# Difference between revisions of "Stein, Remillard, & Smith (2007)"

imported>Raymond Johnson |
imported>Raymond Johnson |
||

Line 99: | Line 99: | ||

Non-randomized studies do reveal a pattern of higher student conceptual understanding and problem solving when using standards-based curricula (e.g. [[Boaler (1997)|Boaler, 1997]]; [[Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey (2000)|Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey, 2000]]; [[Thompson & Senk (2001)|Thompson & Senk, 2001]]). On skill-based and procedural tasks, students using standards-based curricula frequently scored the same as peers using more conventional curricula (e.g., [[Riordan & Noyce (2001)|Riordan & Noyce, 2001]]; [[Thompson & Senk (2001)|Thompson & Senk, 2001]]). There were exceptions to this, however, as in a study by [[Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey (2000)]] where students using the standards-based Core-Plus Mathematics scored lower than conventionally-taught peers on skill-based Algebra problems when calculators were not allowed. | Non-randomized studies do reveal a pattern of higher student conceptual understanding and problem solving when using standards-based curricula (e.g. [[Boaler (1997)|Boaler, 1997]]; [[Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey (2000)|Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey, 2000]]; [[Thompson & Senk (2001)|Thompson & Senk, 2001]]). On skill-based and procedural tasks, students using standards-based curricula frequently scored the same as peers using more conventional curricula (e.g., [[Riordan & Noyce (2001)|Riordan & Noyce, 2001]]; [[Thompson & Senk (2001)|Thompson & Senk, 2001]]). There were exceptions to this, however, as in a study by [[Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey (2000)]] where students using the standards-based Core-Plus Mathematics scored lower than conventionally-taught peers on skill-based Algebra problems when calculators were not allowed. | ||

The general agreement between various studies has led some (e.g., [[Schoenfeld (2002)|Schoenfeld, 2002]]) to declare that standards-based curricula as effective. However, Stein, Remillard, and Smith remind us that goals and expected outcomes matter, as students will perform best on tests that resemble the content and approach of their textbooks. Also, the measures that claim students in one curricula outperform those using another might not apply to students of all abilities, or might not have much practical significance. Implementation also plays a larger role than many of these studies reveal. In [[Boaler & Staples (2008)]], teachers using the same curriculum reported scores that differed significantly according to their teaching approach, findings similar to [[Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey (2000)]]. [[Balfanz, Mac Iver, & Byrnes (2006)]], in a non-observational study, found that higher levels of implementation were associated to higher student achievement. Therefore, one should be cautious about making causal statements between curriculum and student achievement, as few studies reveal ''how'' the curriculum takes affect and is influenced by other variables in instruction. A study by Tarr, Reys, Reys, Chávez, Shih, & Osterlind (2008) is one of a few studies that attempt to describe these interaction, defining what they termed a "standards-based learning environment SBLE). | The general agreement between various studies has led some (e.g., [[Schoenfeld (2002)|Schoenfeld, 2002]]) to declare that standards-based curricula as effective. However, Stein, Remillard, and Smith remind us that goals and expected outcomes matter, as students will perform best on tests that resemble the content and approach of their textbooks. Also, the measures that claim students in one curricula outperform those using another might not apply to students of all abilities, or might not have much practical significance. Implementation also plays a larger role than many of these studies reveal. In [[Boaler & Staples (2008)]], teachers using the same curriculum reported scores that differed significantly according to their teaching approach, findings similar to [[Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey (2000)]]. [[Balfanz, Mac Iver, & Byrnes (2006)]], in a non-observational study, found that higher levels of implementation were associated to higher student achievement. Therefore, one should be cautious about making causal statements between curriculum and student achievement, as few studies reveal ''how'' the curriculum takes affect and is influenced by other variables in instruction. A study by [[Tarr, Reys, Reys, Chávez, Shih, & Osterlind (2008)]] is one of a few studies that attempt to describe these interaction, defining what they termed a "standards-based learning environment" (SBLE). The authors found that using standards-based curriculum led to higher SBLE, and students in high-SBLE classrooms outperformed those in lower-SBLE classrooms using the same standards-based curriculum, similar to results seen by [[Boaler & Staples (2008)]]. | ||

=== Section Two: How Teachers Engage With and Interpret Curricular Materials === | === Section Two: How Teachers Engage With and Interpret Curricular Materials === |

## Revision as of 02:14, 21 October 2013

The chapter *How Curriculum Influences Student Learning* was written by Mary Kay Stein, Janine Remillard, and Margaret Smith and published in the Second Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning.

