereas
theothers were enrolledin analgebraI course. Thecomparisondistrict(C2) is an
adjacentsuburbandistrict.The studentpopulationfor C2 was approximately1,000with about20%of the studentseligiblefor free/reducedlunch.At eachgradelevel,two mathematicscourses were offered. About 20% of the studentsin each class
wereplacedin an acceleratedcoursesequence.Theremaining80%were enrolled
in a regularmathematicscourse.
Comparison 3. The district using CMP (Connected Mathematics Project)(denotedSB3) enrolledapproximately600 middlegradesstudentsin onebuildingwith about13%eligible for free/reducedlunch. The districtis locatedin a suburb
of the same metropolitanarea as SB2 and C2. In sixth grade,all studentsin the
As notedin AppendixA, none of the school districtsused a single curriculum
seriesfor all studentsthroughoutthe middlegrades.Thus,themiddle school math-
ematicscurriculummaterialsusedby these districtscan be characterizedasahybridcurriculum.However,inthe Standards-baseddistricts,all sixth andseventhgradersin two districtsand 75%in thethirdand at least 50%of theeighth gradersin two
districtsused NSF Standards-basedcurriculummaterials.Consequently,Standards-based curricularepresenta significant learningtool for middle grades students
within the three Standards-basedschool districts.
StudentSample
The studentsampleforthisstudyconsistedof eighth-gradestudentsfromthe six
ematics exam in 1997 and 1999. In the two suburbandistrictsthat used NSF
Standards-basedcurricula(SB2, SB3), the researcherswereable to examineindi-vidual student records.From these records, the researchersidentified students
who hadcompletedat least 2 yearsof the NSF Standards-basedcurriculum.Data
from students who had recently moved into the districtand had, therefore,not
project(1995-1998) thatused the examinationof Standards-basedmiddlegradesmathematicscurriculaas a vehicle for
professionaldevelopment (Reys&
Reys,1997). Althoughdistrictsinvolved in the M3Projectwere not obliged to adopta
Standards-basedcurriculum,the three Standards-baseddistricts in this studychose to adoptandimplementeitherCMPorMT.
None of the teachersin the comparisonschools participatedin theM3Project.However, teachersin these districts were involved in professionaldevelopmentactivities sponsoredby theirdistrict andby the statedepartment.These profes-sional development activities were guided by the state Show-Me Standards,whichwereinfluencedby, andalignedwith,the NCTM'sStandards.Forexample,
the Missouri Departmentof Elementaryand Secondary Education sponsoredworkshopsthroughoutthe statefocusingon themandatedstateassessment(MAP).Because mathematics was the first discipline addressedin the state-mandated
assessment, the MAP mathematicstest, including its content and expectations
regardingstudentresponseformats,was the focus of these workshops.In addi-
tion, summer institutes for middle school mathematicsteachers were offered
eachyear througha state-sponsoredgrant.Theseworkshopsfocused onimprovingopportunitiesfor middle gradesstudents to develop as problemsolvers. Middle
school teachersfromeach of thecomparisondistrictsparticipatedin thesesummer
workshops, although the extent of the influence of these workshops on theirteachingis unknown.
No visits weremade to comparisonschools to determinetheextentand manner
inwhich theirdistrict-adoptedmathematicscurriculumwas used.However,conver-sations with school districtpersonnel(curriculumcoordinatorand/ormathematics
departmentchair) confirm that the middle school teachers in the comparison
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
work is designed aroundsix content strands:numbersense (including computa-tion);geometricandspatialsense;dataanalysis,probability,andstatistics;algebra;mathematicalsystems;and discretemathematics.
The eighth-gradeMAP exam in mathematicsincludes three sections, each
administeredandcompletedon separatedays.Each of the first two sections of the
exam include 8-10 open-ended items requiringstudent-constructedresponses,
and calculatorsareallowed. The thirdsectionconsists of 31 multiple-choiceitemsdrawnfrom the Terra Nova assessments preparedby CTB McGraw-Hill.The
recommendedtime frame for each of the three sections is 55 minutes.However,MAP is not intended to be a timed test, and teachers are encouragedto allow
studentsadequatetime (up to 90 minutes)to complete each of the constructed-
responsesections of the test.AppendixB containsadescriptionof the contentand
sampleitems from each section of theMAP mathematicsexam. Table 1 includes
Table1TypeandNumberof Itemsfor Each ContentStrandon the 1999Eighth-GradeMAPMathematicsExam
ableatthe MissouriDepartmentof ElementaryandSecondaryEducationWeb site
at www.dese.state.mo.us/divimprove/assess.
