DOCSLIB.ORG

The Changing Mathematics Curriculum: an Annotated Bibliography

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Changing Mathematics Curriculum: An Annotated Bibliography Third Edition April 2005 1 2 The K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Center About This Publication The K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Center (K–12 MCC) This publication, an annotated bibliography of articles supports school districts as they build effective mathematics relevant to Standards-based mathematics curriculum education programs using curricula that align with the National reform, is intended as a resource for educators and commu- Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM) Curriculum and nities considering the selection and implementation of a Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989) and Standards-based mathematics curriculum. It also may assist Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000). individuals who are interested in learning about the student achievement, classroom practices, and implementation The K–12 MCC offers a variety of products and services to challenges associated with the use of Standards-based assist mathematics teachers and administrators. Our seminars materials. address selecting and implementing new curricula, designing professional development and support, aligning curriculum When gathering resources for this publication, the K–12 with assessment, and examining leadership in curricular change. Mathematics Curriculum Center staff reviewed articles that Our other resources include: either addressed important issues in mathematics curricu- lum change or shared experiences, views, and data relevant • Curriculum Summaries to the selection and use of 12 comprehensive mathematics • Perspectives on Curricular Change: Interviews with programs based on the NCTM Standards and developed Teachers, Administrators, and Curriculum Developers with support from the NSF. These programs are listed on who have worked with 12 National Science the back cover of this publication. Foundation (NSF)-funded Standards-based curricula This bibliography does not attempt to be comprehensive • Choosing a Standards-Based Mathematics and certainly does not include every article written about Curriculum, a guide that suggests processes for mathematics curriculum reform. Rather, the goal was to selecting and implementing curricula select articles that would increase readers’ understanding of • a series of Issues Papers that explores contemporary Standards-based mathematics curricula and their use in mathematics education issues classrooms. • Consisdering New Mathematics Curricula DVD Most of the articles are peer-reviewed and were either Information and links to resources about Standards-based published in journals or collections, or presented as papers curricula and their implementation can be found at the K–12 at conferences. They are organized into four categories: Mathematics Curriculum Center website: characteristics of Standards-based mathematics curricula, research regarding the impact of these programs on student http://www.edc.org/mcc achievement, professional development, and issues that arise during implementation. Please contact the K–12 MCC for information on how we can either offer you direct support, point you to relevant Selections beginning with the word “Abstract” were written resources and materials, or connect you with educators by the original authors or publishers. If an article was experienced in curriculum selection and implementation. accessible online at the time of publication, its URL is listed. Some of these articles can be read or downloaded free For more information about our materials and services please of charge; others are available to subscribers and/or can be contact: purchased for a nominal fee. Kim Foster This publication is also available on our website at: K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Center Education Development Center, Inc. http://www.edc.org/mcc 55 Chapel Street Newton, MA 02458-1060 Phone: (800) 332-2429 Fax: (617) 969-1527 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.edc.org/mcc This book was developed by the K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Center at Education Development Center, Inc. The work was supported by National Science Foundation Grant No. ESI-0137826. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation. 3 National Grade-level Implementation Centers In addition to the K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Center, there are three grade- level specific implementation centers supporting these curricula. Alternatives for Rebuilding Curricula (ARC) Contact: Sheila Sconiers The ARC Center is a collaboration between the Consortium for COMAP, Inc. Mathematics and Its Applications (COMAP) and the three NSF- Suite 210 supported elementary mathematics curriculum projects, 57 Bedford Street Investigations in Number, Data, and Space (TERC); Math Trailblazers Lexington, MA 02420 (University of Illinois at Chicago); and Everyday Mathematics Phone: (800) 772-6627, ext. 50 (University of Chicago). The Center promotes the wide-scale and Fax: (781) 863-1202 effective implementation of reform elementary mathematics E-mail: [email protected] curricula. Website: http://www.comap.com/elementary/ projects/arc Show-Me Center (National Center for Standards-based Middle Grades Mathematics Curricula) Contact: Barbara Reys The Show-Me Project is dedicated to providing information and University of Missouri assistance to schools considering and/or in the process of 303 Townsend Hall implementing Standards-based curriculum reform at the middle Columbia, MO 65211 grade levels (grades 6–8). The Project is a partnership of curriculum Phone: (573) 884-2099 developers and professional development staff at: the Show-Me Fax: (573) 882-4481 Center at the University of Missouri–Columbia; the Math in E-mail: [email protected] Context Satellite Center at the University of Wisconsin; the Website: http://showmecenter.missouri.edu Connected Mathematics Project Satellite Center at Michigan State University; the MathScape Satellite Center at Education Development Center; and the MATH Thematics Satellite Center at the University of Montana. Project staff provide assistance to state and district personnel through teacher institutes, curriculum conferences, and teacher leadership conferences. The Project provides information, materials to assist district implementation, and an online curriculum showcase at its website. It also responds to requests for services and information needed by local district personnel. COMPASS (Curricular Options in Mathematics Programs for All Secondary Students) Contact: Eric Robinson The COMPASS project is a secondary school implementation Ithaca College project funded in part by the National Science Foundation. 306 Williams Hall COMPASS consists of six sites: a satellite site for each of the five Ithaca, NY 14850 secondary-level curricula and a generic central site. Phone: (800) 688-1829 (607) 274-1513 The primary function of the central site is to inform schools, Fax: (607) 274-3054 districts, teachers, parents, administrators, state offices, and other E-mail: [email protected] groups about these innovative curricula and aid in the first general Website: http://www.ithaca.edu/compass phase of selection and implementation. It also coordinates requests for additional information and assistance from the satellite sites. Each satellite provides additional information, implementation assistance, and professional development opportunities focused on its curricula to these same constituencies. 4 Table of Contents Characteristics of Standards-Based Mathematics Curricula ...................................... 7 Curricular Implications of the NCTM Standards ............................................................................. 7 Pedagogy........................................................................................................................................ 10 Content ......................................................................................................................................... 13 Evaluating Curricula ...................................................................................................................... 15 Impact Studies ......................................................................................................... 19 Elementary .................................................................................................................................... 19 Middle School ............................................................................................................................... 22 High School................................................................................................................................... 25 Professional Development ........................................................................................ 29 Teacher Learning ........................................................................................................................... 29 Teacher Practice ............................................................................................................................. 34 Teacher Perspectives ....................................................................................................................... 38 Pre-service Learning ....................................................................................................................... 39 Leadership Support ........................................................................................................................ 41 Implementation ......................................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • Chapter 13 National Science Foundation Systemic Initiatives

