Metrics

Views
771

In This Chapter

Linking research and curriculum development

Authored by: Douglas H. Clements

Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education

Print publication date:  June  2008
Online publication date:  April  2010

Print ISBN: 9780805858754
eBook ISBN: 9780203930236
Adobe ISBN: 9781135192761

10.4324/9780203930236.ch23

 Download Chapter

 

Abstract

Commercially published, traditional textbooks predominate mathematics curriculum materials in U.S. classrooms and, to a great extent, determine teaching practices (Goodlad, 1984), even in the context of reform efforts (Grant, Peterson, & Shojgreen-Downer, 1996). Various standards (NCTM, 1989, 2000) and state and local curriculum frameworks are designed to govern or at least guide these materials. However, publishers attempt to meet the criteria of all such frameworks, including scope and sequence requirements, and thus the educational vision of any one is, at best, diluted. This results in “mile wide, inch deep” (NCES, 1996) curricula that are a primary cause of the poor performance of U.S. students in mathematics (A. Ginsburg, Cooke, Leinwand, Noell, & Pollock, 2005; Kouba et al., 1988; McKnight, Travers, Crosswhite, & Swafford, 1985; Mullis et al., 1997). Problems exist both in the quantity of topics that are treated and how they are treated (Clements & Battista, 1992; A. Ginsburg, Leinwand, Anstrom, & Pollock, 2005; Porter, 1989). In one main focus of study, geometry, for example, textbooks are not only ineffective in promoting higher levels of geometric thinking (Fuys, Geddes, & Tischler, 1988), they often hinder students’ development of this thinking (Jaime, Chapa, & Gutiérrez, 1992; Mansfield & Happs, 1992).

 Cite
Search for more...
Back to top

Use of cookies on this website

We are using cookies to provide statistics that help us give you the best experience of our site. You can find out more in our Privacy Policy. By continuing to use the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.