Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective

Schmidt, William H.; Wang, Hsing Chi; McKnight, Curtis C.

doi:10.1080/0022027042000294682

Cited by 289 publications

(230 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

208

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such beliefs may conceivably influence transfer. CME and transfer in the classroom CME depends on actors such as teachers, school organisation, curriculum and policymakers (Schmidt, Wang, & McNight, 2005). Since these actors interact with one another, their involvement makes CME and transfer a rather complex process.…”

Section: The Unifying Role Of Mathematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Teachers’ beliefs about improving transfer of algebraic skills from mathematics into physics in senior pre-university education

Turşucu

Spandaw

Flipse

et al. 2017

International Journal of Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Unifying Role Of Mathematicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still, aiming at CME through connections between the content of mathematics and physics textbooks is a rather complex process, which depends on good collaboration between other actors than just textbook publishers, such as policy-makers (Schmidt et al, 2005).…”

Section: Core Theme 7: Teachermentioning

confidence: 99%

Teachers’ beliefs about improving transfer of algebraic skills from mathematics into physics in senior pre-university education

Turşucu

Spandaw

Flipse

et al. 2017

International Journal of Science Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Accordingly, curricula in U.S. schools have traditionally been described as "a mile wide and an inch deep" (Schmidt, McKnight, and Raizen, 1997) and in which students are exposed to many topics but spend little time immersed in any particular mathematical idea or concept (Alberti, 2013). However, international comparative research has shown that countries with strong mathematics education programs tended to use curricula that share three key features: (1) focus (a small number of topics are covered in great depth), (2) coherence (major mathematical topics are linked within and across grades), and (3) rigor (conceptual understanding and procedure are given equal attention) (Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight, 2005;Schmidt, McKnight, and Houang, 2001;Schmidt and Houang, 2012). The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) has also noted that these particular features are central to framing discussions about standards and building a high-quality curricula (NCTM, 2000), and next-generation mathematics standards, such as the CCSS for mathematics, have been designed with these principles in mind (Achieve and Education First, 2012;Alberti, 2013).…”

Section: Curriculum and Instructional Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Historically, standards-based educational reform in the United States has resulted in the creation of documents that contain a large number of tightly prescriptive standards (Kendall, 2011;Alberti, 2013;Schmidt, Wang, and McKnight, 2005). Accordingly, curricula in U.S. schools have traditionally been described as "a mile wide and an inch deep" (Schmidt, McKnight, and Raizen, 1997) and in which students are exposed to many topics but spend little time immersed in any particular mathematical idea or concept (Alberti, 2013).…”

Section: Curriculum and Instructional Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Mathematics Audit of the DoDEA Schools: 2014-2015

Karam¹,

Stecher²,

Tsai³

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited. Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.Support RAND Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at www.rand.org/giving/contribute www.rand.org Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1272Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif. © Copyright 2016 RAND CorporationR® is a registered trademark. Cover: Constantinos/Fotoliaiii PrefaceThe Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) operates 181 schools to educate military dependents. The schools are located in 11 foreign countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. DoDEA is committed to providing a high-quality education for the dependents of military and civilian employees. The Community Strategic Plan for school years 2013-2014 through 2017-2018 commits DoDEA to implement the Common Core State Standards in mathematics (to which DoDEA refers as the College and Career Readiness [CCR] standards). Efforts to change from the 2009 DoDEA mathematics standards to the CCR standards began in earnest during the 2014-2015 school year, with the CCR mathematics standards to be rolled out in elementary schools starting in school year 2015-2016 and scaled up the following school year to middle and high schools. This study was designed to support the transition to the new standards by examining the extent to which DoDEA's existing mathematics program was consistent with best mathematics education practices and by offering suggestions for improving the implementation of the CCR standards in mathematics. Some of the recommendations, such as aligning the CCR standards with new assessments, appear dated because, by the time the report was completed and reviewed, DoDEA had already taken some steps. The study employed a qualitative approach to examine the existing mathematics program and the initial efforts DoDEA was taking to align the mathematics program and practices with the CCR standards in mathematics.This research was sponsored by the DoDEA and conducted within the Forces and Resources Policy Center of the RAND National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the Office ...

show abstract

“…This approach reflects in many ways the idea of science from a few ideas-the idea that it is more important to know very well a few core ideas in a scientific field, rather than know less well a wide breadth of topics in the given science discipline (Clark, 2000;Pritchard, Barrantes, & Belland, 2009;Schmidt, Wang, & McKnight, 2005). The six countries that performed the best in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) focused on a much narrower range of key science concepts than most states/districts in the USA (Schmidt et al, 2005). Understanding core ideas does not mean simply being able to describe the idea, but rather to use the idea to describe natural phenomena (Bloom et al, 1956;Reiser et al, 2014).…”

Section: Alignment With Stem Education Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Belland

2016

Instructional Scaffolding in STEM Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this chapter, I describe the intended learning outcomes of scaffolding-content knowledge and higher-order thinking abilities-and link these to the goals advanced by the Next Generation Science Standards and related documents from recent curricular revisions in STEM education. Furthermore, I address different ways in which scaffolding's effect can be measured (assessment level), and explore whether there are differences in the magnitude of scaffolding's effect according to assessment level. Meta-analysis results show that there is no difference in effect size magnitude on the basis of intended learning outcome (i.e., content knowledge or higher-order thinking abilities). Scaffolding's effect was greater when measured at the principles level than when measured at the concept level. But scaffolding's effect was statistically greater than 0 and substantial for all three assessment levels (i.e., concept, principles, and application). These results are then discussed.

show abstract

Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective

Cited by 289 publications

References 9 publications

Teachers’ beliefs about improving transfer of algebraic skills from mathematics into physics in senior pre-university education

Teachers’ beliefs about improving transfer of algebraic skills from mathematics into physics in senior pre-university education

Mathematics Audit of the DoDEA Schools: 2014-2015

Intended Learning Outcomes and Assessment of Computer-Based Scaffolding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About