## Detailed Summary of *How Curriculum Influences Student Learning*

Stein, Remillard, and Smith open their chapter with comments on the growth of research in the area of curriculum use. The 1992 NCTM *Handbook* did not include a chapter on this topic, but the emergence of new curricula following the 1989 NCTM *Standards* spurred a greater research interest in curricula and how they influence student learning. Also, the No Child Left Behind requirement that federal funds only be spent on effective curricular materials drove curriculum developers to prove their materials had a positive effect on student learning.

### Conceptual Issues, Definitions, and Boundaries

#### Multiple Meanings of Curriculum

Stein, Remillard, and Smith define *curriculum* as "the substance or content of teaching and learning (as distinguished from the 'how' of teaching)" (p. 321). They recognize, however, that curriculum is frequently used to describe a prescribed set of materials or content expectations described by policy documents or frameworks.

Within curriculum research, care is typically taken to describe differences in curriculum:

*Written*(Remillard, 1999; Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996) curriculum refers to curriculum as it exists on the printed page, or the goals and activities described by textbooks and policy documents. This is also known as the*formal*(Doyle, 1992),*planned*(Gehrke, Knapp, & Sirotnik, 1992),*institutional*, or*intended*curriculum.*Intended*(Remillard, 1999; Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996) curriculum refers to the teachers' plans for instruction, which may differ from the written curriculum.*Enacted*(Gehrke, Knapp, & Sirotnik, 1992; Remillard, 1999; Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996) curriculum refers to the curriculum as implemented in classrooms.*Experienced*(Gehrke, Knapp, & Sirotnik, 1992) or*attained*(Valverde, Bianchi, Wolfe, Schmidt, & Houang, 2002) curriculum describes the impact the enacted curriculum has on students. Stein, Remillard, & Smith simply refer to this as*student learning*.

Opportunities for research exist both within and between each of these stages of curriculum. For example, teachers' beliefs and goals transform a written curriculum into an intended curriculum, and within the enacted curriculum exists all the complexities of classrooms full of students that shape the implementation of a lesson. Furthermore, the enacted curriculum and student learning will shape teachers' future indended curriculum. Stein, Remillard, and Smith summarize the following list of factors that mediate curriculum:

- Teacher beliefs (Cohen, 1990; Jennings, 1996; Putnam, 1992; Remillard, 1992; Spillane, 1999; Spillane & Jennings, 1997) and knowledge (Brophy, 1991, 2001; Stein, Baxter, & Leinhardt, 1990)
- Teachers' orientations toward curriculum
- Teachers' professional identity (Remillard & Bryans, 2004)
- Teacher professional communities (Cobb, McClain, de Silva Lamberg & Dean, 2003; Little & McLaughlin, 1993; Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996; Stein, Silver, & Smith, 1998)
- Organizational and policy contexts (Berends, Kirby, Naftel, & McKelvey, 2001; Bodilly, 1998; Datnow, Hubbard, & Mehan, 2002; Fullan, 1991; Kirby, Behrends, & Naftel, 2001)
- Classroom structures and norms (Doyle, 1983)

Frequently the written curriculum is improperly judged to have a direct causal relationship on student learning. When all factors are considered, "it points to the fallacy of assuming that the materials themselves are the primary agent in shaping opportunities for student learning and instead uncovers the important role played by the interpretive and interactive influences of teachers and students" (p. 323).

