************************** Information below is provided by Dr. Andy Isaacs who has just done an update to a list of peer-reviewed research about Everyday Mathematics [EM], which is copied below. It's a bit long but there is a lot of research about the program. Anyone interested in Everyday Mathematics might want to look at some of this research. NOTE: Please contact the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Center at firstname.lastname@example.org with any questions or comments about this research summary or visit the website at http://everydaymath.uchicago.edu/ **************************
Everyday Mathematics Research Summary University of Chicago School Mathematics Project February 4, 2005
The research evidence about Everyday Mathematics (EM) almost all points in the same direction: Children who use EM tend to learn more mathematics and like it better than children who use other programs. This finding has been supported by research carried out by the University of Chicago School Mathematics Project (UCSMP), by independent researchers at other universities, and by many school districts across the nation. The absolute amount of this research is large - the reports fill several large binders - but, compared to what is available for other curricula, it is enormous. As a recent report from the National Academy of Sciences (NRC, 2004) makes clear, no other currently available elementary school mathematics program has been subjected to so much scrutiny by so many researchers. The agreement about the curriculum across so many research studies is, itself, perhaps the strongest evidence that EM is effective.
One of the articles in this bibliography, the chapter by Carroll and Isaacs in Standards-Based School Mathematics Curriculum: What Are They? What Do Students Learn? (2003), summarizes research about EM before roughly 1998. Here we briefly summarize some of the more important studies that have been completed since then. Note that all but one of these studies has appeared in a peer-reviewed journal; the one that has not (Sconiers, Isaacs, Higgins, McBride, & Kelso, 2003) is currently under review at the Journal for Research in Mathematics Education.
Please contact the UCSMP Everyday Mathematics Center at email@example.com with any questions or comments about this research summary or visit our website at everydaymath.uchicago.edu.
National Research Council. (2004). On evaluating curricular effectiveness: Judging the quality of K-12 mathematics evaluations. Committee for a Review of the Evaluation Data on the Effectiveness of NSF-Supported and Commercially Generated Mathematics Curriculum Materials. Confrey, J. & Stohl, V. (Eds.), Mathematics Science Education Board, Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Science and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Carroll, W. M. (2001). Students in a Standards-based mathematics curriculum: Performance on the 1999 Illinois State Achievement Test. Illinois Mathematics Teacher, 52(1), 3-7.
* This paper reports a study of the performance of Chicago-area EM students on the 1999 Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). The study compared 12,880 third-grade EM students and 11,213 fifth-grade EM students with 47,742 third-grade non-EM students and 50,023 fifth-grade non-EM students. * The study found that EM students significantly outperformed comparison students, even after controlling for all other significant variables such as percent low-income and per-pupil expenditure. * The study also found that, "the differences favoring the EM curriculum were largest in schools with a higher percentage of low-income students" (p. 5).
Riordan, J. E., & Noyce, P. E. (2001). The impact of two standards-based mathematics curricula on student achievement in Massachusetts. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 32(4), 368-398.
* This paper reports results of a quasi-experimental study of the performance of fourth grade EM and eight grade Connected Mathematics students on the 1999 Massachusetts state test. The study included the entire population of EM students. "Results attest to the effect of these curriculum programs as actually implemented under ordinary prevailing conditions in unselected schools, without regard to whether the programs were implemented optimally" (p. 390). * 67 EM schools were included, 48 of which had implemented the program for four or more years. Comparison schools were chosen to match the EM schools on math scores from the year before the introduction of EM and the percentage of low-income students. * The results "indicate that Everyday Mathematics schools outperformed comparison schools in all question types and all reporting categories, except that there was no difference in statistics for early implementers and in geometry for later implementers" (p. 389). * "The positive impact of the standards-based programs on student performance was remarkably consistent across students of different gender, race, and economic status. Students at the top, bottom, and middle of their classes all did better with the standards-based programs than did their counterparts using traditional programs.