What Doesn’t Work: The Challenge and Failure of the What Works Clearinghouse to Conduct Meaningful Reviews of Studies of Mathematics Curricula

145 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.

Effective Programs in Middle and High School Mathematics: A Best-Evidence Synthesis (2008, methodology): “Randomization is still valuable in reducing the possibility of selection bias, but these findings suggest that reviewers of research on educational programs can include well-matched evaluations (for more on this, see Slavin, 2008; Slavin & Smith, 2008c; Cook et al., 2008). Summarizing Evidence of Ef”
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).”
Longitudinal investigation of the curricular effect: An analysis of student learning outcomes from the LieCal Project in the United States (2011, unknown): “This is the most frequently asked question in the current debate about the mathematics education reform movement in the United States, particularly with regard to the recent Standards -base curriculum innovations (e.g., Herman et al., 2006, Schoenfeld, 2006).”