Reports of MAP performanceinclude (a) achievement level, (b) a national
percentilescore fortheTerraNova portionof theexam,and(c) percentcorrectbycontent strand.Responseson all threesections of theexam are used to categorizeeach student'sperformanceinto one of five achievementlevels. Fromthe lowest
NearingProficiency,Proficient,andAdvanced.A descriptionof each of theselevels
is providedin Table 2. The MissouriDepartmentof Elementaryand SecondaryEducation uses the
percentagesof students
scoringin the
toptwo
categories(ProficientandAdvanced)and the bottomtwo categories(Step1andProgressing)as importantindicatorsof success in themandatorystate school accreditationand
improvementprocess.
Table2Descriptorsof theLevelsofAchievementon the Eighth-GradeMAPExam
problemswith whole numbers;identify,describe,compare,andclassifygeometricfigures;readinformationfromtables,graphs,andcharts;recog-nize and extendsimplenumericpatterns;and orderintegers.
Progressing Studentsperformbasic operationsof rationalnumbers;solve simplewordproblems using rationalnumbers;use protractorand ruler to measure;identifylines of symmetry;interpretinformationfromtables,graphs,andcharts;find measuresof centraltendency;extendpictorialpatterns;solveequationsusing a replacementset; orderrationalnumbers;and interpretsimple Venndiagrams.
Nearing Students solve problems with decimals, percents; identify congruent,Proficiency similar figures; find elapsed time; convert measurements; find area,
perimeter,volume;findprobability;use samplingprocedure;findmeasureof centraltendency;solve equations;use order of operations;find, orderequivalentfractions,decimals,createtreediagrams;generalizepatterns;usedeductive,inductivereasoning.
Proficient Studentsshowprocesses;applyratios,proportions,percents;useconceptsof congruent, similar shapes; show rotations,reflections, translations;apply perimeter,area,volume;predictfromdatadisplays;applymeasuresof centraltendency;describepatterns,relationshipsusing algebraicequa-tions;applypropertiesof realnumbers;identify primes,multiples,factors,
For this study,MAP scores were analyzedin the following ways. Comparable
priormathematicsachievementbetween each of the threepairsof districts wasestablishedusing eighth-gradeMAPdataarchivedin 1997,the 1styearof requireduse of theMAP math exam in thatgrade.Studentstakingthe 1997 Grade8 MAP
mathematics exam were the last set of eighth gradersin the Standards-based
districtswho hadnot used the new curriculummaterials.A chi-squarestatisticwas
calculated for each Standards-based/comparisondistrictpairto test for possibledifferencesin thepercentagesof studentsscoringin threeMAPachievementlevel
categories.Inaddition,t tests were usedto comparethe six content standardsand
TerraNova scores between the threeStandards-baseddistrictsand theircompar-
ison districts.The t tests between Standards-basedandcomparisondistrictswereusedonthe basisof the meanstandardizedscore foreighth gradersin eachdistrict.
Eachstandardizedscorerepresentsthemeanpercentcorrectachievedby students
in each districtfor each subtestof the MAP.MAP scores in spring1999provideda basis to compare the mathematics achievementof students who had used a
Standards-basedcurriculumfor at least2 yearswith thatof eighth graderswho had
not used such a curriculum.Using 1999 data, three chi-squarestatistics were
computedto test for differencesin studentMAP achievementlevels. Again using1999 data,t tests were used to comparethe six content standardsand TerraNova
scoresbetween the threeStandards-baseddistrictsandtheircomparisondistricts.The t tests used the standardizedscores reportedby the MAP for individual
studentson the six content standardsand TerraNova.