#### Curriculum Materials: An Evolving Concept

Like many people, Stein, Remillard, and Smith use the terms *curriculum materials* and *textbook* somewhat interchangeably, intending to refer to "printed or electronic, often published, materials designed for use by teachers and students before, during, and after mathematics instruction" (p. 323). To distinguish the two, the authors pose textbooks as a classroom resource traditionally seen as the provider of practice exercises while curriculum includes instructional guides that emphasize both pedagogy and mathematical content. Interestingly,

To many, the term curriculum materials was used to connote something akin to an "anti-textbook" because these resources offered programs of instruction that rejected the notion that learning mathematics involved completing decontextualized exercises in a book. In contrast to textbooks, which were developed and marketed by commercial publishing companies, curriculum materials tended to be designed by mathematics experts and mathematics education researchers and, prior to the late 1990s, were sold independently to a fairly small market. For most standards-based curriculum materials, students' work during instruction involves investigative projects instead of exercises found on the pages of a "student textbook." Student textbooks are replaced by thin, often consumable, student workbooks that are designed to support students investigative work. The centerpiece of most lessons is the thinking that is required to grapple with the investigative task; student work books are designed to support that thinking by providing a basis for recording, summarizing or reflecting on one’s actions and thinking." (p. 323)

In contrast to curricula of the past, like the New Math materials, modern standards-based curricula typically include pedagogical guidance. In this way they are targeted at teacher learning and not meant to be used by students directly and independent of the teacher, an approach Remillard (2000) refers to as *speaking to* rather than *speaking through* the teacher. Standards-based curricula are typically published by a commercial publisher alongside other materials, a process that can create compromises in the author's approach and blur the lines between standards-based and tradtional materials.

Some believe that the written and enacted curriculum should differ as little as possible, with teachers implementing the written text precisely as intended by the author or publisher. Others believe a text and other materials are merely a resource for teachers to use in their lessons. This belief typically views *fidelity of implementation* as impossible as both teachers and students will construct their own vision of the curriculum (Remillard, 2005).

#### Literature Selection and Boundaries of this Review

For this chapter, Stein, Remillard, and Smith reviewed peer-reviewed research related to the effects of textbooks on both students and teachers. Most of the research stemmed from the NSF-funded curriculum development following the publication of the 1989 NCTM *Standards*. As an NSF requirement, curriculum developers were required to do evaluations of their work and many of the developers were researchers with the appropriate skills and methods for determining the effectiveness of curriculum. In contrast, research by commercial publishers often focuses on marketability instead of student learning. Stein, Remillard, & Smith provide a table (p. 325) listing common curricula by grade level, funder, and if they judge it to be standards-based or conventional. The authors did not consider policy documents or curriculum frameworks, although they acknowledge the influence of such documents.

### Section One: Research on Curriculum Materials and Student Learning

Stein, Remillard, and Smith associate the growth in curriculum research on the math wars of the 1990s. While the 1989 NCTM Standards were broad enough to garner wide appeal, the standards-based curriculum that followed had to be more specific and brought more scrutiny. Critics wanted "proof" that the texts were effective, even though "conventional textbooks used at the time had little or no evidence of their effectiveness" (p. 326). Most of the studies that followed assumed that curriculum materials mattered and caused differences in what students learned, ignoring details associated with the intended and enacted curriculum.

#### Research on Content of Curriculum Materials

Most teachers rely on curriculum materials as a primary teaching tool (Grouws, Smith, & Sztajn, 2004) and the research clearly indicates that content coverage is important; students must be exposed to a mathematical topic to learn it (Hiebert & Grouws, 2007). Yet, many factors affect how well content is learned, and some curriculum materials attempt to be educative for teachers (Davis & Krajcik, 2005) as well as students.

##### What Content is Covered?

Content analyses compare curriculum materials to standards, frameworks, curriculum from other countries, or other external criteria, depending on the values of the researcher doing the comparison. The National Research Council (2004) found poor reliability in ratings depending on the rater and the various criteria available. Therefore, it is important to align one's goals and values for curriculum with the goals and values of the curriculum analysis.

