In this paper is reported the extent of textbook use by 39 middle school mathematics teachers in six states, 17 utilizing a textbook series developed with funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF-funded) and 22 using textbooks developed by commercial publishers (publisher-generated). Results indicate that both sets of teachers placed significantly higher emphasis on Number and Operation, often at the expense of other content strands. Location of topics within a textbook represented an oversimplified explanation of what mathematics gets taught or omitted. Most teachers using an NSF-funded curriculum taught content intended for students in a different (lower) grade, and both sets of teachers supplemented with skill-building and "practice" worksheets. Implications for documenting teachers' "fidelity of implementation" (National Research Council, 2004) are offered.

This study examined the effect of 2 types of mathematics content organization on high school students' mathematics learning while taking account of curriculum implementation and student prior achievement. The study involved 2,161 students in 10 schools in 5 states. Within each school, approximately 1/2 of the students studied from an integrated curriculum (Course 1) and 1/2 studied from a subject-specific curriculum (Algebra 1). Hierarchical linear modeling with 3 levels showed that students who studied from the integrated curriculum were significantly advantaged over students who studied from a subject-specific curriculum on 3 end-of-year outcome measures: Test of Common Objectives, Problem Solving and Reasoning Test, and a standardized achievement test. Opportunity to learn and teaching experience were significant moderating factors.

No abstract

We examined curricular effectiveness in high schools that offered parallel paths in which students were free to study mathematics using 1 of 2 content organizational structures, an integrated approach or a (traditional) subject-specific approach. The study involved 3,258 high school students, enrolled in either Course 2 or Geometry, in 11 schools in 5 geographically dispersed states. We constructed 3-level hierarchical linear models of scores on 3 end-of-year outcome measures: a test of common objectives, an assessment of problem solving and reasoning, and a standardized achievement test. Students in the integrated curriculum scored significantly higher than those in the subject-specific curriculum on the standardized achievement test. Significant student-level predictors included prior achievement, gender, and ethnicity. At the teacher level, in addition to Curriculum Type, the Opportunity to Learn and Classroom Learning Environment factors demonstrated significant power in predicting student scores, whereas Implementation Fidelity, Teacher Experience, and Professional Development were not significant predictors.

No abstract