RESULTS
Table 3 containsthe chi-squareanalysesthatcomparethe numberof students
scoringin the threeMAP achievementlevels priorto theuse of Standards-based
curriculummaterials(in 1997). A separatechi-squarewas calculatedfor each of
the threecomparisons(i.e., SB1 andC1, SB2 andC2, and SB3 andC3). No statis-
Table3NumberandPercentageof EighthGradersScoringin EachAchievementLevel(byDistrict)on the 1997 MAP MathematicsExam
Note. SB1, SB2, and SB3 are the districtsthatimplementedStandards-basedcurricula.C1, C2, andC3 are the districtsbeing used as the comparisonsfor the Standards-baseddistricts.ns representsa
nonsignificantchi-squarevalue (p > .05).
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
than its comparisondistrict.Further,SB2 scoredsignificantlyhigheron Content
Standard6 (discrete mathematics)(p < .005). However, the comparisondistrict
outscoredSB3 on Content Standard1 (numbersense) (p < .05). No other differ-
ences werenoted between Standards-basedandtheircomparisondistricts.These
data,inconjunctionwith theMAPachievementleveldatareportedinTable3, arguefor comparablemathematics achievement between Standards-basedand their
comparisondistrictsat the time thatnew curriculummaterialswere introducedin
the Standards-basedschool districts.
Table5 presentschi-squareanalysesthatcomparethe numberof studentsscoringinthe threeMAPachievementlevels in spring1999when theeighth-gradestudents
in threedistrictshad beenusingStandards-basedcurriculummaterialsfor at least
2years.Separatechi-squares
were calculatedfor eachof the threecomparisons(i.e.,the Standards-baseddistrict and theircomparisondistrict).No differenceswere
found between the SB2 and C2 districts,as well as the SB3 and C3 districts.
However, a statistically significantdifference(p < .02) was found between SB1andC1.Resultsindicatedthatagreaternumberof studentsin theStandards-based
(SB 1)districtscoredin thehighestachievementlevels of theMAP(i.e., Proficient
andAdvanced),whereas a greaternumberof studentsin the comparisondistrict
Cl scoredinthe lowest two MAPachievementlevels (i.e., Step1andProgressing).It is importantto note that between 1997 and 1999 the statedepartmentchanged
the cut scoresfor assigningstudentsto one of the five MAP achievementlevels.Unfortunately,this change makes a directcomparisonof school- districtmathe-
matics-achievement-levelscores in 1997 and 1999 impossible.
Table5NumberandPercentageof EighthGradersScoringin Each AchievementLevelbyDistricton the 1999 MAP MathematicsExam
Note. SB1, SB2, and SB3 are the districtsimplementingStandards-basedcurricula.Cl, C2, andC3are the districtsbeing used as the controlcomparisonsfor the Standards-baseddistricts.
*p<.02
Table 6 reportst-testresults for the six ContentStandardsand TerraNova for
SB1 and its comparisondistrictCl and shows that studentsusing Standards-
based curriculum(SB 1)hadstatisticallysignificanthigherscores thanstudentsin
C1 in thefollowing contentareas:numbersense;geometricandspatialsense;data
analysis, probability, and statistics; algebra; and discrete mathematics.Also,
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
Table 8 shows thatstudentsusing the NSF Standards-basedcurriculum(SB3)had significantly higher scores than nonusers (C3) on two of the six ContentStandardscales: dataanalysis,probability,andstatistics;andalgebra.The MAP
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
scoresforboth of thesedistrictswerehigherthanfor theotherdistrictsinthestudy.Their exceptionally strong performanceis consistent with the strongacademic
For thepurposesof this study,it would have been idealto haveall studentsuse
the same textbook series throughoutthe middle grades.However, this model israrelyfoundin the real world and did not exist in the school districtsinvolved in
this study.Schools often adoptdifferentcurriculummaterialsat differentgrades
(andsometimes withingrades,as occurredin theeighth gradeof every school in
thisstudy).Each districtin thisstudyfollowed a similarpatternof trackingstudents
at either seventh or eighth grade and used different curriculummaterials for
differentcourses at thesamegrade.Althoughthis schoolphenomenonis common,it is not clearhow usingsuch a hybridcurriculumeitherstrengthensor weakens a
school program.Textbook authorsmake decisions aboutspiralingmathematics
concepts across grades.Therefore,the use of a combinationof textbooks fromdifferent series may, in fact, interruptor have otherconsequencesfor curriculum
coherence and studentlearning.
