View in EDS

Evaluating a Unified Mathematics Curriculum.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evaluating a Unified Mathematics Curriculum.
Authors: Kilpatrick, Jeremy
Peer Reviewed: N
Page Count: 4
Publication Date: 1970
Descriptors: Academically Gifted, Curriculum Development, Elementary School Mathematics, Feedback, Junior High School Students, Mathematics Curriculum, Mathematics Instruction, Program Evaluation, Secondary School Mathematics, Student Evaluation, Textbook Research
Abstract: A method of evaluating the Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum Improvement Study (SSMCIS) now in its fourth year at Teachers College, Columbia University, is discussed. The main task of SSMCIS is the production and tryout of textbook materials, although teacher training is also an important component. Informal teacher feedback and sporadic testing provide the main thrust of evaluation of this program to date. One study notes the discrepancy between the views of teachers and students on some features of the text materials and suggests the need to acquire more direct information from the students concerning course materials than has previously been the case. Most of the evaluation activities have concentrated on support functions rather than the project itself. The question of whether full-scale formative evaluation of the study would be any more effective in influencing curriculum revision is raised in the conclusion. (AE)
Notes: From symposium "Problems of Evaluation in Developing Mathematics Curriculum Programs," American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March, 1970
Journal Code: RIEJAN1971
Entry Date: 1971
Accession Number: ED042811
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:A method of evaluating the Secondary School Mathematics Curriculum Improvement Study (SSMCIS) now in its fourth year at Teachers College, Columbia University, is discussed. The main task of SSMCIS is the production and tryout of textbook materials, although teacher training is also an important component. Informal teacher feedback and sporadic testing provide the main thrust of evaluation of this program to date. One study notes the discrepancy between the views of teachers and students on some features of the text materials and suggests the need to acquire more direct information from the students concerning course materials than has previously been the case. Most of the evaluation activities have concentrated on support functions rather than the project itself. The question of whether full-scale formative evaluation of the study would be any more effective in influencing curriculum revision is raised in the conclusion. (AE)