    Chapter 13 National Science Foundation Systemic Initiatives

    Chapter 13 National Science Foundation Systemic Initiatives: How a small amount of federal money promotes ill-designed mathematics and science programs in K-12 and undermines local control of education Michael McKeown Mathematically Correct David Klein California State University, Los Angeles Chris Patterson Education Connection of Texas Since its inception in 1950, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has played a strong, positive role in making American scientific research and technological application the best in the world. Through its funding of peer-reviewed, investigator-initiated research proposals, it has supported basic research in a wide variety of scientific disciplines, such as mathematics, biology, physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, and psychology. American science owes much to the support it has received, and continues to receive, from NSF. This chapter deals with a program in the Education and Human Resources Division called the NSF Systemic Initiatives Program, not with NSF programs related directly to the support of basic research. We are highly critical of this particular NSF program. Not only do the Systemic Initiatives undermine local control of education, but, as our analysis in this chapter suggests, they also seem to lower academic standards for mathematics education and weaken the educational base for American science. This chapter is composed of three sections. The first section, an overview of NSF Systemic Initiatives, was written by Michael McKeown. The second section, an analysis of the development and 288 Standards Wars features of the Los Angeles Systemic Initiative, was written by David Klein. The third section, an analysis of the development and features of the Texas Statewide Systemic Initiative, was written by Chris Patterson.
  • Mathematics in African History and Cultures

