DOCSLIB.ORG

An Investigation of the Relationship Between Mathematics Textbook Alignment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Investigation of the Relationship Between Mathematics Textbook Alignment An Investigation of the Relationship between Mathematics Textbook Alignment Preferences, Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Attention to the NCTM Standards, and Teaching Experience A dissertation presented to the faculty of the College of Education of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy Valerie N. Blom June 2009 © 2009 Valerie N. Blom. All Rights Reserved. 2 This dissertation titled An Investigation of the Relationship between Mathematics Textbook Alignment Preferences, Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Attention to the NCTM Standards, and Teaching Experience by VALERIE N. BLOM has been approved for the Department of Teacher Education and the College of Education by George Johanson Professor of Educational Studies Renée A. Middleton Dean, College of Education 3 ABSTRACT BLOM, VALERIE N., Ph.D., June 2009, Curriculum and Instruction An Investigation of the Relationship between Mathematics Textbook Alignment Preferences, Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Attention to the NCTM Standards, and Teaching Experience (179 pp.) Director of Dissertation: George Johanson This study examined the relationship between a teachers’ degree of agreement with Standards-based mathematics textbook characteristics (textbook alignment preferences) and influencing factors. Cluster sampling was utilized to obtain a sample of K-6 teachers from Ohio to respond to a 60 item web-based survey. A return rate of 48% was realized with 273 completed surveys suitable for analysis. Responses to the 24 items that constituted teachers’ degree of agreement with Standards-based mathematics textbook characteristics represented the dependent variable, textbook alignment preferences. Beliefs about the teaching and learning of mathematics, emphasis of professional development, hours of professional development, years of teaching experience, and level of attention to the NCTM Standards represented the independent variables. Data were analyzed using descriptive methods, regression methods, and factor analysis. Eighty-four percent of the teachers did not disagree (mean score was neutral or agreed) with the characteristics of Standards-based textbooks while less than one-fourth agreed. Additionally, teachers’ beliefs about the teaching and learning of mathematics were close to agreement with those espoused by the NCTM Standards. Seventy-three percent of the participants reported teachers in their school had implemented the Standards in their teaching and about half reported being able to explain the Standards 4 and that they had been thoroughly discussed in their school. Participation in professional development activities was found to be relatively low for this sample of teachers. A significant regression model where textbook alignment preferences were predicted by mathematics beliefs, prior number of years of teaching experience, emphasis of professional development, hours of professional development, and teacher attention to the NCTM Standards was constructed. The statistically significant predictors for this model were mathematics beliefs and prior number of years of teaching experience. The 24-item scale of textbook alignment preferences, where the items represented differences between traditional and Standards-based mathematics textbooks was factor analyzed. Parallel analysis indicated a four-factor solution. One factor represented characteristics of traditional textbooks and another represented characteristics of Standards-based textbooks. The third factor represented technology characteristics of textbooks. The last factor represented structure of mathematics topics among textbooks. Also, a two-factor solution was explored since the items for this scale represented traditional and Standards-based textbooks. Most characteristics loaded on the appropriate factor (traditional (10 out of 12) and Standards-based (10 out of 12)). For the remaining items, three did not meet the loading criteria and one item loaded on the other type of factor. Overall, the factor analysis indicated that there is evidence of construct validity for this scale. Approved: _____________________________________________________________ George Johanson Professor of Educational Studies 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I first want to extend my utmost gratitude to my Lord Jesus Christ. His unyielding strength and comfort helped me persevere on a daily basis through this endeavor. Furthermore, I want to extend my sincerest thanks to my committee members Dr. George Johanson, Dr. Jim Schultz, Dr. Gordon Brooks, and Dr. Jeff Connor. These professors have given much time and energy in providing me with the guidance needed to accomplish this research. Also, I want to thank Dr. Gregory Foley for his assistance with part of the last leg of my journey. I would also like to thank my family, dearest friends, and colleagues for their prayers, patience, and encouragement while I worked on the completion of this life long goal: Allen (I did it Dad!), Anita, and Janet Whitehead, Mitzi Jones, Mark Cooper, Barbara Rogers, Cathy Singleton, Noushi Stouffer, Melanie Musheno, Diane Polczynski, all members of the Stouffer Home Church, Rose Teuta, Colleen McKimpson, Godwin Dogbey, Sue Nichols, Holly Raffle, Mike Waters, and Jane Barnard. A special thank you to Cathy Singleton for her assistance in regards to the numerous reports she coauthored and helped disseminate to various schools in Ohio. 6 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract ............................