Improving Mathematics and Science Education: A Longitudinal Investigation of the Relationship Between Reform-Oriented Instruction and Student Achievement

Abstract

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. R AND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. Limited Electronic Distribution RightsR ® is a registered trademark.

Which Instructional Practices Most Help First-Grade Students With and Without Mathematics Difficulties?

“…Previous investigations in both reading (Foorman et al, 2006; Xue & Meisels, 2004) and mathematics (Desimone & Long, 2010; Guarino et al, 2013; Le et al, 2006; Palardy & Rumberger, 2008) have also observed associations between a classroom teacher’s instructional practices and children’s academic achievement. For example, Xue and Meisels’ effect size estimates for whole language- and phonics-type instruction were .08 and .06, respectively, about the same magnitudes we found for the effects of teacher-directed instruction on the two lowest-performing groups of students.…”

“…Doing so may have resulted in inflated effect size estimates. In addition, these studies have often been unable to control for prior mathematics achievement, socio-economic status (SES) and other potential confounds (e.g., Le et al, 2006). Despite constituting a “gateway grade,” as mathematics instruction becomes increasingly formal, Camburn and Han’s (2011) recent synthesis “turned up very little evidence on instruction in first grade” (p. 574), as only 10% of the included studies reported results from this grade level.…”

“…Two potentially effective types of instructional practices can be characterized as “teacher-directed” or “student-centered” (e.g., Clements, Agodini, & Harris, 2013; Guarino, Hamilton, Lockwood, & Rathburn, 2006; Le et al, 2006; NMAP, 2008; National Research Council, 2001; Staub & Stern, 2002). The goal of teacher-directed instruction is “transmitting sets of established facts, skills, and concepts to students” (Clements & Battista, 1990, p. 34).…”

“…The non-experimental studies generally report weak or inconsistent effects (e.g., Aitken, Bennett, & Hesketh, 1981; Desimone & Long, 2010; Saxe, Gearhart, & Seltzer, 1999). For example, Le et al’s (2006) large-scale study yielded instructional practice estimates that were small in magnitude or statistically non-significant. Some of the measures of specific practices—group-work, mixed-ability group-work, and problem-solving group-work—had negative effects on learning.…”

Exploring the Link between Reformed Teaching Practices and Pupil Learning in Elementary School Mathematics

“…Their exposure to more context-based problem solving situations better prepared them for open-ended responses. Years later, RAND extended this study with Mosaic II to include teaching observations and student learning measures over time (Le et al, 2006). Similar to first-year findings, Mosaic II showed a consistently positive but weak relationship between reformed teaching practices and student achievement.…”