    Mathematics in African History and Cultures

    Paulus Gerdes & Ahmed Djebbar MATHEMATICS IN AFRICAN HISTORY AND CULTURES: AN ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY African Mathematical Union Commission on the History of Mathematics in Africa (AMUCHMA) Mathematics in African History and Cultures Second edition, 2007 First edition: African Mathematical Union, Cape Town, South Africa, 2004 ISBN: 978-1-4303-1537-7 Published by Lulu. Copyright © 2007 by Paulus Gerdes & Ahmed Djebbar Authors Paulus Gerdes Research Centre for Mathematics, Culture and Education, C.P. 915, Maputo, Mozambique E-mail: [email protected] Ahmed Djebbar Département de mathématiques, Bt. M 2, Université de Lille 1, 59655 Villeneuve D’Asq Cedex, France E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Cover design inspired by a pattern on a mat woven in the 19th century by a Yombe woman from the Lower Congo area (Cf. GER-04b, p. 96). 2 Table of contents page Preface by the President of the African 7 Mathematical Union (Prof. Jan Persens) Introduction 9 Introduction to the new edition 14 Bibliography A 15 B 43 C 65 D 77 E 105 F 115 G 121 H 162 I 173 J 179 K 182 L 194 M 207 N 223 O 228 P 234 R 241 S 252 T 274 U 281 V 283 3 Mathematics in African History and Cultures page W 290 Y 296 Z 298 Appendices 1 On mathematicians of African descent / 307 Diaspora 2 Publications by Africans on the History of 313 Mathematics outside Africa (including reviews of these publications) 3 On Time-reckoning and Astronomy in 317 African History and Cultures 4 String figures in Africa 338 5 Examples of other Mathematical Books and 343
  • An Alternative Route to Teaching Fraction Division: Abstraction of Common Denominator Algorithm

    An Alternative Route to Teaching Fraction Division: Abstraction of Common Denominator Algorithm

    International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 2015, 7(3), 399-422. An Alternative Route to Teaching Fraction Division: Abstraction of Common Denominator Algorithm İsmail Özgür ZEMBAT Mevlana (Rumi) University, Turkey Received: February 2015 / Revised: May 2015 / Accepted: May 2015 Abstract From a curricular stand point, the traditional invert and multiply algorithm for division of fractions provides few affordances for linking to a rich understanding of fractions. On the other hand, an alternative algorithm, called common denominator algorithm, has many such affordances. The current study serves as an argument for shifting curriculum for fraction division from use of invert and multiply algorithm as a basis to the use of common denominator algorithm as a basis. This was accomplished with the analysis of learning of two prospective elementary teachers being an illustration of how to realize those conceptual affordances. In doing so, the article proposes an instructional sequence and details it by referring to both the (mathematical and pedagogical) advantages and the disadvantages. As a result, this algorithm has a conceptual basis depending on basic operations of partitioning, unitizing, and counting, which make it accessible to learners. Also, when participants are encouraged to construct this algorithm based on their work with diagrams, common denominator algorithm formalizes the work that they do with diagrams. Keywords: Teaching fraction division, abstracting common denominator algorithm, curriculum development Introduction Arithmetic operations, and teaching and learning of them have always been an interest for mathematics education community. In his historical analysis, Usiskin (2007) pointed out that operations (especially on fractions) still preserve its importance in school mathematics and they should be given enough emphasis.
  • AVAILABLE from ABSTRACT DOCUMENT RESUME Exemplary

    AVAILABLE from ABSTRACT DOCUMENT RESUME Exemplary

    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 434 033 SE 062 877 TITLE Exemplary and Promising Mathematics Programs. INSTITUTION Department of Education, Washington, DC. PUB DATE 1999-00-00 NOTE 71p.; Prepared by the "Math and Science Education Expert Panel." AVAILABLE FROM ED Pubs, P.O. Box 1389, Jessup, MD. Tel: 877-433-7827 (Toll Free); Web site: <http://www.enc.org>. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Academic Standards; Demonstration Programs; Elementary Secondary Education; Mathematics Curriculum; *Mathematics Education; *Program Descriptions; *Program Evaluation ABSTRACT Selecting programs, textbooks, and curriculum materials is one of the most important decisions educators make. An Expert Panel on Mathematics and Science was established by the U.S. Department of Education to develop a high-quality, research-based process for selecting programs and to use that selecting process to identify exemplary and promising programs. This booklet describes eight mathematics programs designated as exemplary or promising. A detailed explanation of the submission and selection process and an explanation of how the programs were separated into exemplary and promising categories is included. The four characteristics used for the selection criteria include quality of program, usefulness to others, educational significance, and evidence of effectiveness and success. Each characteristic has multiple criteria with specific indicators of achievement. Each program is described in terms of the four selection characteristics and professional
  • A Primer on America's Schools