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................... 5 List of Tables .................................................................................................................... 12 List of Figures ................................................................................................................... 13 Chapter 1: Introduction ..................................................................................................... 14 Background of the Study .............................................................................................. 14 Reports and Recommendations ................................................................................. 15 The Standards ............................................................................................................ 15 Influence of Adoption States .................................................................................... 17 Controversy ............................................................................................................... 18 Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 19 Significance of the Problem .......................................................................................... 21 Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 26 Definition of Terms ...................................................................................................... 26 Chapter 2: Review of the Literature .................................................................................. 28 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 28 History of Mathematics Textbooks. .......................................................................... 28 Critical Review of the Relevant Literature ................................................................... 32 Textbook Preferences, Professional Development, and Years of Teaching Experience ................................................................................................................. 32 7 Professional Development .................................................................................... 32 Professional Development and Years of Teaching Experience ............................ 34 Textbook Use and Professional Development ...................................................... 35 Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Years of Teaching Experience, and NCTM Standards ...................................................................................................... 37 Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, and Years of Teaching Experience ................................................................................................................................... 38 Mathematics Beliefs .............................................................................................. 38 Mathematics Beliefs and Professional Development ........................................... 39 Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, and Years of Teaching Experience ............................................................................................................. 40 Studies Related to the Standards Beliefs Instrument ............................................ 41 Textbook Alignment Preferences, Mathematics Beliefs, Professional Development, Years of Teaching Experience, and Teacher Attention to the NCTM Standards ..... 46 Mathematics Beliefs and Textbook Preferences ................................................... 46 Mathematics Beliefs, Textbook Preferences, and Professional Development ..... 47 Teacher Attention to the NCTM Standards, Textbook Use, Years of Teaching Experience,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Standards-Based Curriculum Summaries
    CURRICULUM SUMMARIES Eighth edition September 2005 About This Publication Curriculum Summaries compiles information about 12 comprehensive mathematics curriculum programs that were developed specifically to address the recommendations of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (1989) and that are well-aligned with the Principles and Standards for School Mathematics (2000). Three of the programs described here are elementary programs, four are for middle school, and five are for high school. All of these programs were developed with support from the National Science Foundation. They are all available as complete and published curricula. Part of our mission at the K–12 Mathematics Curriculum Center (K–12 MCC), and the intention of this document, is to support teachers, schools, and districts in learning about these programs and in considering their use. This publication is intended to be a source of basic information about the mathematics programs it describes. We have included information that we think will help the reader understand the basic tenets of each of the programs, what distinguishes them from traditional curricula, and what distinguishes them from one another. We have also incorporated information that we hope will help you learn more about these programs, through contact with the publishers, developers, or implementation centers, through print materials, or through websites. We have tried to describe the programs as the developers and publishers would represent them. The information about each of the curriculum programs was obtained from the materials themselves and was checked by representatives of each of the programs for accuracy. Curriculum Summaries is not, therefore, a source of evaluative data or critical analyses of these programs.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming Mathematics Education Dr. Barry Fagin Professor Of
