ErinE Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 A finding that shocks no one paying attention... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/science/applying-new-rigor-in-studying-education.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1& One group is introducing random clinical trials to education studies. Here's the link to a study for math education (including Saxon math) http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/math_curricula.asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinivanMom Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 No surprises there. It's great to see a push toward serious educational research. Hopefully, some of that data will trickle down to schools of education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clear Creek Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Here is a chart from an organization (linked to in the above article) that lists math curriculum according to their measured achievement index (make sure math is selected from the topics on the left side of the page). I found the results rather surprising...especially the placement of Everyday Mathematics compared to Saxon and UCSMP. But the idea of an organization that exists to evaluate the effectiveness of a curriculum (independent of the expertise of the teacher) is a novel one...at least this is the first I have heard of it. I wish they would evaluate more homeschool curriculum; the idea that my children would learn more if I used better material - that my knowledge in an area won't make up for possible curriculum deficits - is an unnerving one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regentrude Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 This sentence struck me as interesting: . Saxon teachers reported spending an average of one hour more per week on math instruction than teachers using the other curricula. Maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with the curriculum, but with the amount of time spent on math??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinE Posted September 6, 2013 Author Share Posted September 6, 2013 This sentence struck me as interesting: Maybe it has absolutely nothing to do with the curriculum, but with the amount of time spent on math??? Yes, I wondered about this. It was dismissed as Saxon having more activities, but in my mind, it would be better to compare two programs with the same amount of instruction time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
In The Great White North Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 If the amount of time spent on math varied that much, you have to wonder how they controlled other variables, like teacher effectiveness, parent interest, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 It was interesting that the intervention of making sure the teachers understood what they were teaching for math didn't work. That flies right in the face of that Liping Ma book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted September 6, 2013 Share Posted September 6, 2013 Also, that Everyday Math has higher results than Saxon. What was that school where the teachers secretly switched to Saxon from Everyday and it boosted test scores greatly and they all got in trouble? But I support things like that are actually the problem... they're not solid studies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 A finding that shocks no one paying attention... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/science/applying-new-rigor-in-studying-education.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1& One group is introducing random clinical trials to education studies. Here's the link to a study for math education (including Saxon math) http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/projects/evaluation/math_curricula.asp I do so like it when the NY Times, or the mass media in general, uses its power to bring to light these kinds of studies, which apparently, hadn't gotten the visibility they deserved. Such a better use of their reach than to just repeat the latest sensationalized stories. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 nm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WishboneDawn Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 It was interesting that the intervention of making sure the teachers understood what they were teaching for math didn't work. That flies right in the face of that Liping Ma book. Maybe, maybe not. It may be that their understanding increased but their teaching methods stayed the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farrar Posted September 7, 2013 Share Posted September 7, 2013 Maybe, maybe not. It may be that their understanding increased but their teaching methods stayed the same. I wondered if it needed to be in conjunction with better materials. Like, what if you gave teachers better materials and better training in math together - would that improve the results of better materials? Or what if it just needs time? Maybe in the short term it doesn't improve the scores, but five years down the line, it does? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErinE Posted September 7, 2013 Author Share Posted September 7, 2013 I wondered if it needed to be in conjunction with better materials. Like, what if you gave teachers better materials and better training in math together - would that improve the results of better materials? Or what if it just needs time? Maybe in the short term it doesn't improve the scores, but five years down the line, it does? Start a study! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.