    A Primer on America's Schools

    chapter 9 Standards and Accountability Williamson M. Evers The idea seems simple enough. Set standards for what students should be learning, and then hold them and their teachers account- able for seeing that the learning actually takes place. So why, then, after years of various benchmarks and commissions and legislative agendas, are the standards and accountability programs in this country all too often mediocre and ineffective? Because they are the product of politics. Standards and accountability, like most of the contentious issues concerning public schools today, are caught between powerful and conflicting political forces—forces that hold sway even in the face of a clear and widespread desire to improve the public education that 89 percent of this nation’s children re- ceive. In the specific case of standards and accountability, two forces in particular are at play: resistance from the teachers’ unions and the rest of the education establishment (which includes school boards, The author wishes to thank Mychele Brickner, Beth Ann Bryan, Paul Clopton, Ralph Cohen, Maureen DiMarco, Michelle Easton, Eric Hanushek, David Klein, Bill Lucia, Doug McRae, Stan Metzenberg, James Milgram, Terry Moe, Janet Nicholas, Sandra Stotsky, Abigail Thernstrom, Kate Walsh, Darv Winick, and Ze’ev Wurman for reading earlier drafts of this paper, in whole or in part, and offering valuable suggestions. He also wishes to thank Kate Feinstein for her help with research and editing and Peggy Dooley for extensive help with editing and revising. 205 .......................... 8774$$ $CH9 09-10-01 10:08:06 PS 206 Williamson M. Evers superintendents, and principals) who often want to avoid being evaluated when it comes to whether their students are learning; and struggles between the progressive and traditionalist schools of thought as to what educational standards should look like, and, indeed, whether there should be any standards at all.
  • Problematizing the Philosophy of Mathematics in a Time of Curriculum Reform Kimberly White-Fredette

    Problematizing the Philosophy of Mathematics in a Time of Curriculum Reform Kimberly White-Fredette

    The Mathematics Educator 2009/2010, Vol. 19, No. 2, 21–31 Why Not Philosophy? Problematizing the Philosophy of Mathematics in a Time of Curriculum Reform Kimberly White-Fredette This article argues that, as teachers struggle to implement curriculum reform in mathematics, an explicit discussion of philosophy of mathematics is missing from the conversation. Building on the work of Ernest (1988, 1991, 1994, 1998, 1999, 2004), Lerman (1990, 1998, 1999), the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (1989, 1991, 2000), Davis and Hersh (1981), Hersh (1997), Lakatos (1945/1976), Kitcher (1984), and others, the author draws parallels between social constructivism and a humanism philosophy of mathematics. While practicing mathematicians may be entrenched in a traditional, Platonic philosophy of mathematics, and mathematics education researchers have embraced the fallibilist, humanist philosophy of mathematics (Sfard, 1998), the teachers of school mathematics are caught somewhere in the middle. Mathematics teachers too often hold true to the traditional view of mathematics as an absolute truth independent of human subjectivity. At the same time, they are pushed to teach mathematics as a social construction, an activity that makes sense only through its usefulness. Given these dichotomous views of mathematics, without an explicit conversation about and exploration of the philosophy of mathematics, reform in the teaching and learning of mathematics may be certain to fail. The teaching and learning of mathematics is without a radical change in instructional practices going through tremendous changes. The National and an equally radical change in teachers’ views of Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ (NCTM, 2000) mathematics teaching and learning, as well as the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics discipline of mathematics itself.
  • A Landscape Paper Science Reform a Survey of Mathematics in the Southeast AND

