|
||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||
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. B Balance, in content analyses, 83–85 Balanced assessment, of outcome measures, 116 “Between” comparisons, 157 Bias evaluator, 138 randomization to avoid, 63 reducing, 110 Bonferroni method, 111 C Calculators, allowing during test taking, 53–54 Case studies, 28, 30, 60, 167–180. See also Comparative studies; Content analyses; Synthesis studies authors’ backgrounds in, 32 comments on, 178–180 criteria for inclusion, 168–169 differential impact on different student populations, 172–175 in establishing curricular effectiveness, 8–9 findings, 171 interactions among curricula and common practices, beliefs, and understandings, 176–177 patterns in findings, 172 professional development, 177–178 school location, by study type, 33 the studies, 169 time management, 178 Case studies methodology, 60, 170–171 backing claims by evidence and argument, 170 defining the case, 170 “minimally methodologically adequate” studies, 97, 101–103, 115, 118–119, 136–137, 150, 155, 164 replicability of design, 170–171 revealing mechanisms at play during implementation of a curriculum, 171 triangulation of evidence from multiple sources, 60 Catalytic programs, 53 Claims, backing with evidence and argument, 170 Clarity of objectives, of content analyses, 77–78 Classroom observations, 114 Classroom teachers. See Teachers CMP. See Connected Mathematics Project Commercial publishers. See Publishers Commercially published (non-NSF-funded) curricula, 15, 20–22, 97, 99–100, 105, 120, 142–143, 145, 149, 152–153, 156, 158–159, 162–164, 168, 198 for elementary school, 21, 29, 169 and the filters, studies of, 142 major textbook publishers, 20–21 market studies not useful in evaluating curricular effectiveness, 28 for middle school, 21, 29, 169 secrecy with which market share data are held, 20 Community factors, 44 Comparative analyses, 7–8 appropriate statistical tests, 7 constraints as to generalizability of study, 7 disaggregated data, 7, 158, 200 in establishing curricular effectiveness, 7–8 extent of implementation fidelity, 7 outcome measures that can be disaggregated, 7 random assignment, 7 Comparative curricula, for content analyses, selection of, 74–75 Comparative research designs, 58–59 Comparative studies, 2–4, 28, 30, 57–58, 96–166 assessment of, 2–4 authors’ backgrounds in, 32 “between” comparisons, 157 comparability of samples, 3 conclusions from, 164–166 defining, 97 description of comparative studies database on critical decision points, 104–164 an evolving methodology, 96 implementation fidelity, 3
|
|
|||||||||||||||