Eighthgradersin all six districtswere enrolledincoursesdenotedasprealgebraor algebraand most usedanalgebratextbook.This factreflects a nationaltrendto
enrollmost, if notall, eighth gradersin analgebracourse andis fueled, in part,bya call to make the middle school mathematicscurriculummorerigorousandless
repetitive.AlthoughStandards-basedinstructionalmaterialswere developed to
respondto this
concern,one
frequentcomplaintaboutthese middleschoolcurricula
is thattheydo notgive enoughattentionto algebra(Wu,2001). It is worthnotingthatsignificantdifferencesoccurredacrossall threegroupson thealgebraportionof the MAP. Ineverycase, studentsfrom districtsusinga Standards-basedmath-ematics curriculumscoredsignificantly higher(at leastp < .05) on the clusterof
algebraitemsthantheircomparisongroup.This evidence contradictstheargumentthat studentsusing theStandards-basedmiddle school mathematicscurriculaarenot learningalgebra.
No significantdifferenceswere foundon all the MAP scores. However,when
significantdifferences were found, they were always in favor of schools usingStandards-basedmathematicscurricula.Thisquestionis raised:Whataccountsfor
thepatternof significantdifferences on the MAP mathematicsassessment?
As indicatedearlier,the directimpactof textbooks on studentachievement is
difficult to establish. Clearly, other variables, including quality of teaching,contributesto mathematicslearning.We haveno directinformationon thequalityof teachinginanyof thesedistrictsandhave madenoeffortto linkqualityof instruc-
tion to studentperformance.Our assumptionis that considerablevariabilityin
teachingexisted across all schools.
The contentand formatof assessmentinstrumentscan also influenceestimatesof student achievement. The MAP mathematicsexam was not developed to be
advantageousto studentsusingany particularset of curriculummaterials.Instead,
the assessment reflects the Framework for Curriculum Development in
by theend of Grade8. TheMAPfocuses on skills, concepts,andproblemsolvingand includes open-endedand multiple-choiceresponse formats.Thus, the onlyknown factor thatwas differentacross the matchedpairsof school districts was
the mathematicscurriculummaterialsused to guide teachingandlearning.Onemightaskwhy thepatternsof differencesin the thirdcomparison(SB3 and
C3) were not similar to the othertwo comparisons.Recall thatsignificantdiffer-
ences were found(atleastp < .05) on 5 of 6 subtestsand the TerraNova withtwo
pairsof districts(SB1andC1, SB2 andC2), butsignificantdifferenceswere seen
on only two of the subtestsin SB3 andC3. We have at least two explanations,the
first of which centerson curriculum.SB3 used CMPfor all sixthgradersand CMP
for aboutthree-fourthsof the seventhandeighth graders,with theremainingone-
fourthof the studentsusing
two differentmathematicstextbooks.Anotherexpla-nationrelatesto the natureof thedistrictsthemselves.SB3 and C3 arebothwealthy
districts,havingthe two highestaverage-per-pupilexpendituresin the state. The
districtspridethemselvesin beingoutstandingdistrictsand have a long historyof
sendinga high percentof theirstudentsto postsecondaryeducation(over 90%).An examinationof Tables 3 and 5 documentsthatthese two districtshave a much
likely provideda low ceiling for studentsin bothdistricts,therebycurtailingvari-abilityandlikely accountingfor the lack of significantdifferences.