    A Landscape Paper Science Reform a Survey of Mathematics in the Southeast AND

    A Survey OF Mathematics AND Science Reform IN THE Southeast A Landscape Paper A Survey OF Mathematics AND Science Reform IN THE Southeast: A Landscape Paper SERC @ SERVE Dr. Francena D. Cummings, Director 1203 Governors Square Boulevard, Suite 400 • Tallahassee, FL 32301 • 800-854-0476 Proprietary Document—Written permission required for duplication or use. Associated with the School of Education University of North Carolina at Greensboro First Printing, 2003 Edited by Donna Nalley, SERVE Publications Director Karen DeMeester, SERVE Senior Program Specialist Designed by Tracy Hamilton, SERVE Art Director Photography by This document was produced Shelley Call, Barbara Davis, Donna Nalley, and Tracy Hamilton with funding from the Dwight D. Eisenhower National Programs from Mathematics and Science Select photographs used in this magazine are from Comstock Klips, Corbis, Creatas, Regional Consortia Program, EyeWire Images, Image 100, and/or PhotoDisc. Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, under contact no. R319A000011. Additional photographs provided by Penny Gilmer and classroom teachers (masters and doctoral students at Florida State University). The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect Photographs may not be reproduced without written permission from the photographer or the views or policies of the Institute of Education Sciences, the stock photography company. U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S.
  • May 2001 What Are the Children Learning and Who Decides

    May 2001 What Are the Children Learning and Who Decides

    May 2001 THE TEXTBOOK CONUNDRUM What are the Children Learning and Who Decides? Introduction With the quality of education in the United States now the biggest domestic concern, demands for accountability are in vogue. The drive for better schools however, is usually limited to issues of standards, testing, choice and teachers. Missing from most discussions is the role that textbooks play in the achievement of children. A few facts to consider: • In more than twenty states, the state (state board of education, department of education, secretary or commissioner of education, or another specially designated state textbook committee) picks the textbooks for every classroom in the state – either through outright text selection, or recommendations from a short list. To control curriculum, they tie funding to compliance with the states’ textbook adoption policy. • Textbooks supplied to three states, California, Texas and Florida – all of which give significant influence to state agencies for textbook selection – account for 30 percent of the more than $3.3 billion K-12 textbook market in 1998, the most recent year for which statistics are available.i • Four publishers (McGraw-Hill, Houghton Mifflin, Harcourt, and Pearson) control 70 percent of the industry. Size means money means influence in the textbook world. They are a strong, quiet interest group that works behind the scenes and through major education groups to ensure that the process favoring them stays exactly the way it is. The process for putting books in front of children then, looks something like this: The “big three” states draw up textbook adoption policies to which the “big four” publishers try to align their textbook content.
  • An Examination of the Potential of Secondary Mathematics

    An Examination of the Potential of Secondary Mathematics

    AN EXAMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL OF SECONDARY MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM MATERIALS TO SUPPORT TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING OF PROBABIILITY AND STATISTICS by Joshua E. Williams B. S., Clarion University, 2000 M. S., Salisbury University, 2006 Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of The School of Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education University of Pittsburgh 2016 UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH THE SCHOOL OF EDUCATION This dissertation was presented by Joshua E. Williams It was defended on September 7, 2016 and approved by Dr. Ellen Ansell, Associate Professor, Instruction and Learning Dr. James Greeno, Emeritus Professor, Standford University Dr. Mary Kay Stein, Professor, Learning Science and Policy Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Margaret S. Smith, Emeritus Professor, Instruction and Learning ii Copyright © by Joshua E. Williams 2016 iii AN EXAMINATION OF THE POTENTIAL OF SECONDARY MATHEMATICS CURRICULUM MATERIALS TO SUPPORT TEACHER AND STUDENT LEARNING OF PROBABIILITY AND STATISTICS Joshua E. Williams, EdD University of Pittsburgh, 2016 The Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSSM) suggest many changes to secondary mathematics education including an increased focus on conceptual understanding and the inclusion of content and processes that are beyond what is currently taught to most high school students. To facilitate these changes, students will need opportunities to engage in tasks that are cognitively demanding in order to develop this conceptual understanding and to engage in such tasks over a breadth of content areas including probability and statistics. However, teachers may have a difficult time facilitating a change from traditional mathematics instruction to instruction that centers around the use of high-level tasks and a focus on conceptual understanding and that include content from the areas of probability and statistics that may go beyond their expertise and experience.
  • Book Report Winning the Math Wars

