The implementation of “research-based” mathematics curricula is increasingly becoming a central element of mathematics education reform policies. Given the recent focus on grounding mathematics curriculum policies in research, it is important to understand precisely what it means for a curriculum to be research-based. Using the Curriculum Research Framework (CRF), this paper examines the development process of Math Trailblazers to help situate decision-making processes related to curricula in the broader mathematics education policy landscape. In the process of developing and revising the curriculum, the development and research teams have specifically developed field test materials, researched ways in which teachers and students use and learn with the materials in a small number of classrooms, and then completed research-based revisions of the curriculum materials. While certain elements of the CRF are represented in the research and revision process, other elements, such as why and under what conditions the curriculum is effective, are underrepresented. Making visible research and development processes of research-based mathematics curricula has profound implications for understanding the effectiveness of certain policy initiatives. Merging policy, practice, and research is a difficult activity, but a critical one for enhancing the effectiveness of these fields in education. As these fields become increasingly intertwined, policymakers should be sensitive to the different demands of each field, and look for opportunities to enhance the capacities of organizations that exist at this nexus.
Ball, D., & Cohen, D. ( 1996). Reform by the book: What is-or might be-the role of curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6-8, 14.
2.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. ( 1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5(1), 7-73.
3.
Brown, S., Bay-Williams, J., Canty, R., Ditto, C., Flevares, L., Cramer, K., et al. (2006, April). Math Trailblazers research and revision study: A multifaceted investigation of an NSF-funded comprehensive standards-based elementary curriculum. Symposium presented at the research presession of the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, St. Louis, MO.
4.
Brown, S., Canty, R., Ditto, C., Beal, S., Pitvorec, K., & Kelso, C. ( 2007, April). Fidelity of implementation and student learning: Making the connection. Symposium presented at the Research Presession of the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Atlanta, GA.
5.
Brown, S., Pitvorec, K., Ditto, C., & Kelso, C. ( 2009). Reconceiving the intended curriculum: An investigation of elementary whole number lessons. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40, 363-393.
6.
Carter, A., Beissinger, J., Cirulis, A., Gartzman, M., Kelso, C., & Wagreich, P. ( 2003). Student learning and achievement with Math Trailblazers . In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 45-78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
Cavanagh, S. ( 2007, December 19). Texas’ decisions to reject math textbook reflects debate over teaching methods. Education Week, p. 18.
8.
Chicago Public Schools. (2003). CMSI mathematics K-8 instructional materials. Retrieved March 10, 2008, from http://cmsi.cps.k12.il.us/ViewProgramDetails.aspx?pid=357
9.
Clements, D. ( 2007). Curriculum research: Toward a framework for "research-based curricula." Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , 38, 35-70.
10.
Cohen, D., Raudenbush, S., & Ball, D. ( 2002). Resources, instruction, and research. In F. Mosteller & R. Boruch (Eds.), Evidence matters: Randomized trials in education research (pp. 80-119). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
11.
Cohen, D., & Hill, H. ( 2001). Learning policy: When state education reform works. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
12.
Collopy, R. ( 2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. Elementary School Journal, 103, 287-311.
13.
Davis, E., & Krajcik, J. ( 2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3-14.
14.
Education Sciences Reform Act, P. L. 107-279 (2002).
15.
Elmore, R. ( 2002). Bridging the gap between standards and achievement. Washington, DC: Albert Shanker Institute.
16.
Fuson, K. ( 1984). More complexities in subtraction. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 15, 214-225.
17.
Hirsch, C. (Ed.). (2007). Perspectives on the design and development of school mathematics curricula. Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics .
18.
Isaacs, A., Wagreich, P., & Gartzman, M. ( 1997). The quest for integration: School mathematics and science . American Journal of Education, 106, 179-206.
19.
Jackson, P. ( 1992). Handbook of research on curriculum. New York: Macmillan.
20.
Kelso, C. ( 2007). The case of Math Trailblazers: A mathematical journey using science and language arts. In C. Hirsch (Ed.), Perspectives on the design and development of school mathematics curricula (pp. 37-48). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
21.
Kilpatrick, J. ( 2003). What works? In S. Senk & D. Thompson (Eds.), Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn? (pp. 471-488). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Findell, B. (Eds.). (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics . Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
23.
Mathematics Sciences Education Board. (2004 ). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
24.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics . Reston, VA: Author.
25.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
26.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2003). Proceedings of the NCTM Research Catalyst Conference . Reston, VA: Author.
27.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2006). Curriculum focal points for pre-kindergarten through Grade 8 mathematics. Reston, VA: Author.
28.
National Research Council. (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
29.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P. L. 107-110 (2002).
30.
Pellegrino, J., & Goldman, S. ( 2007). Beyond rhetoric: Realities and complexities of integrating assessment into teaching and learning. In C. Dwyer (Ed.), The future of assessment: Shaping teaching and learning. (pp. 7-52) Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
31.
Remillard, J. ( 2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. Elementary School Journal, 100, 331-350.
32.
Remillard, J., & Bryans, M. ( 2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35, 352-388.
33.
Reys, B. ( 2002, February). Show-Me Center Newsletter, 1(1). Retrieved October 7, 2009, from http://www.showmecenter.missouri.edu/newsletters/NewsletterFeb2002.pdf
34.
Reys, B. ( 2006). The intended mathematics curriculum as represented in state-level curriculum standards: Consensus or confusion?Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
35.
Sconiers, S., McBride, J., Isaacs, A., Kelso, C., & Higgins, T. ( 2003). The ARC center tri-state achievement study. Lexington, MA: Consortium for Mathematics and Its Applications .
36.
Senk, S., & Thompson, D. ( 2003). Standards-based school mathematics curricula: What are they? What do students learn?Mahweh, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Snyder, J., Bolin, F., & Zumwalt, K. ( 1992). Curriculum implementation. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 402-435). New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan.
38.
Spillane, J., & Jennings, N. ( 1997). Aligned instructional policy and ambitious pedagogy: Exploring instructional reform from the classroom perspective. Teachers College Record, 98, 449-481.
39.
Tarr, J., Reys, R., Reys, B., Chavez, O., Shih, J., & Osterlind, S. ( 2008). The impact of middle grades mathematics curricula on student achievement and the classroom learning environment. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39, 247-280.
40.
Wiliam, D. ( 2007). Keeping learning on track: Formative assessment and the regulation of learning. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Second handbook of mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 1053-1098). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
41.
Woodward, A., Elliott, D., & Nagel, K.C. ( 1988). Textbooks in school and society. New York: Garland.
