Comparing and Contrasting the National Research Council Report On Evaluating Curricular Effectiveness With the What Works Clearinghouse Approach

50 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Impact of Advanced Curriculum on the Achievement of Mathematically Promising Elementary Students (2009, methodology): “The National Research Council (Confrey, 2006) strongly recommends this methodology for use in curriculum research studies.”
Motivation and engagement in mathematics: a qualitative framework for teacher-student interactions (2017, unknown): “The CLASS™ was particularly appropriate for our investigation since previous research found teacher-student interactions as most influential on the effectiveness of intervention studies in mathematics (e.g., Confrey 2006; Slavin, Lake, and Groff 2009).”
Effective Programs in Middle and High School Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis (2008, background): “The NSF programs add objectives not covered in traditional texts, so to the degree those objectives are seen as valuable, these programs may be adding impacts not registered on the assessments of content covered in all treatments (see Confrey, 2006; Schoenfeld, 2006).”
The relative effects and equity of inquiry‐based and commonplace science teaching on students' knowledge, reasoning, and argumentation (2009, methodology): “We included multiple outcomes and measures to reflect both the multiple learning goals of inquirybased instruction, as well as to avoid bias caused by the measures being unfairly aligned with the goals and procedures of the treatment group (Briggs, 2008; Confrey, 2007; Schoenfeld, 2006).”