Evaluating Curriculum Design in the Context of Active Teaching

Abstract

This study compared two curricula designed to teach ratio and proportion word problems. Both curricula were taught following principles of active teaching. The experimental curriculum, presented via an interactive videodisc program, incorporated empirically validated curriculum design principles. The comparison curriculum was derived from four math basals and was teacher taught. The curricula were matched for content and length. The subjects included 29 secondary students who qualified for remedial or special education services in math. Students were randomly assigned to one of the two treatments, resulting in 16 students in the active teaching with basals (ATB) group and 13 students in the active teaching with curriculum design (ATCD) group. On a 21-item, criterion-referenced posttest, students in the ATCD group performed significantly higher than students in the ATB group. On a parallel form maintenance test administered 2 weeks after the completion of the study, performance for students in the ATCD group was insignificantly higher than performance for students in the ATB group. Both groups made significant gains from pre- to posttest. Students' mean performance on cumulative tests administered every fifth lesson maintained a flat trend above 85% for the ATCD group, and dropped in a significant downward trend for the ATB group—from 90% to 69%.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Callahan, L.G. . & Glennon, V.J. .(1975). Elementary school mathematics: A guide to current researc. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Carnine, D. .(in press). Integrating effective instructional practices to teach complex content to learning disabled students: The role of technology. Exceptional Children.

Carnine, D. . Engelmann, S. . Hofmeister, A. . & Kelly, B. .(1987). Videodisc instruction in fractions. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 9(1), 31–52.

Carnine, D. . & Kinder, D. .(1985). Teaching low-performing students to apply generative and schema strategies to narrative and expository material. Remedial and Special Education, 6(1), 20–30.

Carnine, D.W. . Silbert, J. . & Kameenui, E. .(in press). Direct instruction reading (2nd ed.. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Carpenter, T.P. . Coburn, T.G. . Reys, R.E. . & Wilson, J.W. .(1976). Notes from the national assessment: Word problems. The Arithmetic Teacher, 32, 389–393.

Carpenter, T.P. . Corbitt, M.K. . Kepner, H.S. . Lindquist, M.M. . & Reys, R.E. .(1980). NAEP note: Problem solving. Mathematics Teacher, 73, 427–433.

Carpenter, T.P. . Corbitt, M.K. . Kepner, H.S., Jr. . Lindquist, M.M. . & Reys, R.E. .(1981). Results from the second mathematics assessment of the national assessment of educational progres. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

Clark, R.E. .(1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445–459.

10.

Collins, M. . & Carnine, D. .(1988). Evaluating the field test revision process by comparing two versions of a reasoning skills CAI program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 375–379.

11.

Darch, C. . Carnine, D. . & Gersten, R. .(1984). Explicit instruction in mathematics problem solving. Journal of Educational Research, 77, 351–359.

12.

Engelmann, S. . & Carnine, D. .(1982). Theory of instruction: Principles and application. New York: Irvington Press.

13.

Good, T.L. . Grouws, D.A. . & Ebmeier, H. .(1983). Active mathematics teachin. New York: Longman.

14.

Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. (1981). HBJ mathematics level. New York: Author.

15.

Hasselbring, T. . Sherwood, B. . & Bransford, J. .(1986). An evaluation of the Mastering Fractions Level One instructional videodisc program.Unpublished manuscript, George Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, The Learning Technology Center, Nashville.

16.

Heath . (1983). Heath mathematics level. Boston: Author.

17.

Herrington, J.P. .(1980). Experimental analysis of cognitive style and information processing variables in mathematical problem solving.Doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville.

18.

Hofmeister, A. . Engelmann, S. . & Carnine, D. .(in press). Developing and validating science education videodiscs. Science Education.

19.

Houghton Mifflin Company. (1986). Essentials for algebr. Boston: Author.

20.

Kameenui, E.J. . Carnine, D.W. . Darch, C.B. . & Stein, M. .(1986). Two approaches to the development phase of mathematics instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 633–650.

21.

Kameenui, E.J. . Griffin, C.C. . & Hytner, G.P. .(1985). An analysis of word problem solving instruction in two basal mathematics series and editions.Unpublished manuscript, University of Oregon, Eugene.

22.

Kelly, B. . Gersten, R. . & Carnine, D. .(in press). Student error patterns as a function of instructional design: An analysis of two curricula for teaching fractions to low achieving students. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

23.

Leinhardt, G. . & Smith, D.A. .(1985). Expertise in mathematics instruction: Subject matter knowledge. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 247–271.

24.

Lerch, J.J. . & Hamilton, H. .(1966). A comparison of a structured-equation approach to problem solving with a traditional approach. School Science and Mathematics, 66, 241–246.

25.

National Council for Teachers of Mathematics. (1980). An agenda for actio. Reston, VA: Author.

26.

Nibbelink, W.H. . Stockdale, S.R. . Hoover, H.D. . & Mangru, M. .(1987). Problem solving in the elementary grades: Textbook practices and achievement trends over the past thirty years. Arithmetic Teacher, 35(1), 34–37.

27.

Picus, L. . Sachse, T.P. . & Smith, R.M. .(1983). Teaching problem solving: A research synthesi. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

28.

Rosenshine, B. .(1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. The Elementary School Journal, 83, 335–351.

29.

Rosenshine, B. . & Stevens, R. .(1986). Teaching functions. In L. Wittrock (Ed.). Handbook of research on teachin.(3rd ed., pp. 376–391). New York: Macmillan.

30.

Rothman, R. .(1988, June 15). Student proficiency in math is ‘dismal’, NAEP indicates. Education Week, 1, 23–26.

31.

Science Research Associates. (1982). SRA mathematics level. Chicago: Author.

32.

Silbert, J. . Carnine, D. . & Stein, M. .(in press). Direct instruction mathematics (2nd ed.. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

33.

Suydam, M.N. .(1984). Research on mathematics education reported in 1983. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 243–316.

34.

Systems Impact, Inc. .(1987). Core concepts in math and science: Mastering ratio. Washington, DC: Author.

35.

Wollman, W.T. . & Lawson, A.E. .(1978). The influence of instruction on proportional reasoning in seventh graders. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 15(3), 227–232.

36.

Woodward, J. . Carnine, D. . & Gersten, R. .(1988). Teaching problem solving through a computer simulation. American Educational Research Journal, 25(1), 72–86.