Stein, Remillard, and Smith summarize the three most prominent content analyses of the decade before their chapter was written:

**Project 2061**, a project of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reviewed in the late 1990s 13 middle school textbooks and only found 4 to be satisfactory. The best of these four were*Connected Mathematics*, followed by*Mathematics in Context*,*MathScape*, and*Middle Grades Math Thematics*. No conventional texts were rated satisfactory.- The
**U.S. Department of Education**in 1999 used 8 criteria to find the following texts to be "exemplary:"*Connected Mathematics Project*(CMP), the*Middle School Mathematics through Applications Project*(MMAP),*Cognitive Tutor*,*College Prepatory Mathematics*(CPM),*Contemporary Mathematics in Context*(Core-Plus), and the*Interactive Mathematics Program*(IMP). Judged as "promising" were*Everyday Mathematics*,*MathLand*,*Number Power*, and the*University of Chicago School Mathematics Program'*s (UCSMP)*Integrated Mathematics 7-12*. These ratings came under attack by mathematicians opposed to the NCTM*Standards*. - The organization and website
**Mathematically Correct**, known for its opposition to the*Standards*, reviewed a number of textbooks across several grade levels. Conventional textbooks were judged superior to standards-based curricula;*Everyday Mathematics*was the highest-rated standards-based text with a grade of "C", with all others getting a "D" or "F." Nearly all conventional curricula were given grades of "A" or "B."

The lessons learned from these reviews may say more about the reviewing methods themselves than the reviewed curriculum. Hiebert (1999) recommended that consumers determine what they value and then seek out the review whose methods most reflect those values.

##### How is Content Presented?

In this section, Stein, Remillard, and Smith get at the "pedagogical intent" (p. 330) of curricular materials, and concede that just as values and judgement play a part in content coverage, "the criteria that researchers have used to make judgments about the pedagogical intent of various curricula are necessarily related to personally held views regarding the nature of mathematics and how students learn it" (p. 330). Curricular materials might influence teachers' practice with the inclusion of features like pre-tests, formative assessments, differentiation strategies, group activities, and group discussion prompts. Stein, Remillard, and Smith identify three overarching features of how curriculum is presented:

**Order and manner of presentation**. Materials vary in how they are sequenced and how explicit they are about new ideas; some texts strategically build to higher-order thinking, while others engage students in introductory activities designed to bring out student thinking.**Balance**. Texts vary in their use of competing curricular elements, such as concepts vs. procedures, calculators vs. by-hand calculation, and balance of mathematical representations. For example, Clopton, McKeown, McKeown, & Clopton (1998) from Mathematically Correct discouraged calculator use, while many reformers endorse calculator use.**Organizational style**. Some textbooks use sequenced chapters and lessons, many of which*spiral*(Stein & Kim, 2009) to integrate previous topics into new content with increased expectations for mastery. Stein & Kim (2009) refer to these as*integral*curriculum because they must be taught in sequence over time to have the intended effect. Others curricula take a*modular*approach (Stein & Kim, 2009), often structured around thematic units, that allows subcomponents of the curriculum to be separated and recombined in different configurations. Many standards-based curriculum are modular, but research has said little about the effectiveness of this approach.

Both Project 2061 and Mathematically Correct have reviewed how content is presented. Project 2061 used 24 instructional criteria in 7 categories, and rated highly *Connected Mathematics*, *Mathematics in Context*, *MathScape*, and *Middle Grades Math Thematics*. All conventional texts were rated unsatisfactory in the criteria of instructional support. Mathematically Correct's review focused on "quality of presentation" and "quality of student work." *Connected Mathematics* and *Math Thematics* received the lowest scores, while conventional texts (and *Saxon* texts in particular) rated highly.