    Reforming K-12 Mathematics Education Dr. Barry Fagin Professor of Computer Science USAFA (opinions are mine, not USAFA’s) What’s the problem? 8th grade math scores, IAEEA 2000 Report 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 y n a a a A ia n ca re a i ri S n ra ri o p ss ysi a U a rke I f p u la lg u A a Ja a m T g R u o th in M B R u S o S 1. Singapore 2. Korea 3. China 13. Australia 4. Hong Kong 2. Czechoslovakia 5. Japan 3. Finland 1. Moldova 6. Belgium 4. Malaysia 2. Thailand 7. Netherlands 5. Bulgaria 3. Israel 8. Slovak Rep. 6. USA 4. Tunisia 9. Hungary 7. England 5. Macedonia 10.Canada 8. New Zealand 6. Turkey 11.Slovenia 9. Lithuania 7. Jordan 12.Russia 10.Italy 8. Iran 11.Cyprus 9. Indonesia 12.Romania 10.Chile 11.Philippines 12.Morocco 13.South Africa % CSAP Advanced or Proficient (5th grade) 100 90 80 70 60 W 50 H 40 B 30 20 10 0 2001 2002 2003 % CSAP Advanced or Proficient (8th grade) 100 90 80 70 60 W 50 H 40 B 30 20 10 0 2001 2002 2003 % CSAP Advanced or Proficient (10th grade) 100 90 80 70 60 W 50 H 40 B 30 20 10 0 2001 2002 2003 Class of 2005 100 90 80 70 60 W 50 H 40 B 30 20 10 0 8th (2001) 9th (2002) 10th (2003) What’s the cause? Widespread adoption of curricula that: • Emphasize process over content • De-emphasize math facts • Embrace constructivism • Encourage calculator use in early grades • Encourage group work How did this happen? Open letter of protest published in Post, Carter elected DOE forms expert signed by > 200 panel to identify mathematicians and DOE created noteworthy math scientists programs Reagan elected, Secretary
    [Show full text]
  • What Students Notice As Different Between Reform and Traditional Mathematics Programs
    Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 2008, Vol. 39, No. 1, 9–32 What Students Notice as Different Between Reform and Traditional Mathematics Programs Jon R. Star Harvard University John P. Smith III Michigan State University Amanda Jansen University of Delaware Research on the impact of Standards-based mathematics and reform calculus curricula has largely focused on changes in achievement and attitudes, generally ignoring how students experience these new programs. This study was designed to address that deficit. As part of a larger effort to characterize students’ transitions into and out of reform programs, we analyzed how 93 high school and college students perceived Standards-based and reform calculus programs as different from traditional ones. Results show considerable diversity across and even within sites. Nearly all students reported differences, but high-impact differences, like Content, were not always related to curriculum type (reform or traditional). Students’ perceptions aligned moderately well with those of reform curriculum authors, e.g., concerning Typical Problems. These results show that students’ responses to reform programs can be quite diverse and only partially aligned with adults’ views. Key words: College/university; Curriculum; High school (9–12); Integrated curriculum; Learners (characteristics of); Qualitative methods; Reform in mathematics education; Social factors One inevitable outcome of the development of new curricula in any field, but perhaps particularly in mathematics, is to provoke discussion and debate about what content can and should be taught in schools and universities. The recent cycle of The entire Mathematical Transitions Project team played a vital role in the work reported here. In addition to the authors, the other members of this team were, in alphabetical order, Dawn Berk, Carol Burdell, Beth Herbel-Eisenmann, Gary Lewis, and Violeta Rosca-Yurita.
    [Show full text]
  • 3 Reasons Why Singapore Math Is NCTM Recommended
    3 Reasons Why Singapore Math Curriculum is Recommended by the NCTM web.archive.org/web/20100211050856/http://www.learningthings.com:80/articles/Singapore-Math-Recommended-by- NCTM.aspx Math education in U.S. schools has been broken for many years but now a fix is available. Students in U.S. high schools have been consistently scoring near the bottom of the list of countries participating in International math tests. Among the 30 nations participating in the 2006 PISA test, only 4 nations had lower test scores. The 2006 results were about the same as the results from the 2003 PISA tests. In other words, U.S. students are near the bottom, barely above developing nations, and showing no signs of moving up. By contrast, these same math tests consistently show Asian nations scoring at the top. In the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), Singapore ranked number 1 followed by South Korea and Hong Kong. In the 2006 PISA tests, Asian countries took 4 of the top 10 spots. In the U.S., math standards are set at the state level and curriculum choices are made by local school districts. States and local districts rely on guidelines provided by the National Council for Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). Based on the research and theories of education "experts", the NCTM published 1989 guidelines which embraced new 'reform math' curriculums. Rather than helping achieve higher test scores, these programs caused many districts to achieve lower test scores. The following programs are examples: • 'Everyday Mathematics' (Bell, 1988-1996) • 'Connected Mathematics' (Lappan et al, 1991-1997).
