Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

PAPERBACK
price:\$49.00

## On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations (2004) Mathematical Sciences Education Board (MSEB)Center for Education (CFE)

### Citation Manager

. "5 Comparative Studies." On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2004.

 Page 110

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.

On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness: Judging the Quality of K-12 Mathematics Evaluations

Does the dearth of pure experimentation render the results of the studies reviewed worthless? Bias is not an “either-or” proposition, but it is a quantity of varying degrees. Through careful measurement of the most salient potential confounding variables, precise theoretical description of constructs, and use of these methods of statistical analysis, it is possible to reduce the amount of bias in the estimated treatment effect. Identification of the most likely confounding variables and their measurement and subsequent adjustments can greatly reduce bias and help estimate an effect that is likely to be more reflective of the true value. The theoretical fully specified model is an alternative to randomization by including relevant variables and thus allowing the unbiased estimation of the parameter. The only problem is realizing when the model is fully specified.

We recognized that we can never have enough knowledge to assure a fully specified model, especially in the complex and unstable conditions of schools. However, a key issue in determining the degree of confidence we have in these evaluations is to examine how they have identified, measured, or controlled for such confounding variables. In the next sections, we report on the methods of the evaluators in identifying and adjusting for such potential confounding variables.

One method to eliminate confounding variables is to examine the extent to which the samples investigated are equated either by sample selection or by methods of statistical adjustments. For individual students, there is a large literature suggesting the importance of social class to achievement. In addition, prior achievement of students must be considered. In the comparative studies, investigators first identified participation of districts, schools, or classes that could provide sufficient duration of use of curricular materials (typically two years or more), availability of target classes, or adequate levels of use of program materials. Establishing comparability was a secondary concern.

These two major factors were generally used in establishing the comparability of the sample:

1. Student population characteristics, such as demographic characteristics of students in terms of race/ethnicity, economic levels, or location type (urban, suburban, or rural).

2. Performance-level characteristics such as performance on prior tests, pretest performance, percentage passing standardized tests, or related measures (e.g., problem solving, reading).

In general, four methods of comparing groups were used in the studies we examined, and they permit different degrees of confidence in their results. In the first type, a matching class, school, or district was identified.

 Page 110
 Front Matter (R1-R16) Executive Summary (1-10) 1 The Challenge and the Charge (11-17) 2 Committee Procedures and Characteristics of Studies Reviewed (18-35) 3 Framework for Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness (36-64) 4 Content Analysis (65-95) 5 Comparative Studies (96-166) 6 Case Studies and Synthesis Studies (167-184) 7 Conclusions and Recommendations (185-205) References (206-218) Appendix A: Biographic Sketches (219-222) Appendix B: Bibliography of Studies Included in Committee Analysis (223-258) Appendix C: Outcomes Measures (259-260) Index (261-272)