##### The Support of Teacher Learning

Stein, Remillard, and Smith find that because standards-based curriculum focuses on students "doing mathematics" instead of the explicit instruction of skills, teachers need to provide the right classroom environment for the curriculum to have the intended effect. Often standards-based curricula is designed to help teachers with both the subject matter and how to teach it (Ball & Cohen, 1996; Davis & Krajcik, 2005). This kind of *educative curricula* seeks to meet these five high-level criteria (Davis & Krajcik, 2005, pp. 5-6):

- Educative curricula could help teachers learn how to anticipate and interpret what learners may think about or do in response to instructional activities.
- Educative curricula could support teachers’ learning of subject matter.
- Educative curricula could help teachers consider ways to relate units during the year.
- Educative curricula could make visible curriculum developers’ pedagogical judgments.
- Educative curricula could promote teachers’ pedagogical design capacities or their ability to use personal resources and the supports embedded in the materials to adapt curriculum to achieve productive instructional ends (as opposed to performing “lethal mutations”) (Brown & Campione, 1996, p. 291).

Stein & Kim (2009) evaluated *Everyday Mathematics* and *Investigations* to determine how each communicated the text developers' rationale and reasoning (which Stein and Kim called *transparency*) and how the textbooks helped teachers predict student strategies on tasks. Stein and Kim found that *Investigations* was more transparent and therefore more easily implemented with fidelity, whereas tasks in *Everyday Mathematics* had rationales that were less clear (Stein, Kim, & Seeley, 2006).

Brown (2009) organizes curricula into resource-centric or procedure-centric. Resource-centric attempts to communicate to teachers the main ideas and curricular features to teachers, but leaves details of implementation to the teachers. Procedure-centric focuses on actions for executing lessons. Stein & Kim (2009) judged *Everyday Mathematics* to be procedure-centric while *Investigations* was resource-centric. Stein, Remillard, and Smith judge that neither resource- or procedure-centric materials are always superior, as the needs of teachers vary with experience, the nature of the adopted curricula, and the instructional skills of the teachers.

#### Examination of Student Learning from Mathematics Curriculum Materials

Because the NSF-supported curriculum projects required formative and summative evaluations, much data was collected about their influence on student learning. Many of the summative evaluations are reported in *Standards-Based Mathematics Curricula: What Are They? What Do Students Learn?*, a 2003 book edited by Sharon Senk and Denisse Thompson. Findings for the new curriculum were promising: students using the new curricula commonly equaled their traditionally-taught peers on traditional measures of mathematics ability, such as computation, and exceeded the performance of their peers on tasks focused on conceptual understanding and problem solving (Putnam, 2003; Chappell, 2003; Swafford, 2003). However, some caution about these results is warranted due to differences in methodology, selection strategies for comparison groups, and possible researcher bias, as in some cases the curriculum creators personally trained the teachers in the study and/or performed the evaluations. Even so, many of the studies used standardized test data to make their comparisons, instead of creating assessments that might have favored their particular curriculum (Kilpatrick, 2003).

##### Comparative Studies Conducted by External Researchers

Stein, Remillard, and Smith point out that determining if one curriculum is better than another is more difficult than it might seem. The validity of such a study depends on having credible well-tested outcome measures with known psychometric properties. Also, it becomes difficult to compare two curricula with widely differing goals; does an evaluator only consider the goals the curricula have in common, the combined goals of both, or favor some goals over others? Also, how are comparison groups of students, classrooms, and teachers created in contexts where random assignment is not possible? Lastly, how does an evaluator account for variability in curriculum enactment? It is well-established that even teachers using the same task will vary in their approach (Stein, Grover, & Henningsen, 1996; Tarr, Chávez, Reys, & Reys, 2006). Observing these differences for a large number of teachers is resource-intensive and self-reporting from teachers is unreliable (Ball & Rowan, 2004). These and other difficulties led the National Resource Council (2004) to state that the "studies as a whole across 19 programs studied does not permit one to determine the effectiveness of individual programs with a high degree of certainty" (p. 3). Stein, Remillard, and Smith remind readers that inconclusive evidence does not necessarily mean the curricula are ineffective, but only that the NRC panel was unable to make confident judgments about effectiveness.

The What Works Clearinghouse produced a report on middle school mathematics curriculum summarizing four randomized controlled studies. One study revealed significant effects for *Cognitive Tutor Algebra 1* (Morgan & Ritter, 2002) while another showed significant effects for *I CAN Learn* (Kirby, 2004). Both curricula are standards-based and incorporate technology. The other two studies, involving the standards-based *Expert Mathematician/UCSMP* and the traditional *Saxon* curricula failed to find significant effects.