    [Show full text]
  • Curriculum Reform in the Common Core Era: Evaluating Elementary
    Curriculum Reform in The David Blazar Blake Heller Common Core Era: Thomas J. Kane Evaluating Elementary Math Morgan Polikoff Textbooks Across Six U.S. Douglas O. Staiger States Scott Carrell Dan Goldhaber Douglas N. Harris Rachel Hitch Kristian L. Holden Michal Kurlaender Abstract Can a school or district improve student achievement simply by switching to a higher- quality textbook or curriculum? We conducted the first multi-textbook, multi-state ef- fort to estimate textbook efficacy following widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and associated changes in the textbook market. Pooling text- book adoption and student test score data across six geographically and demographi- cally diverse U.S. states, we found little evidence of differences in average achievement gains for schools using different math textbooks. We found some evidence of greater variation in achievement gains among schools using pre-CCSS editions, which may have been more varied in their content than post-CCSS editions because they were written for a broader set of standards. We also found greater variation among schools that had more exposure to a given text. However, these differences were small. Despite considerable interest and attention to textbooks as a low-cost, “silver bullet” interven- tion for improving student outcomes, we conclude that the adoption of a new textbook or set of curriculum materials, on its own, is unlikely to achieve this goal. © 2020 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management INTRODUCTION The choice of textbook or curriculum is an enticing lever for improving student out- comes. Few central office decisions have such far-ranging implications for the work that students and teachers do together in classrooms every day.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effect of Connected Mathematics on Student Achievement In
    THE EFFECT OF CONNECTED MATHEMATICS ON STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN SELECTED MIDDLE SCHOOL GRADES Ruth Gharst Waggoner B.A., Mid America Nazarene University, 1981 M.S., University of Kansas, 1991 Submitted to the Graduate Department and Faculty of the School of Education of Baker University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Educational Leadership May 6, 2009 Copyright 2009 by Ruth Gharst Waggoner Clinical Research Study Committee ___________________________________________________________ Major Advisor ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________ Defended May 6, 2009 ii Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of Connected Mathematics Project on the mathematics achievement of sixth and seventh grade students in the Olathe School District. The design of this study was an experimental, control group. The treatment variable was the type of mathematics instruction taught in the classroom. Students in the control group received mathematics instruction in a traditional, lecture‐ based setting. The treatment for the experimental group was mathematics instruction using CMP. The study focused on 357 seventh grade students at 5 participating junior high schools. The researcher analyzed scores from a sample of students (n=119) who received two years of mathematics instruction using CMP, a sample of students (n=119) who received one year of mathematics instruction using CMP, and a sample of students (n=119) who received no mathematics instruction using CMP. The study also examined the effects of CMP on students qualifying for special education services and students of low SES. The dependent variable, mathematics achievement, was measured using scores obtained from the 2008 seventh grade Kansas Mathematics Assessment.