This examinationof mathematicsachievement of eighth-gradestudents who
studiedfromNSF Standards-basedmiddle schoolmathematicsmaterialsprovidesinformationto those contemplatingcurriculumreform. More specifically, this
research,basedon datafrom six differentschooldistrictsandinvolvingmorethan
2,000 students,documents that middle school studentsusing Standards-based
mathematicscurriculafor at least2 yearsequaledor exceededtheachievementof
studentsfrommatchedcomparisongroupson the statemandatedeighth-grademath-
ematics test. Justas an artist'spicturetakes shapewith each strokeof the brush,the critical development of a strong research base to investigate the effect of
Standards-basedcurriculummaterialson studentlearningwill not be established
by any single study. The complexity of curriculumimplementationdemands
multipleinvestigationsto uncoverkey issues for considerationbyteachers,district
administrators,andpolicymakers.Thisanalysisrequiresthe contributionsof manydifferentresearchinvestigationsprovidinga varietyof perspectivesof the impactof Standards-basedinstructionalmaterials.We offer this studyas anotherstroke
for thepicturethateventuallywill emerge.
REFERENCES
Balch, K., Dristas, L., Howard,A. C., Collins, W., Frey-Mason,P., Molina,D. D., Moore-Harris,B.,
Pelfrey,R. S., Smith, B., Ott, J.,Price, J., andWilson,P. S. (1993). Mathematics:Applicationsandconnections.Westerville,OH: Macmillian/McGraw-Hill.
Ball, D. L. (1996). Reformby the book: What is-or mightbe-the role of curriculummaterialsinteacherlearningand instructionalreform?EducationalResearcher,25, 6-8.
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
Bay, J. (1999). Middle school mathematicscurriculumimplementation:Thedynamics of change asteachersintroduceanduseStandards-basedcurricula.Unpublisheddoctoraldissertation,Universityof Missouri,Columbia.
Bay,J.,Reys,B.,&
Reys,R.
(1999).The
top10 elementsthatmustbe in
placeto
implementStandards-
based mathematicscurricula.Phi Delta Kappan,80, 503-506.
Beaton, A. E., Mullis, I. V., Martin,M. O., Gonzalez, E. J., Kelly, D. L., & Smith, T. A. (1997).Mathematicsachievementin themiddleschool years: IEA'sThirdInternationalMathematicsandScience Study.ChestnutHill, MA: BostonCollege.
Benson, J., Dodge, S., Dodge, W., Hamberg,C., Milauskas, G., and Rukin,R. (1993). Gatewaysto
algebra and geometry:An integratedapproach.Evanston:IL:McDougal,Littell.
Billstein, R., & Williamson, J. (1998). Middle grades MATHThematics(Book 1). Evanston, IL:
McDougal Littell.
Briars,D. (2001). Mathematicsperformancein the PittsburghPublic Schools. Paper presentedat aconference of the MathematicsAssessment ResourceService, SanDiego, CA.
Brown, R. G., Dolciani, M. P., Sorgenfrey,R. H. (1994). Algebra:Structureand method. Evanston:IL:,McDougalLittell/HoughtonMifflin.
Charles,R. I., Dossey, J. A., Leinwald,S. J., Seeley, C., VonderEmbse,et al. (1998). Middle schoolmathematics.MenloPark,CA: Scott Foresman/AddisonWesley.
Clarke, B. (1995). Expecting the unexpected: Critical incidents in the mathematics classroom.
Fennell, F., Ferrini-Mundy,J., Ginsburg, H. P., Greenes, C., Murphy,M., and Tate, W. (1998).Mathematics:Thepath to math success! (Grade6). Parsippany,NJ: SilverBurdettGinn.
Griffin,L. A., Evans, A., Timms, T., & Trowell,J. (2000). Arkansasgrade 8 benchmarkexam: Howdo ConnectedMathematicsschools compareto state data? Little Rock:ArkansasStateDepartmentof Education.
Henningsen,M., & Stein, M. K. (1997). Mathematicaltasksand studentcognition:Classroom-basedfactorsthatsupportandinhibithigh-levelmathematicalthinkingandreasoning.JournalforResearchin MathematicsEducation,28, 524-549.
Hiebert,J. (1999). Relationshipsbetween researchand theNCTM Standards.Journalfor Research inMathematicsEducation,30, 3-19.
Huntley,M. A., Rasmussen,C. L., Villarubi,R. S., Sangtong,J., & Fey, J.T. (2000). Effects of stan-dards-basedmathematicseducation:A studyof theCore-PlusMathematicsProjectalgebraandfunc-tions strand.Journalfor Researchin MathematicsEducation,31, 328-361.
