The Effect of Constructivist Mathematics on Achievement in Rural Schools

Michael Grady, Sandra Watkins, Greg Montalvo

Abstract


International assessment data indicate American students are not competing with their counterparts in other countries. The mathematics curriculum and pedagogy are not preparing students to compete in a global economy. This study compared student achievement using sixth grade mathematics results from the Illinois Standards Achievement Test. Specifically, the study compared the results of students in three different rural school districts, all of whom were receiving instruction in three different mathematics curricula. In one district, students received seven years of the K-6 Everyday Mathematics curriculum which was compared with students who received seven years of instruction using a traditional mathematics curriculum in the second district and in the third district scores were compared with students who were taught using a traditional mathematics curriculum supplemented with Mountain Math. The results of this study indicate the constructivist K-6 elementary mathematics curriculum did not lead to higher levels in math achievement when compared with the traditional methods of instruction.

References


ARC Center. (2001). Tri-state student achievement study. Retrieved April 2, 2012 from http://www.comap.com/product/?idx=965

Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skerner, M., Green, P. J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15 year-old-students in science and mathematics literacy in and international context (NCES 2008-016). Washington, D.C: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute for Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Briars, D. J., & Resnick, L. B. (2000). Standards, assessments and what else? The essential elements of standards-based school improvement. Los Angeles: Center for the Study of Evaluation, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, California University. (ERIC Document Resource Service No. ED450137)

Carroll, W. (2001). A longitudinal study of children in the curriculum. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

Cobb, P. (1988). The tension between theories of learning and instruction in mathematics

education. Educational Psychologist, 23(2), 87-103.

Ellis, M., & Berry, R. (2005). The paradigm shift in mathematics education: Explanations and implications of reforming conceptions of teaching and learning. The Mathematics Educator, 15(1), 7-17.

Fielding, A. (2006). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd ed.) Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Howley, C. (2003). Understanding mathematics education in the rural context. Educational Forum, 67(3), 215-224.

Howley, C., Howley, A., & Huber, D. (2005). Prescriptions for rural mathematics instruction: Analysis of the rhetorical literature. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 20(7), 1-16.

Howley, Larson, Adrianaivo, Phodes, & Howley, (2007). Standards-based reform on mathematics education in rural high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 22(2), 2-12.

Helping Students Climb to the Top. (2008). Mountain Math [Brochure]. Retrieved February 17, 2009, from http://www.mtmath.com/forum/ mtmath.php?topic=mathKits

Illinois State Board of Education Division of Assessment. (2006). Illinois standards achievement test 2006 technical manual. Springfield, IL: Illinois State Board of Education.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2004). Highlights from the trends in international mathematics and science study (TIMMS) 2003. (NCES 2005-005). Jessup, MD: Author.

National Center for Education Statistics (2009). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2009. (NCES 2010-451), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education: Washington, D. C.

Riordan, J., & Noyce, P. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(4), 368-398.

Stigler, J., & Hiebert, J. (1997). Understanding and improving classroom mathematics instruction: An overview of the TIMMS video study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 14-21.

U.S. Department of Education (2008). A nation accountable: Twenty-five years after a nation at risk. Washington, D.C: Author

Von Glaserfeld, E. (1989). Constructivism in education. In: T. Husen, & T. Postlethwaite, (Eds.). The International Encyclopedia of Education (Vol.1, pp.162-163). Oxford, NY: Pergamon Press.

Wang, T. (2001). Review of curriculum and its missing topics and skills. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Department of Chemical Engineering.

Waite, R. (2000). A study of the effects of on student achievement of third-, fourth, and fifth-grade students in a large north Texas urban school district. (UMI No. 9992659)

What Works Clearinghouse (2007). WWC intervention report: Everyday mathematics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

Wood, T., & Sellers, P. (1997). Deepening the analysis: Longitudinal assessment of a problem-centered mathematics program. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 163-186.

Ysseldyke, J., Spicuzza, R., Koscoilek, S., & Boys, C. (2003). Effects of a learning information system on mathematics achievement and classroom structure. The Journal of Educational Research, 96(3), 163-173.


Full Text: PDF

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Publication of the National Rural Education Association - http://www.nrea.net

Report problems or questions about to the website to jshedd@library.msstate.edu