    [Show full text]
  • RCML 2016 Conference Proceedings
    Proceedings for the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Research Council on Mathematics Learning Shining a Light on Mathematics Learning February 25 – 27, 2016 Orlando, Florida PRESIDENT, 2015-2017 INVESTIGATIONS EDITOR CONFERENCE COMMITTEE Juliana Utley (Appointed) Travis Olson (2013-2016) Oklahoma State University Drew Polly University of Nevada, Las Vegas Stillwater, OK University of North Carolina, Las Vegas, NV [email protected] Greensboro [email protected] Greensboro, NC PAST PRESIDENT, [email protected] Kansas Conrady (2013-2016) 2015-2016 University of Oklahoma Mary Swarthout INTERSECTIONS EDITOR Norman, OK Sam Houston State University (Appointed) [email protected] Huntsville, Texas 77341 Jonathan Bostic [email protected] Bowling Green State University Jonathan Bostic (2014-2017) Bowling Green, OH Bowling Green State University VICE PRESIDENT FOR [email protected] Bowling Green, OH CONFERENCES, 2014-2016 [email protected] Eileen Faulkenberry Tarleton State University MEMBERSHIP CHAIR Sean Yee (2014-2017) Stephenville, TX (Appointed) University of South Carolina [email protected] Sarah Pratt Columbia, SC University of North Texas [email protected] VICE PRESIDENT FOR Dallas, TX PUBLICATIONS [email protected] Bill McGalliard (2015-2018) Sheryl A. Maxwell University of Central Missouri University of Memphis (Retired) WEBMASTER Warrensburg, MO Memphis, TN (Appointed) [email protected] [email protected] Ryan Speer Perrysburg, Ohio Hope Marchionda (2015-2018) TREASURER, 2014-2016 [email protected]
    [Show full text]
  • Everyday Mathematics® Report Contents Overview P
    What Works Clearinghouse™ U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WWC Intervention Report A summary of findings from a systematic review of the evidence Primary Mathematics Updated November 2015 Everyday Mathematics® Report Contents Overview p. 1 1 Program Description Program Information p. 2 ® Everyday Mathematics is a core curriculum for students in grades Research Summary p. 3 pre-K–6. At each grade level, the curriculum provides students with Effectiveness Summary p. 4 multiple opportunities to reinforce concepts and practice skills. Across References p. 5 grade levels, concepts are reviewed and extended in varying instruc- tional contexts. The distinguishing features of Everyday Mathematics® Research Details for Each Study p. 12 are its focus on real-life problem solving, student communication of Outcome Measures for mathematical thinking, and appropriate use of technology. The curriculum Each Domain p. 14 also emphasizes balancing different types of instruction (including Findings Included in the Rating collaborative learning), using various methods for skills practice, and for Each Outcome Domain p. 15 fostering parent involvement in student learning. Supplemental Findings for Each Outcome Domain p. 16 2 Research Endnotes p. 17 The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) identified one study of Every- Rating Criteria p. 18 day Mathematics® that both falls within the scope of the Primary Glossary of Terms p. 19 Mathematics topic area and meets WWC group design standards. No studies meet WWC group design standards without reservations, and This intervention report presents findings one study meets WWC group design standards with reservations. The from a systematic review of Everyday study included 3,436 primary students in grades 3–5 in a large urban Mathematics® conducted using the WWC school district in Texas.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Elementary Mathematics Achievement In
    A comparison of elementary <br />mathematics achievement in everyday<br /> math and saxon <br />math schools in illinois Item Type Dissertation Authors Roan, Clayton Download date 29/09/2021 01:50:35 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10484/3991 A COMPARISON OF ELEMENTARY MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT IN EVERYDAY MATH AND SAXON MATH SCHOOLS IN ILLINOIS _______________________ A dissertation Presented to The College of Graduate and Professional Studies Department of Educational Leadership Indiana State University Terre Haute, Indiana ______________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy In K-12 Administration _______________________ by Clayton Roan May, 2012 Keywords: elementary curriculum, mathematics, administration, algorithms ii COMMITTEE MEMBERS Committee Chair: Terry McDaniel, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of the Department of Educational Leadership Indiana State University Committee Member: Noble Corey, Ph.D. Professor of the Department of Curriculum, Instruction, and Media Technology Indiana State University Committee Member: Steve Gruenert, Ph.D. Chair of the Department of Educational Leadership Indiana State University iii ABSTRACT This study compared mathematics achievement in Illinois elementary schools using the Everyday Math and Saxon Math curricula. The Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) was used as the measure of student achievement. Multiple correlation analyses showed that the type of curriculum used was a significant predictor of mathematics achievement at the third and fifth grade levels. Everyday Math was found to support greater student achievement in these grades. When holding other variables constant, Everyday Math schools can be expected to have an average of 2.1% more questions correct on the multiple choice portion of the ISAT than Saxon Math schools at the third grade level.
    [Show full text]