    Book Report Winning the Math Wars

    Book Report Winning the Math Wars: No Teacher Left Behind Samantha A Peterson Seattle Pacific University 2 Winning the Math Wars: No Teacher Left Behind, is a book written by four Seattle Pacific University scholars, who present a well-articulated and non-biased assessment of the state of mathematics education in the world, in the United States, and specifically in Washington State. The authors divided the book into four chapters, which address the following four topics respectively; what the world is thinking about math education, the American dilemma about math education, math education in Washington State, and ending with a discussion about the implications and conclusions of the math debate. The focus of the book is to present a broad analysis of the math wars and to come to some conclusion about what’s needed in order to realize effective change in the teaching and learning of mathematics. The underlying theme throughout the discussion of reform mathematics is the lack of attention that has been given to the teacher’s role in education reform; “effective reform requires the coordination among standards, assessment, and instruction,” (pg.123). The authors begin by exploring the historical development of the math wars and comparing the United States educational system to that of other cultures. This comparison is helpful because it addresses some of the cultural implications for differences in performance between American students and students from other countries. For instance, Japanese students typically spend far more time on homework and math study. Japanese and American teachers also differ fundamentally in their approach to math teaching.
  • Navigating Reform in Mathematics Teacher Education

    Navigating Reform in Mathematics Teacher Education

    Georgia State University ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University Middle and Secondary Education Dissertations Department of Middle and Secondary Education 5-11-2018 Navigating Reform in Mathematics Teacher Education: Teacher Educators' Responses to edTPA and Professional Organizations' Initiatives Alesia Mickle Moldavan Georgia State University Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/mse_diss Recommended Citation Moldavan, Alesia Mickle, "Navigating Reform in Mathematics Teacher Education: Teacher Educators' Responses to edTPA and Professional Organizations' Initiatives." Dissertation, Georgia State University, 2018. https://scholarworks.gsu.edu/mse_diss/59 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Middle and Secondary Education at ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Middle and Secondary Education Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks @ Georgia State University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ACCEPTANCE This dissertation, NAVIGATING REFORM IN MATHEMATICS TEACHER EDUCATION: TEACHER EDUCATORS’ RESPONSES TO EDTPA AND PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS’ INITIATIVES, by ALESIA MICKLE MOLDAVAN, was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s Dissertation Advisory Committee. It is accepted by the committee members in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, in the College of Education and Human Development, Georgia State University. The Dissertation Advisory Committee and the student’s Department Chairperson, as representatives of the faculty, certify that this dissertation has met all standards of excellence and scholarship as determined by the faculty. _________________________________ David W. Stinson, Ph.D. Committee Chair _________________________________ _________________________________ Janice B. Fournillier, Ph.D. Pier A. Junor Clarke, Ph.D. Committee Member Committee Member _________________________________ Joyce E.
  • Review of Evaluation Studies of Mathematics and Science Curricula and Professional Development Models

    Review of Evaluation Studies of Mathematics and Science Curricula and Professional Development Models

    Abstract This report identifies mathematics and science curricula as well as professional development models at the middle and high school levels that are effective based on their success in increasing student achievement. The goal of the study was to provide some choice to districts and schools that wanted guidance in selecting a curriculum and that wished to use effectiveness as a selection criterion. Unexpectedly, most middle and high school mathematics and science curricula did not have studies of student achievement with comparison groups, and it proved especially difficult to find effects in either math or science for subgroups by sex, minority status, and urban status. Findings strongly suggest that science curricula is more effective when it is inquiry-based, although math curricula can be effective when standards- or traditional-based. REVIEW OF EVALUATION STUDIES OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE CURRICULA AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MODELS By Beatriz C. Clewell Clemencia Cosentino de Cohen The Urban Institute and Patricia B. Campbell Lesley Perlman Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc. with Nicole Deterding Sarah Manes Lisa Tsui The Urban Institute and Shay N.S. Rao Becky Branting Lesli Hoey Rosa Carson Campbell-Kibler Associates, Inc. Submitted to the GE Foundation December 2004 Acknowledgments A number of individuals contributed to this effort in various ways. We were fortunate to have the assistance of Gerhard Salinger of the National Science Foundation; Jo Ellen Roseman of Project 2061 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS); Joan Abdallah at AAAS; and several staff members at the Center for Science Education at the Education Development Center—Barbara Berns, Jeanne Century, Joe Flynn, Elisabeth Hiles, Jackie Miller, Marian Pasquale, and Judith Sandler —in helping us identify science curricula that might have evaluation studies.