Illinois Loop
Your guide to education in Illinois
  Bookmark and Share
 
The Illinois Loop website is no longer updated on a a regular basis. However, since many of the links and articles have content and perspectives that are just as valid today, we are keeping this website online for parents, teachers and others researching school issues and solutions.
Broken links:If you encounter links that no longer lead to the desired article, it's still often possible to retrieve them. Most of the linked items include a sentence or more from the original. Copy a section of that text, and type it into Google surrounded by quotes. More often than not, Google will find the article at a revised location.

 

Is This Math Program Proven?

Sales representatives for a large commercial textbook publisher have dazzled your school officials with an impressive-looking presentation on the "success" of their math program. They have included charts and diagrams documenting the wonders produced by their product.

But you know that it doesn't add up. Kids get little or no arithmetic practice, they're expected to come up with their own methods (sometimes tortured, unweildy of just plain wrong ones) to solve problems, and they are encouraged to become dependent on their calculators starting in early grades.

So how could that impressive-looking research be so misleading?

In the message below, Mary Damer outlines a strategy for dissecting what the sales representatives are saying.




From: Mary Damer
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1998
Subject: my advice for Trailblazers math questions( and any new claim)

Here's my advice. We've seen how the U of C math program is accompanied by a brochure of research which when put under the magnifying glass doesn't meet any of the criteria for valid question. Since to date none of the NCTM based math programs have any valid research support, I would be surprised if his program is the first to have that sort of support. As consumers we shouldn't have to unmask and diligently probe whether research claims are valid or not, but none of our educational institutions at this point in time are committed to that type of analysis. (I'd put this question out to John Stone if you belong to the ECC).

I recommend asking the same kinds of questions I asked when our local supt. told me that he had all this research to support the choice of U of C math.

First ask for copies of the research reports supporting claims of improved performance. Tell them that you want the complete research reports because you will be looking for the following items to determine whether the research is valid and has a credible research design.

  1. SELECTION: You want to look for SELECTION problems -- how do the researchers know that the groups of students being compared (one group with Trailblazers...one group without) were comparable groups. (I wouldn't be surprised if you found out that they weren''t since it appeared that the Chicago math program possibly compared students in regular Chicago schools with children from the expensive private LAb school.) The researchers should have detailed information that proves that any test score differences could be attributed to preexisting differences in prior math achievement, intelligence, motivation, social class, parental involvement, Any valid study comparing two groups of students needs to have those students' differences controlled for and will provide justification for comparing the two groups. For example one would never conduct a valid research study comparing your North Shore Students with those students from inner city Joliet.

  2. HISTORY: You want to look for HISTORY problems. How have the researchers ensured that any reported differences between the groups (with Trailblazers and without Trailblazers) could be due to the classes spending more time on mathematics, having more money spent on instructional materials, having better trained teachers. If those variables have not been addressed, you have no way of knowing. Sometimes shoddy researchers will compare classes of students who are having the same "ole curriculum" with students who have the new one. Only problem is that the teachers of the new curriculum receive hours and hours of additional training and the classes last for longer periods of time.

  3. IMPLEMENTATION: You want to look for an INSTRUMENTATION problem. This would occur if some of the same test questions on the final assessment instrument were items where Trailblazer students would be expected to perform better than other students, and questions not used were ones where we would expect other students to do better than the Trailblazer students. You have to have information on the selection of the test that was given to the students to show progress, or you have no way of knowing. What is the reliability and validity of the tpretest and posttest. If you gave the two groups of students a pre and posttest based on NCTM puzzle-type problems that students in the TRailblazer curriculum would be working on all year, then of course the Trailblazer students would have an edge. It is very easy to conncoct an assessment instrument which will support things taught in the new curriculum but not in the old. That is why you have to know about the test that was given itself. If that test has no validity, than the results have to be questionned. Were students able to use calculators on the final test? Were problems requiring calculation included on the test? Did students have to write and explain how they solved the problem. Such types of questions can have dubious validity since a rater will be assigning a score.

  4. SIGNIFICANCE: Was any test of statistical significance ever made. If it wasn't any differences between the performance of students in these two groups could just as easily be a result of chance.

I would also compile a list of what third or fifth graders learned in a more computation oriented traditional curriculum and ask him how often students will practice the skills needed for those computations......have him list them from the book. Unfortunately balance means a smattering of this and that if it's anything like the U of C program and so studnets never have the opportunity to practice more than a few problems with subtraction with borrowing, long division, or equivalent fractions. Manipulatives doesn't count....... and inventing your own way doesn't count either. Where in the program do they teach subtraction with borrowing, long division, equivalent fractions,etc? How do they teach the children to do those essential operations? THe most ludicrous fuzzy math stuff is unearthed when one looks at how these skills are approached. Hope this helps. The 2+2 Mathematically Correct site may have some other info.

Mary

Copyright 2012, The Illinois Loop. All Rights Reserved.
Home Page     Site Map     Contact Us