Non-randomized studies do reveal a pattern of higher student conceptual understanding and problem solving when using standards-based curricula (e.g. Boaler, 1997; Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey, 2000; Thompson & Senk, 2001). On skill-based and procedural tasks, students using standards-based curricula frequently scored the same as peers using more conventional curricula (e.g., Riordan & Noyce, 2001; Thompson & Senk, 2001). There were exceptions to this, however, as in a study by Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey (2000) where students using the standards-based Core-Plus Mathematics scored lower than conventionally-taught peers on skill-based Algebra problems when calculators were not allowed.

The general agreement between various studies has led some (e.g., Schoenfeld, 2002) to declare that standards-based curricula as effective. However, Stein, Remillard, and Smith remind us that goals and expected outcomes matter, as students will perform best on tests that resemble the content and approach of their textbooks. Also, the measures that claim students in one curricula outperform those using another might not apply to students of all abilities, or might not have much practical significance. Implementation also plays a larger role than many of these studies reveal. In Boaler & Staples (2008), teachers using the same curriculum reported scores that differed significantly according to their teaching approach, findings similar to Huntley, Rasmussen, Villarubi, Sangtong, & Fey (2000). Balfanz, Mac Iver, & Byrnes (2006), in a non-observational study, found that higher levels of implementation were associated to higher student achievement. Therefore, one should be cautious about making causal statements between curriculum and student achievement, as few studies reveal *how* the curriculum takes affect and is influenced by other variables in instruction. A study by Tarr, Reys, Reys, Chávez, Shih, & Osterlind (2008) is one of a few studies that attempt to describe these interaction, defining what they termed a "standards-based learning environment" (SBLE). The authors found that using standards-based curriculum led to higher SBLE, and students in high-SBLE classrooms outperformed those in lower-SBLE classrooms using the same standards-based curriculum, similar to results seen by Boaler & Staples (2008).

### Section Two: How Teachers Engage With and Interpret Curricular Materials

#### Framing of the Relationship between Written and Intended Curriculum

##### Content Coverage

##### Components of the Curriculum

##### Program Philosophy

#### Conceptualizations of Curriculum Use

##### Curriculum Use as Following or Subverting

##### Curriculum Use as Interpretation

##### Curriculum Use as Participating With

### Section Three: The Enactment of Curricula in Classrooms

#### Ways in Which Curriculum Enactment Has Been Studied

#### The Source and Nature of Mathematical Tasks

#### Setting Up and Implementing Mathematical Tasks

#### Investigating Processes Involved in Task Implementation

### Section Four: Explaining Transformations Within and Between Different Phases of Curriculum Use

#### The Teacher Matters

##### Beliefs and Knowledge

##### Orientation

##### Professional Identity

#### Students Matter

#### The Context Matters

##### Time

##### Local Cultures

##### Teacher Support

#### The Curriculum Matters

##### Conventional versus Standards-based Curricula

#### Curriculum Features

#### Educative Curriculum

### Section Five: How the Enacted Curriculum Influences Student Learning

### Summary and Conclusions

#### Curricula Differ in Significant Ways

#### These Differences Impact Student Learning

#### No Curriculum is Self-Enacting

#### Standards-Based Curricula are Challenging to Enact as Well

#### The Success of Standards-Based Curricula is Influenced by Multiple Factors

END

## About

### APA

Stein, M. K., Remillard, J. T., & Smith, M. S. (2007). How curriculum influences student learning. In F. K. Lester Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 319–369). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

### BibTeX

@incollection{Stein2007, address = {Charlotte, NC}, author = {Stein, Mary Kay and Remillard, Janine T. and Smith, Margaret Schwan}, booktitle = {Second handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning}, chapter = {8}, editor = {Lester, Frank K., Jr.}, pages = {319--369}, publisher = {Information Age}, title = {{How curriculum influences student learning}}, year = {2007} }