Here is the summary.
Here's the whole thing (DOC). (Link fixed)
There are lots of good observations in it,
- How few math curricula perform well in research studies,
- How many bogus post hoc studies are out there,
- How Bob Slavin shouldn't be doing an objective study involving his own programs, and
- I caught a mistake involving the CMC study I recently blogged. It was randomized, not post hoc.
2 comments:
Random notes.
Authors say that schools that dropped out of Everyday Mathematics study weren't as capable or motivated. Is it possible that they just didn't like the program? p11
Was there a subtle bias against CMC?
Ok, definate bias... then again, I am biased to look for bias.
I wish they had the tables.
I do agree that improving instruction will provide more of a boost than just switching textbooks.
"How Bob Slavin shouldn't be doing an objective study involving his own programs"
Obviously not. What's next, reviewing your own textbook?
Post a Comment