Kilpatrick,J. (1992). A historyof researchin mathematicseducation.In D. A. Grouws(Ed.),Handbook
of researchon mathematicsteachingand learning(pp.3-38). New York:Macmillan.
Kilpatrick,J. (1997). Confrontingreform.AmericanMathematicalMonthly,104, 955-962.Lambdin,D. V., & Preston,R. V. (1995). Caricaturesin innovation:Teachadaptationto an investi-
Reys, B. J., Robinson,E., Sconiers, S., & Mark,J. (1999). Mathematicscurriculabased on rigorousnationalstandards:What,why and how? Phi Delta Kappan,80, 454-456.
Riordan,J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impactof two standards-basedmathematicscurriculaonstudentachievementinMassachusetts.JournalforResearchinMathematicsEducation,32, 368-398.
Robitaille,D. F., & Travers,K. J.(1992).
Internationalstudies of achievementin mathematics.In D.A. Grouws(Ed.),Handbookof researchon mathematicsteachingandlearning(pp.687-709). NewYork: Macmillan.
Usiskin, Z., Feldman,C. H., Davis, S., Mallo, S., Sanders,G., Witansky,D., et al. (1995). University
of Chicago School Mathematics Project: Transition mathematics. Glenview, IL: Scott
Foresman/AddisonWesley.
Wasman,D. (2000).Aninvestigationof algebraicreasoning of seventhandeighth-gradestudentswhohave studiedfrom the ConnectedMathematicscurriculum.Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Universityof Missouri,Columbia.
Wu, H. (1997). The mathematicseducationreform:Why you shouldbe concernedandwhatyou can
do?AmericanMathematicalMonthly,104, 946-954.
Wu, H. (2001). How to preparestudentsfor algebra.AmericanEducator,25(3), 1-15.
8/7/2019 the Impact of Standards Based Middle Grades Curriculum on Student Achievement
District No. of No. of School Courses Percent Textmiddle middle percent by grade ofschool school free/ studentsbuild- stu- reduced in gradeings dents lunch in
courseSB1 2 2000 30 Gr.6 Math 100 MATHThematicsBk. 1
Gr.7 Math 100 MATHThematicsBk.2
Gr.8 Math 75 GatewaystoAlgebraand Geometry
Gr.6 Alg 25 AlgebraI: ExplorationsandApplications
C1 1 800 24 Gr.6 Math 80 Mathematics:Applica-tionsandConnections1
District No. of No. of School Courses Percent Textmiddle middle percent by grade ofschool school free/ studentsbuild- stu- reduced in gradeings dents lunch in
R. Reys,B. Reys,R. Lapan,G. Holliday,and D. Wasman 95
Contentstrand Description Sampleitem (Grade8)
Mathe- Mathematicalsystems Your local high school marchingbandmatical (includingrealnumbers, is marchingin today's statefairparade.Systems whole numbers,integers, Theband,composedof 126 students,
fractions),geometryand usuallymarchesin 21 rows of 6 studentsnumbertheory (primes, each. Due to illness, several bandfactors,andmultiples). membersareunableto marchin today's
parade.As drummajor,you mustassistthe band directorin rearrangingthestudentsinto rows of equalnumbersofstudents.Whenyou tried4 studentsineach row, the last row was 1 student
short.The results were the same whenrows of 5 and 6 studentswerearranged.Whenyou arrangedthe band into rowsof 7 students,all rows werecomplete.Use the informationto determinehow
Discrete Discretemathematicsis A groupof campersis askedto plantheMathe- the studyof points, ideas, dinnermenus for 15 for anupcoming
matics andobjectthatareseparate campingtrip.They found that-fromeach otheror distinct. *6 people likedonly freeze-driedchili,Graphtheory,counting *4 people likedonly backpackertechniques,matrices,and spaghetti,the mathematicsof deci- *5 people liked both the chili and thesion makingareincluded spaghetti.as partof discrete How many peopledid NOT like eithermathematics. the freeze-driedchili or thebackpacker